REGD . No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्रीसं०डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05
भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India 1
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
नई दिल्ली, जून 27 जुलाई 3, 2004 , शनिवार/आषाढ़6-आषाढ़ 12, 1926
सं.:27 ]
NEW DELHI, JUNE 27-JULY 3 , 2004, SATURDAY/ASADHA 6 ASADHA 12, 1926 No. 27]
इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके
Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
भाग II-खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii)
PART II Section 3 Sub-section (ii)
भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government ofIndia
(Other than the Ministry of Defence)
MINISTRY OF FINANCE
वित्त मंत्रालय
(Department ofRevenue)
(राजस्वविभाग )
OFFICEOF THE COMMISSIONER कार्यालय: आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय:
CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR- I जयपुर-प्रथम
Jaipur, the 11th June , 2004
जयपुर, 11 जून , 2004
No. 02/CUS (NT) 2004
संख्या 02/सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) 2004
CUSTOMS
सीमा शुल्क
S.O. 1521. In exercise of the powers conferredby -Notification No. 33 /94- Customs (NT) , dated the 1st July, 1994, by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , -Department of Revenue , New Delhi , issued under clause (a) ofSection 152 of Customs Act, 1962. I, Praveen Mahajan, Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur - I , hereby declare 'KBlock' , Sri Ganganagar District, Sri Ganganagar, in the State of Rajasthan to be warehousing station under Section 9 the Customs Act , 1962 for the purpose of setting up 100%E.O.U.
का. आ. 1521.-सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( ए ) के तहत भारत सरकार वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्वविभाग, नई दिल्लीकी अधिसूचना संख्या 33/ 94 - सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) दिनांक प्रथम जुलाई , 1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं, प्रवीण महाजन आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, जयपुर- प्रथम एतद्द्वारा, शतप्रतिशत ई.ओ.यू. स्थापित करने के उद्देश्य से राजस्थान राज्य के श्री गंगानगर जिले में स्थित ' के ब्लॉक ' श्री गंगानगर को भण्डारण स्टेशन ( वेयर हाउसिंग स्टेशन ) घोषित करती हूं।
[F. No. V( 16) EOU/12/2004] [फा. सं. पंचम( 16 ) ईओयू/12/2004]
PRAVEEN MAHAJAN, Commissioner प्रवीण महाजन, आयुक्त
(3463)
1883 GI/2004 .3464
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
New Delhi, the 28th June, 2004 (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग)
नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2004
S.O. 1523. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949 ) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub -section ( 1) of Section 11 of the said Act shall not apply to The Bihar State Co- operative Bank Ltd. , Bihar from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette till 31st March, 2005.
[F. No. 1(8)/2004-AC]
KHARG SINGH, Under Secy.
का. आ. 1522.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र मैं इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च, 2006 तक तिरूनेलवेली जिला मध्यवर्ती सहकारी बैंक लि. तमिलनाडु पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।
नई दिल्ली, 28 जून 2004
[फा. सं. 1 ( 15 )/2002 - एसी ] खड्ग सिंह , अवर सचिव
(Department of Economic Affairs) (BankingDivision) New Delhi , the 28th June , 2004
का. आ. 1524. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा (1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च , 2006 तक बुलदाना जिला मध्यवर्ती सहकारी बैंक लि. , महाराष्ट्र पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।
[फा. सं. 1 (9 )/2004- एसी ] खड्ग सिंह , अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 28th June , 2004 S.O. 1522. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 (10 of 1949 ) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 ofthe said Act shall not apply to the Tirunelveli District Central Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd. , Tamil Nadu from the date ofpublication of this notification in the Official Gazette till 31st March , 2006.
[F. No. 1 (15 )/2002 -AC] KHARG SINGH , Under Secy.
} नई दिल्ली, 28 जून 2004
S.O. 1524.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 read with Section 56 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949 ) the Central Government on recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India declares that the provisions of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the saidAct shall not apply to The Buldana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Buldana, from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette till 31st March, 2006.
[F. No. 1(9)/2002-AC]
KHARG SINGH, Under Secy.
भारत मानकब्यूरो
शुद्धि- पत्र
नईदिल्ली, 25 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1523. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 (1949 का 10 ) की धारा 56 के साथ पठित धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध सरकारी राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से 31 मार्च , 2005 तक दि बिहार राज्य सहकारी बैंक लि. , बिहार पर लागू नहीं होंगे ।
[फा. सं. 1 (8 )/2004 - एसी ] खड्ग सिंह , अवर सचिव
का.आ. 1525.- भारत के राजपत्र भाग II खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii) असाधारण में प्रकाशित उपभोक्ता मामले खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग ) भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नई दिल्ली की [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3465
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़12, 1926
अधिसूचना संख्या सीएमडी-4/13: 2 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन किया जाता है :-
संदर्भ : कॉलम 2. ( स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक )
का.आ. 664 ( अ ) दिनाक 5 जून 2004 पृष्ठ सं. 1-2
पढ़े
के लिए
आईएस 14543:2004 आईएस 14534:2004
[सं. सीएमडी-4/ 13: 2 ] ए. एस. जमखिंडीकर, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख (केन्द्रीय मुहर-4) 1
:
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
CORRIGENDUM
NewDelhi, the 25th June, 2004
S.O. 1525. In the Notification No. CMD- IV/ 13 : 2 published in Part II, Section 3 - Sub- section (ii ) ofthe Gazette of India Extraordinary by Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Consumer Affairs ) and Bureau of Indian Standards , New Delhi , the following corrections are made:
Ref: Column 2 (No. and year of the Indian Standards Established)
page No. 1-2 S.O. 664 (E) dated 5th June 2004
Read For
IS14543:2004 IS14534:2004
[No. CMD-IV/13:2] A. S. JAMKHINDIKAR, Director & Head (Central Marks- IV) पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
शुद्धि-पत्र 1
नईदिल्ली, 22 जून , 2004
का.आ. 1526.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 612 तारीख 10 मार्च 2004 , जो भारत के राजमत्र भाग 2 , खण्ड 3, उप-खण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 13 मार्च 2004 पृष्ठ संख्या 1098 से 1099 तक में प्रकाशित की गई थी, में निम्नबत संशोधन करती हैं, अर्थात्: -
उक्त अधिसूचना में, पृष्ठ संख्या 1098 पर, " श्री राकेश कुमार सिंह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, सहारनपुर नजीबाबाद एक्सटेंशन . पाइपलाइन परियोजना , एस.डी.एम. लक्सर का कार्यालय, तहसील लक्सर, हरिद्वार ( उत्तरांचल ) ", शब्दों के स्थान पर, " श्री लोकेन्द्र पाल सिंह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड सहारनपुर- नजीबाबाद एक्सटेंशन पाइपलाइन परियोजना, सक्षम प्राधिकारी का कार्यालय, के-33 , पल्लवपुरम , फेस- II , मेरठ (उत्तर प्रदेश) ", शब्द रखे जाएंगे ।
[सं. आर. - 25011/27/2002- ओ.आर. -1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS
CORRIGENDUM
New Delhi, the 22nd June , 2004
S.O. 1526. In exercise of the powers conferred by the 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 amends the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 612 dated the 10th March, 2004 , published in the Gazette of India Part - II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) dated 13th March, 2004 at pages 1098 to 1099 as follows , namely :-- Inthe said notification, at page 1099 for the words, "Shri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Saharanpur - Najibabad Extension Pipeline Project, Office of the S.D.M. Laksar, Tehsil-Laksar, Haridwar (Uttaranchal) " , the words, " Shri Lokendra Pal Singh, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Saharanpur- Najibabad Extension Pipeline Project, Office of the Competent Authority, K- 33 , Pallavpuram, Phase- II , Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) " , shall be substituted.
No. R-25011 /27/2002-OR-I RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
3466
नईदिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004
का. आ. 1527.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (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 और भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 405 दिनांक 20.02.2004 द्वारा उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में सहारनपुर से नजीबाबाद तक इण्डियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन हेतु उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि मे उपयोग के अध्किार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;
और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को दिनांक 12-03-2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;
और, सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना चाहिए ;
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;
और , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इण्डियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहितं होगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्यःउत्तर प्रदेश तहसील:सहारनपुर
जिला:सहारनपुर
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा नं ०
गांव
आर
सेन्टी आर
हैक्टेयर
2
1
3
4
5
0
100
07
60
गागलहेडी अहतमाल
[फा. सं. आर-25011/4/2003- ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3467 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, ,1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 22nd June, 2004
S. O. 1527.-Whereas by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , Published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 405 dated 20-02-2004, issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) . ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act . ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Saharanpur, to Najibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And whereas , copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on; 12-03-2004;
And, whereas , the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , has submitted his report to the Central Government;
And, whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is acquired;
And, further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , west from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
SCHEDULE
9
State : Uttar Pradesh
District : Saharanpur
Tehsil : Saharanpur
Area
KhasraNo.
Village
Are
Centiare
Hectare
5
4
3
2
1
60
07
0
100
GagalHeri Ahtmal
[No. R-25011 /4/2003-0.R . -I ]
RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.
3468
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii )]
नईदिल्ली, 25 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1528.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की उड़िसा राज्य मे पारादीप से पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए .
और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है ओर जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची मे वर्णित है , मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए .
:
अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम ओर खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि मे उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है .
कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री अशोक कुमार दास , सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीप हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग डिविजन हाउसिंग कम्पलेक्स , मेघडमरू डाकघर कुरुदा, बालासोर - 756056, ( उड़िसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3469
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
अनुसूची
जिला : बालेसर
राज्य : उड़िसा
क्षेत्रफल
खसरा संख्या
गाँव का नाम
तहसील का नाम
वर्ग मीटर
एयर
हेक्टेयर
4
5
6
2
3
1
40
0
02
सोरो
618
गुड़
05
0
80
6194
0
10
00
619
0
04
52
6193
95
0
12
622
52
0
00
624
0
57
00
6191
45
0
01
623
72
0
01
678
0
00
38
676
0
20
04
683
10
0
05
682
01
12
0
681
60
0
01
677
04
05
504
0
19
0
01
199
00
34
0
498
13
0
69
200
01
33
0
201
00
20
203
0
04+
00
202
0
10
0
00
204
08
86
0
205
0
06
37
207
07
73
0
233
05
15
0
234
48
0
12
264
69
01
0
265
03
40
0
267
01
0
04
266
17
03
0
85 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
3470
4
3
2
1
0
95
0
100
0
101
0
103
0
105
0
115
0
116
0
113
0
112
0
117
0
118
0
122
0
123
0
124
0
125
0
121
0
127
0
128
0
131
0
132
0
141
0
142
0
140
0
892
0
893
0
891
0
894
0
895
0
896
0
890
0
889
0
1471
0
1473
0
1464
0
1472
0
1484
0
1503
0
1463
0
1504
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii )]
6
5
77
00
45
02
72
02
53
01
49
02
92
05
62
11
10
00
37
00
74
03
48
01
12
01
58
01
82
01
13
02
35
01
99
06
93
05
63
07
10
00
66
01
33
04
30
02
33
03
10
00
32
01
37
00
22
01
65
01
07
05
95
01
14
07
18
00
77
00
55
05
02
79
01
04
43
04
44.
09 3471 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़12, 1926
6
4
2
3
5
1
10
00
0
1537
0
04
97
1538
26
02
0
1536
07
24
0
1553
0
05
99
1554
0
01
70
1531
02
32
0
1555
92
1556
05
0
0
00
10
1592
00
58
1583
0
0
49
1581
11
00
10
0
1582
79
00
0
1585
10
0
00
1584
01
63
0
1587
00
10
0
1586
60
0
01
1654
03
0
71
1655
0
01
38
1653
78
0
01
1656
03
52
0
1657
0
00
67
1658
01
96
0
1648
85
0
04
1661
0
23
1662
05
02
30
0
1644
32
0
02
1643
00
10
1660
0
0
32
00
1684
01
74
0
1642
0
01
24
1641
0
07
59
1687
01
71
0
1688
00
39
0
1686
53
04
1689
0
22
01
0
1690
08
03
0
1196
21
0
01
1695
10
00
0
1696
1883 G1/04-2 3472
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
2
3
4
5
6
01
1694
0
92
0
73
1697
09
0
00
1180
17
1177
0
02
81
07
78
2526
0
04
20
2527
0
0
74
2528
02
00
2529
0
10
0
2533
08
15
0
05
2535
01
0
06
31
2532
04
86
0
2531
0
00
27
2581
2537
0
04
02
07
2580
0
06
10
0
00
2579
99
02
2582
0
0
02
99
2612
00
48
0
2611
0
07
04
2613
00
10
2614
0
10
0
73
2615
2623
0
00
67
0
00
81
2624
00
2621
88
0
01
10
0
2628
03
2622
0
53
00
10
2625
0
00
2627
0
59
0
05
24
2630
142
0
57
02
पाटीमुन्डा
01
71
0
97
0
02
86
72
21
0
02
74
01
40
0
238
83
0
02
46.
05
60
0
47
0
04
48
11
03
86
0
6 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3473
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
5
4
0
दिनापाही
219
0
220
0
216
0
223
0
207
0
206
0
205
0
224
0
204
0
200
0
0
198
201
0
0
199
154
0
153
0
152
0
1
0
बालीकतीरन
770
0
0
792
584
0
0
581
586
0
0
585
590
0
591
0
589
0
595
0
594
0
596
0
598
0
600
0
774
0
607
0
606
0
470
0
454
0
456
0 5
6
01
29
02
69
05
49
16
06
03
10
17
28
00
61
05
09
04
72
01
08
04
09
06
39
00
28
00
10
11
24
19
52
05
18
00
29
03
25
02
92
01
03
01
69
03
45
02
65
03
07
11
58
00
10
00
42
06
43
01
55
05
85
06
02
02
17
01
53
11
72
06
02
00
47
71
09
03
76 3474
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
4
2
3
1
0
455
0
457
0
451
0
450
0
449
0
447
0
460
0
438
0
436
0
434
0
435
0
433
0
340
0
348
0
345
0
346
0
349
0
141
छट्टूपाटी
0
169
0
294
0
290
0
295
0
289
0
296
0
288
0
285
0
286
0
283
0
281
0
282
0
284
0
277
0
276
0
278
0
272
0
271
0
270
0
267
0
268
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
94
00
81
06
10
00
00
31
27
01
06
81
43
01
38
03
44
09
87
00
00
91
63
01
01
01
46
06
01
86
09
00
03
16
15
03
20
01
03
38
58
04
36
01
32
16
00
24
32
16
81
08
72
07
03
79
94
00
61
05
33
06
02
11
80
05
09
02
07
76
00
49
26
00
30
00
95
09 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
0
269
0
262
0
261
0
260
0
259
257
0
0
258
0
1236
पोराड़िहा
0
1237
0
1238
0
1239
0
1240
0
1244
0
1223
0
1222
0
1208
0
1217
0
1216
0
1215
0
1214
0
909
0
1262
ब्रहमपुर
0
619
0
620
0
618
0
614
0
615
0
612
0
611
0
610
0
529
0
609
0
535
0
534
0
530
0
531
0 .
528
0
525
0
524
3475
6
5
37
00
50
02
06
02
33
04
07
05
01
99
61
02
75
03
01
58
00
46
70
-06
10
00
03
54
50
04
75
01
71
02
02
52
15
02
01
01.
56
02
54
03
97
00
07
31
46
00
670
03
02
04
00
30
38
01
61
04
38
01
04
17
01
08
79
01
23
01
70
00
86
00
95
02
14
10
10
00 3476
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
3
4 1
2
0
469
0
468
464
0
0
463
0
414
0
465
413
0
0
411
0
412
406
0
0
403
0
402
0
401
400
0
0
395
0
396
0
319
0
358
0
357
327
0
0
1245
328
0
0
330
0
332
0
333
0
334
337
0
0
336
206
0
0
200
0
198
0
197
0
180
0
179
0
49
0
50
0
178
177
0
0
176 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
5
6
03
15
13
74
75
01
01
96
03
71
01
43
30
02
08
91
03
75
14
40
04
05
00
36
05
56
00
10
66
01
03
45
10
61
85
04
00
79
03
86
01
77
06
11
04
07
01
23
02
87
04
80
01
78
03
46
01
59
03
31
00
99
50
02
7 01
37
01
99
19
00
02
14
00
80
01
02
68
04 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3477
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़12, 1926
4
2
3
1
175
0
0
168
0
169
0
158.
170
0
0
157
151
0
0
156
0
152
0
154
0
153
0
155
0
142
0
143
0
144
0
145
0
146
0
143
0
144
0
145
0
127
0
107
0
108
0
106
0
109
0
110
0
1221
0
96
0
99
931
0
0
992
0
993
0
994
0
995
0
996
0
997
0
1002
0
1220
अन्जी
0
1333
6
5
00
28
11
00
67
06
01
03
01
56
00
04
01
24
47
00
04
68
17
03
03
80
00
15
10
00
25
02
22
01
02
02
00
89
01
98
01
49
02
02
00
55
13
01
06
11
01
88
62
01
36
03
01
13
11
06
04
55
01
30
03
98
57
03
02
25
02
18
59
04
07
05
52
09
43
01
63
01 3478
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
1
2
3
4
0
1335
1339
0
1336
0
1338
0
0
1341.
1342
0
1346
0
1352
0
0
1347
1351
0
0
1353
0
1350
0
2954
1349
0
0
2793
2791
0
2794
0
2927
0
2928
0
2804
0
2807
0
2806
0
0
2805
0
2789
2819
0
2821
0
2820
0
2825
0
2779
0
2776
0
0
2726
2772
0
2771
0
2770
0
2769
0
0
2768
0
2840
0
2762
2767
0
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
03
53
00
14
01
21
13
25
11
22
04
31
03
90
01
97
05
98
05
04
00
10
05
28
00
47
00
10
02
30
01
29
11
63
00
53
12
02
04
15
00
77
00
67
02
86
00
10
01
73
02
02
02
29
04
81
00
81
03
16
00
76
00
75
05
04
01
94
05
66
08
17
02
27
01
47
00
10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
4
3
2
0
2761
2760
0
0
2634
2635
0
0
2484
2483
0
0
2636
2482
0
0
2638
0
2480
0
2950
0
2479
0
2478
0
2463
2464
0
0
2414
0
2405
2404
0
0
2403
2406
0
0
2383
0
2384
0
2382
0
2381
2368
0
0
2367
2339
0
0
2355
2356
0
0
2352
0
2353
0
2354
0
2356
0
2355
0
2241
0
2240
0
2245
0
2238
0
2239 1883 GI/04-3
3479 5
6
07
89
30
03
39
29
10
00
10
00
63
02
00
10
02
90
01
91
42
05
02
38
02
68
00
83
07
34
14
60
08
48
16
05
43
01
01
53
00
73
03
73
02
94
03
14
10
33
74
09
83
00
03
04
12
61
01
76.
01
89
61
02
00
34
06
75
61
12
00
03
04
49
10
00
36
10
40
03 3480
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
2237
0
2236
0
0
साहसपुरा
2927
0
2928
0
2926
0
2925
0
2924
0
2929
0
नभन्जपुर
7
0
8
0
6
0
9
0
5
0
15
0
4
0
407
677
0
कान्हेओगालपुर
713
0
714
0
712
0
711
0
708
0
685
0
685
0
707
0
0
705
706
0
686
0
0
692
0
690
691
0
0
693
673
0
696
0
695
0
694
0
744
0
743
0
745
0
[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
03
33
01
33
03
34
00
10
01
22
01
00
04
27
00
44
01
74
02
88
08
21
01
73
03
95
00
41
03
70
00
17
01
60
02
56
07
36
06
42
00
10
08
28
02
19
02
94
02
01
01
29
02
18
02
27
01
25
00
76
00
21
05
44
01
31
00
77
02
67
00
28
02
33
06
03
12
03 3481-
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
5
2
3
4 1
0
00
1091
02
742
0
01
0
747
04
0
758
01
0
757
0
04
759
01
0
765
02
0
763
0
761
02
05
0
762
00
791
0
01
792
0
0
04
793
0
02
787
0
00
1070
13
0
779
0
08
781
02
0
1104
0
00
794
02
0
1105
01
0
1027
00
1026
0
00
0
1025
0
00
855
0
00
856
0
14
860
0
861
0,1
0
00
858
0
05
863
00
0
887
00
890
0
05
0
889
0
05
888
00
0
917
00
0
898
0
02
945
05
916
0
04
0
920
0
01
913
6
72
93
15
61
68
38
13
02
23
76
91
09
17
15
48
60
41
17
42
77
01
54
80
62
85
25
41
10
91
97
73
10
82
14
20
73
06
30
89 3482
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1
4
2
3
5
6
912
05
41
0
908
0
42
04
0
01
05
910
10
0
03
909
0
907
00
10
02
0
83
940
08
0
03
941
07
942
0
23
0
01
17
943
रानीगन्ज
0
00
923
10
06
0
22
924
00
0
10
933
0
59
15
932
0
10
42
961
10
0
25
955
0
09
29
954
10
0
00
952
0
11
56
951
0
03
20
979
0
05
52
981
72
0
00
980
01
0
07
982
0
93
06
983
:
05
0
39
989
02
47
0
990
45
0
00
991
05
0
03
988
03
51
0
992
0
08
41
993
0
24
32
860
0
02
15
859
0
00
10
857
93
0
06
833
0
04
62
834
0
02
11
831
04
18
0
835
0
02
96
836
0
01
05
830
02
0
08
829 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
2
3
4
0
827
0
488
करन्जाबीन्धा
0
1856
0
1855
0
1945
0
1854
0
1853
0
1844
0
1847
0
1848
0
1759
1796
0
1797
0
0
1795
1760
0
1761
0
0
1747
0
1748.
0
1746
0
1742
0
1743
0
1744
1689
0
0
1692
0
1691
0
1705
0
1695
1703
0
1704
0
1698
0
0
1697
0
1703
1072
0
1206
0
0
1073
0
1205
1074
0
0
1204
0
1203
3483
6
5
00
80
07
25
81
01
22
06
11
01
05
34
26
06
00
10
07
33
00
78
10
43
10
00
01
24
02
94
04
69
04
23
03
86
00
39
11
08
66
08
10
00
10
00
12
53
11
14
04
09
01
44
00
34
02
04
01
75
00
45
01
50
08
96
02
88
00
50
04
91
.41
01
01
56
07
47
02
16 3484
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
1
2
3
4
1202
0
1201
0
1169
0
1170
0
1171
0
1172
0
1173
0
1197
0
1176
0
1174
0
1175
0
978
0
977
0
976
0
975
0
974
0
705
0
706
0
707
0
708
0
710
0
0
711
712
0
900
0
0
899
734
0
733
0
735
0
731
0
732
0
740
0
730
0
0
741
746
0
742
0
745
0
750
0
751
0
744
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 5
6
00
95
06
78
05
76
05
57
06
21
06
01
00
10
04
35
07
32
00
87
00
20
09
38
03
96
05
08
02
46
04
02
00
78
03
69
12
24
03
30
04
56
04
21
04
29
03
57
03
29
02
33
02
70
02
03
00
27
00
36
02
46
00
10
01
66
02
36
02
01
04
28
07
45
01
11
00
10 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
756
0
0
755
0
758
0
759
281
0
282
0
283
0
0
285
0
286
0
295
296
0
0
294
297
0
0
298
0
251
0
253
0
2015
0
2003
247
0
0
246
0
245
0
235
234
0
215
0
212
0
214
0
211
0
0
210
0
209
0
190
0
158
0
104
0
105
0
106
0
89
0
107
108
0
0
1994
0
113 5
6 00
43 04
93 05
15 04
02
10 00
06
18
27 05
05
20 04
76
57 00
00
22 01
19 14
56 00
96 01
64
32 00-
11 01
00
53 01
08 03
99 00
78 05
80 05
59 00
10 00
98 07
00 04
54 00
89
80 05
00
83 01
71
82 02
02
69
35 08
01
83 28
40 04
15 02
84 14
41 3486
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
12
0
832
0
डोलपुर
0
831
833
0
830
0
834
0
0
835
829
0
828
0
827
0
824
0
825
0
0
826
0
797
0
798
0
794
0
799
793
0
0
792
0
904
फतेहपुर
908
0
909
0
0
928
929
0
910
0
911
0
912
0
927
919
0
921
0
0
851
852
0
848
0
849
0
0
847
0
846
0
991
844
0
842
0
[PART II-SBC . 3(ii)] 5
6
02
95
10
82
95
03
02
00
01
53
04
04
02
32
08
46
02
33
02
98
09
90
02
57
02
04
02
05
02
59
02
86
01
46
05
82
02
12
02
12
00
49
04
68
00
43
00
20
02
91
02
90
02
07
06
73
00
11
47
06
07
91
00
10
98
02
02
07
02
83
01
89
02
46
05
69
06
13 34
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आकाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
841
0
0
840
0
832
0
830
0
829
0
827
0
824
0
कल्यानी
1314
0
1311
4023
0
0
1310
0
1308
0
1303
0
1309
0
1301
0
1302
0
1284
0
1287
0
1286
0
1279
1273
0
0
1271
0
1272
0
1269
0
602
0
605
0
607
0
609
606
0
0
610
0
595
0
584
0
585
0
586
414
0
0
417
416
0
0
415
0
419 1883 G1 /04-4
6
5
03
37.
02
39
87
01
07
12
00
94
67
05
10
00
36
01
96
08
35
01
07
87
10
00
05
65
03
55
06
13
00
39
09
66
10
00
38
06
12
02
04
15
56
02
87
04
26
01
33
01
06
92
00
79
53
00
07
19
08
21
07
60
92
03
00
04
32
03
24
11
09
1.1
49
01
27
00
41
05 3488
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
421
0
400
0
0
399
393
0
392
0
396
0
391
0
384
0
385
0
386
0
372
0
0
373
374
0
0
375
198
0
199
0
0
197
196
0
195
0
210
0
161
0
210
0
211
0
160
0
159
0
158
0
156
0
0
155
83
0
0
82
81
0
34
0
35
0
31
0
0
29
1178
0
नौपुर
0
1179
0
1180
0
1181
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
10
02
15
02
28
02
31
01
69
03
10
01
35
00
10
04
08
05
19
05
61
03
43
03
19
03
48
01
96
02
72
03
28
04
16
04
12
05
85
05
84
00
10
00
86
06
36
04
77
01
31
10
58
02
32
00
90
01
54
00
73
02
84
05
66
04
79
11
36
11
12
02
47
00
14
00
10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
4
3
2
0
1185
0
1186
0
1187
0
1188
0
1172
0
1168
0
1189
0
1166
0
1165
0
1167
1164
0
0
1120
0
1121
0
1-122
0
1123
0
1125
1124
0
1126
0
0
4051
0
1131
0
1134
0
1132
0
1111
1108
0
0
1107
1106
0
0
292
0
297
0
299
0
4057
0
300
0
235
236
0
0
252
0
253
0
251
0
248
0
250
0
249
3489 5
6
26
04
76
05
02
34
00
41
11
02
10
00
01
48
05
61
52
00
94
00
03
08
10
00
28
01
31
01
57
05
92
09
02
76
00
10
07
25
04
10
34
02
04
75
03
00
03
09
42
04
02
97
04
66
:
11
07
07
33
01
03.
45
07
07
04
10
05
07
30
62
06
07
95
00
46
76
03
10
00 3490
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12 , 1926
4
2
3
34
0
0
33
0
35
0
4095
36
0
0
38
0
21
20.
0
0
4078
0
19
0
39
0
43
0
18
0
17
16
0
0
11
0
13
12
0
0
7
6
0
0
1300
सालागन
0
1299
0
1298
0
1297
0
1295
0
1290
0
1296
0
1291
0
1294
0
1293
0
1224
0
1225
0
1226
0
1222
0
1223
0
1221
1203
0
0
1206
0
1205
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
09
94
03
96
02
68
03
49
73
03
03
04
01
52
01
20
66
03
81
01
15
02
21
02
07
37
11
85
80
00
88
01
83
01
01
67
04
10
47
04
00
64
10
00
43
03
50
04
23
04
02
50
14
00
20
05
00
51
02
63
00
92
08
96
10
00
32
01
03
82
38
05
01
37
24
00
00
10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
3491
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
4
2
3 1
1201
0
1202
0
0
1160
0
484
0
485
0
474
473
0
472
0
0
471
470
0
0
465
0
464
431
0
0
432
0
463
462
0
0
437
0
438
0
439
0
440
0
399
0
398
0
400
0
401
232
0
233
0
0
234
226
0
0
235
0
225
221
0
224
0
222
0
0
219
0
218
216
0
185
0
1425
0
0
1426
6
5
11
90
02
98
12
63
02
82
01
97
02
59
10
34
62
01
67
00
00
10
55
01
34
06
00
10
00
10
04
80
76
01
11
88
03
61
05
14
71
04
55
08
10
00
26
04
05
93
11
19
10
00
01
04
12
92
10
00
01
84
03
30
01
16
44
03
04
30
01
72
28
04
53
07
01
96
94
03 3492
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
1
2
3
4
183
0
142
0
140
0
136
0
0
137
7
0
6
0
5
0
0
1
ओडसाल
746
0
742
0
743
0
745
0
0
744
0
739
740
0
741
0
0
729
730
0
728
0
542
0
537
0
0
536
0
535
0
525
नारायनबारा
0
453
0
1382
0
1381
0
1367
1379
0
0
1378
0
1368
0
1369
1377
0
0
1387
1389
0
0
1375
0
1390
0
1392
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
05
10
12
01
06
23
22
15
03
20
00
80
02
23
00
74
77
01
00
49
02
27
21
05
00
10
00
87
01
76
02
05
03
53
96
03
01
20
01
10
00
10
38
00
02
88
01
79
01
64
76
04
04
18
01
40
10
08
02
16
32
02
00
61
10
00
04
21
19
14
00
25
01
81
65
01
03
74 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3493
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
3
4 बालंसर
श्रीजन्ग
1970
0
1971
0
0
1969
1968
0
1967
0
1966
0
1965
0
1943
0
1942
0
1941
0
1940
0
1911
0
1912
0
4910
0
5358
0
4909
0
0
4911
1910
0
1908
0
0
1907
1903
0
1902
0
1901
0
1897
0
0
1898
1885
0
1853
0
1852
0
1854
0
1849
0
1848
0
1798
0
1797
0
0
1796
0
1795
1794
0
1793
0
4944
0
1792
0 5
6
13
78
00
20
01
94
00
66
01
57
03
15
00
20
25
70
03
95
02
28
08
63
03
84
05
93
02
99
72
00
03
24
00
87
00
20
07
94
00
10
02
01
01
52
06
86
04
99
03
85
01
20
03
74
13
37.
01
36
08
24
07
90
17
43
01
08
07
71
08
66
08
94
06
18
04
37
01
48 3494
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
1791
0
1726
0
17
चकश्रीरामपूर
0
16
0
11
0
13
0
14
0
80
0
63
0
4
0
3
27
0
0
61
0
बोईता
2706
0
2566
0
2567
0
2572
0
2571
0
2570
0
2574
0
2531
0
2530
0
2524
0
2525
0
2527
0
2528
0
2511
0
2510
0
2512
0
2513
0
2495
0
2494
2740
0
0
2493
2492
0
0
2497
0
2480
0
2489
0
2488 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
5
6
00
15
03
99
84
07
78
09
07
51
07
89
10
03
04
52
07
21
07
92
02
95
10
00
01
51
03
48
02
64
63
02
65
02
45
02
02
54
35
06
01
95
01
73
01
12
03
08
36
04
22
04
25
00
10
00
03
53
82
05
1 10
00
04
82
01
53
06
74
63
05
35
00
10
04
01
20
05
28 3495 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
5
6
3
2
1
66
08
0
2481
15
0
09
2487
0
62
02
2019
46
88
0
2014
46
0
06
1989
02
36
0
1992
00
65
0
1991
し
0
66
00
1993
29
1994
0
07
01
0
40
1998
03
01
0
1997
00
0
05
1999
0
00
2000
26
06
0
02
1996
0
08
95
2003
0
00
10
2002
58
0
02
2004
00
0
10
120
राहानीयागडीया
10
00
120
0
0
02
26
121
0
00
43
122
05
03
0
119
03
0
04
114
04
0
49
123
20
0
00
174
10
01
0
173
0
04
172
95
0
01
36
180
00
0
10
182
00
82
0
183
0
01
46
184
93
0
04
214
0
03
70
170
0
04
47
163
00
10
0
162
01
23
0
160
31
0
02
159
00
68
0
158
03
82
0
157
1883 GI/04-5 3496
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
2
3
4
155
0
136
0
137
0
138
0
97
0
96
0
31
0
95
0
89
0
93
0
94
0
0
91
90
0
92
0
209
0
34
0
0
35
60
0
59
0
37
0
44
0
0
46
47
0
गम्भारिया
0
1359
1360
0
1361
0
1358
0
1364
0
1354
0
1368
0
0
1369
2637
0
0
1421
1422
0
1425
0
0
1426
0
1424
1428
0
0
1429
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
04
03
03
31
00
61
04
34
01
28
07
61
00
10
04
14
00
10
00
88
01
59
00
46
02
71
01
23
01
52
03
92
03
74
08
53
02
03
01
63
03
78
06
27
00
10
15
75
09
88
02
17
00
10
05
96
02
09
90
04
03
11
04
39
00
23
03
54
02
15
02
43
01
36
01
82
02
31 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3497
भारत का राजपत्र: मुलताई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
2
4 1
3
1430
0
0
1431
0
1432
0
1524
0
1523
1513
0
0
2620
1512
0
0
1511
0
1510
0
1509
0
1508
0
1502
0
2549
0
1503
0
1500
.0
1504
2585
0
0
1499
1498
0
1497
0
0
1494
0
1496
1495
0
1604
0
1616
0
1701
0
1617
0
0
1618
0
1698
0
1619
1620
0
0
1622
1623
0
0
1624
1628
0
1666
0
0
1664
0
1665 5
6
17
02
67
01
60
01
00
53
36
02
05
85.
00
20
58
01
02
37
05
33
02
30
02
95
00
28
01
11
04
41
81
00
00
20
12
05
01
32
03
59
04
50
21
01
04
04
10
00
04
08
17
03
10
00
54
04
01
78
33
04
01
85
02
43
01
85
85
03
03
20
01
96
63
04
00
17
77
02 3498
THE GAZETIE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
1663
0
1668
0
1662
0 .
1657
0
0
1651
0
1650
1649
0
0
1647
0
1646
2501
0
2502
0
1645
0
0
2503
2506
0
2504
0
2505
0
774
0
तुन्उरा
776
0
777
0
779
0
0
781
5653
0
783
0
784
0
0
786
819
0
4967
0
0
818
0
816
0
815
814
0
813
0
0
812
0
810
0
809
0
847
0
852
0
851
0
850
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
02
21
00
31
05
06
02
73
05
89
07
18
05
74
04
46
01
27
00
41
04
27
00
10
05
00
01
48
00
11
01
66
00
74
03
37
01
54
61
01
01
44
02
69
01
94
87
01
04
11
05
73
01
45
06
64
11
37
09
35
01
18
04
40
02
69
00
43
01
71
09
78
03
44
01
16
02
39 3499 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
6 1
3
4
5
2
0
01
52
871
0
00
16
872
0
16
02
870
4045
0
03
52
0
00
58
4812
0
00
90
4813
0
03
33
865
220
0
02
23
कौनपूर
00
221
0
43
216
0
41
16
0
00
11
211
06
210
0
11
10
209
0
00
0
02
82
208
0
03
93
184
0
63
02
185
00
207
0
10
0
01
206
36
0
04
03
205
07
0
18
204
10
0
00
202
0
203
00
44
0
192
06
52
06
0
196
26
0
94
302
00
00
74
0
303
0
90
304
00
-01
0
60
544
0
04
536
88
0
04
537
18
0
02
12
532
0
71
02
531
0
00
90
524
0
523
00
10
0
10
94
525
0
04
22
519
0
00
38
518
97
0
04
514
0
02
23
513 3500
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
1
2
3
4
1544
0
512
0
511
0
562
0
565
0
569
0
567
0
568
0
695
0
570
0
571
0
694.
0
688
0
692
0
691
0
1567
0
1479
0
689
0
684
0
685
0
670
0
671
0
0
668
667
0
793
0
666
0
162
भीमपुर
0
161
0
157
0
156
0
0
155
149
0
150
0
145
0
143
0
136
0
137
0
130
0
4385
0
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
97
02
14
00
18
00
15
10
42
07
67
01
77
07
94
03
39
00
10
00
93
01
02
05
36
03
26
06
59
03
90
00
35
11
60
01
53
06
05
76
08
01
72
07
36
03
90
03
31
01
52
08
96
04
94
04
65
04
18
00
10
05
54
02
31
07
49
03
15
04
58
03
18
05
60
04
90 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
3501
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
104
0
0
105
107
0
121
0
111
0
110
0
109
0
0
89
87
0
80
0
78
0
79
0
77
0
4698
0
62
0
61
0
60
0
59
0
51
0
54
0
56
0
4764
0
58
0
4763.
0
57
0
35
33
0
0
34
22
0
25
0
29
0
28
0
268
0
275
0
4579
0
276
0
1
0
26
0
27
0 5
6
00
15
00
12
00
10
13
36
30
03
03
07
02
69
02
65
03
88
05
72
00
10
02
94
00
31
03
94
00
10
04
51
01
10
01
04
01
18
00
16
05
24
01
64
00
56
01
26
03
20
01
03
04
04
02
72
00
40
07
09
07
26
01
73
09
08
08
13
01
32
04
50
01
45
01
24
03
56 3502
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
525
चान्दिपुर
0
421
0
585
0
422
0
419
0
420
0
423
0
413
0
414
415
0
0
411
0
410
0
356
0
354
0
357
0
353
0
508
0
352
0
350
0
351
0
348
0
582
0
491
छलियापाड़ा
0
492
0
494
0
519
0
495
0
446
0
447
0
450
0
521
0
522
0
523
0
451
0
452
0
445
0
408
0
407
0
414 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
03
26
35
02
00
85
03
90
00
34
26
06
00
34
36
02
03
62
16
01
43
00
14
04
59
05
56
04
95
03
10
00
50
00
04
69
95
01
03
45
05
27
10
00
00
55
32
05
05
74
33
00
29
04
03
33
21
03
04
06
22
00
54
03
00
51
06
18
74
01
36
04
04
00
77
04
75
07 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
3503
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
415
0
416
0
404
0
344
0
341
0
343
0
342
0
340
0
337
0
338
0
310
0
313
0
312
0
336
0
314
0
321
0
315
0
545
0
316
0
साहाजानगर
48
0
0
1684
1685
47
0
0
45
46
0
44
0
43
0
41.
0
38
0
36
0
39
0
1495
0
35
0
32
0
33
0
0
22
25.
0
23
0
24
0 1883 G1/04-6
5
6
03
00
20
06
41
04
41
05
09
00
10
03
01
01
55
09
05
02
05
01
74
03
80
00
17
00
10
03
85
00
22
04
99
00
50
01
12
01
80
01
36
01
07
04
76
05
23
00
10
03
14
03
63
04
26
03
40
01
29
01
27
04
39
01
66
01
46
02
35
05
04
00
36
00
34
03
22 3504
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
4
3
2
1
0
16
0
15
0
14
0
13
1440
0
0
1439
0
1438
0
10
0
7
0
5
0
1
0
जयदेबकस्बा
2282
0
2286
0
2287
0
2285
0
2318
0
5045
0
2320
0
2316
0 '
2315
0
2314
0
5576
0
2313
0
2337
0
2336
0
2339
0
5376
0
2340
0
2341
0
5034
0
3057
0
3056
0
5345
0
3052
0
3051
0
2342
0
3046
0
3045
0
3041 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
04
53
10
00
04
04
87
01
81
01
01
63
82
00
10
00
33
09
21
03
42
01
01
06
89
08
86
06
93
19
66
07
10
00
10
00
10
00
47
04
66
04
40
03
40
00
61
01
01
86
17
01
99
01
56
07
00
10
82
05
00
37
81
00
97
04
71
00
56
02
02
53
05
15
55
05
23
02 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
0
3021
0
3022
3023
0
3017
0
3016
0
0
3013
3004
0
3003
0
0
2998
0
2997
0
2963
2962
0
0
2980
0
2965
2981
0
0
2967
0
2969
0
2968
0
5587
2976
0
0
2971
0
2904
0
2905
0
2901
0
2899
0
2840
0
2829
0
2839
0
2830
10
2831
0
2838
5547
0
0
2837
5365
0
0
2804
2803
0
0
2802
2801
0
2798
0
3505 5
6
02
34
96
01
00
47
01
98
03
62
71
08
36
05
12
65
03
60
02
88
76
03
00
59
01
85
96
03
40
00
04
25
95
02
00
10
88
02
04
27
16
04
98
01
01
98
63
03
03
44
00
68
04
60
32
01
00
60
00
87
49
01
00
76
74
01
14
03
18
03
83
05
10
00
83
00 ,
13
06 3506
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
2
3
4
0
5294
0
2797
2796
0
5505
0
2755
0
2795
0
0
2760
0
2761
532
0
531
0
92
0
माजहीकीया
93
0
0
88
0
87
0
86
0
85
0
84
0
59
0
96
97
0
58
0
57
0
56
0
0
18
19
0
0
9
24
0
26
0
0
1015
0
1023
27
0
0
29
0
993
30
0
60
0
पुरूषोत्तमपुर
61
0
0
63
0
64
0
65
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
00
10
05
26
01
74
09
96
08
52
00
10
40
08
10
00
04
04
08
31
01
70
03
62
05
80
02
87
47
02
02
03
02
53
07
40
00
10
00
10
00
30
00
83
05
03
83
09
07
99
05
52
07
05
03
83
00
53
07
14
03
44
04
38
00
53
00
90
06
40
03
37
05
68
04
94
06
45 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
3
4
2
0
112
बाराकिया
0
111
0
105
0
104
0
110
0
109
106
0
103
0
1672
0
0
78
0
82
0
1278
0
81
0
84
0
1690
0
1689
0
67
201
0
0
1746
0
1694
1778
0
0
203
0
202
0
205
0
206
0
207
0
1867
0
209
0
208
0
210
1687
0
32
0
0
31
0
30
0
29
0
22
0
222
28
0
0
25
3507
6
5
11
06
29
07
01
27
10
00
50
08
40
04
10
02
23
05
07
99
04
88
03
97
10
01
53
04
01
40
04
14
00
89
01
86
05
88
32
02
70
00
04
92
00
49
11
03
61
04
62
03
62
02-
00
10
40
00
54
08
04
02
00
34
77
02
01
04
22
09
01
81
73
20
10
00
20
00
01
75 3508
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
2
3
4
26
0
5
0
314
0
313
0
312
0
0
307
309
0
308
0
0
342
331
0
341
0
339
0
0
340
338
0
337
0
336
0
344
0
335
0
1
0
462
0
पदमधूर
0
505
511
0
513
0
0
512
532
0
533
0
535
0
0
534
536
537
0
508
C
0
582
C
583
C
580
0
584
615
0
0
604
0
605
0
609
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
01
72
02
74
00
10
06
97
08
73
00
40
06
18
00
39
01
59
01
08
05
01
00
91
02
42
01
47
00
23
11
72
00
28
12
01
03
29
03
78
02
98
02
06
01
68
01
58
01
75
01
24
06
66
00
75
06
98
00
13
00
29
04
80
02
73
01
67
01
455
05
89
01
777
01
69
01
69 3509
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
606
0
0
607
0
608
0
1822
0
1874
1878
0
0
1877
0
1872
0
1879
0
1880
0
1870
0
1881
0
2019
0
1907
0.
1908
0
1906
0
1916
0
1917
0
1915
0
1914
0
1913
0
1925
0
1963
0
1962
0
1961
0
1964
0
1960
0
1954
0
1953
0
2092
0
2086
0
2087
0
2091
0
2096
0
2095
0
2482
0
2481
0
2479
0
2478 5
6
01
21
02
30
02
88
19
05
37
06
04
46
00
33
46
01
03
37
87
00
05
95
81
07
00
57
40
06
68
00
06
33
07
43
10
00
00
10
26
06
63
08
07
01
00
98
01
57
92
08
10
00
09
93
01
31 、
99
08
01
14
01
74
20
00
35
16
22
00
10
00
50
05
03
39
01
04
00
45 3510
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
2477
0
2476
0
2474
0
2475
0
2466
0
2473
0
2468
0
2457
0
2453
0
2452
0
2451
0
2448
0
2438
0
2437
0
2449
0
2436
0
2405
0
2399
0
2404
0
2403
तलपाडा
0
549
551
0
0
550
0
552
553
0
554
0
627
0
560
0
0
561
562
0
569
0
0
568
0
571
572
0
574
0
0
573
580
0
0
581
0
519
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
02
20
03
02
01
84
00
34
07
43
01
08
00
53
12
20
09
75
00
68
05
11
05
31
71
02
01
77
00
10
01
29
02
31
01
02
09
91
00
10
01
16
00
10
02
84
00
43
02
40
05
01
07
32
36
09
00
82
00
20
00
69
04
67
05
24
05
55
32
05
17
00
40
02
05
16
05
50 3511 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
6
5
4
3
2
1
85
0
01
517
10
00
0
516
35
11
0
518
29
0
00
510
89
00
0
508
74
07
0
509
32
0
02
507
30
00
0
493
22
04
0
494
72
0
08
496
08
37
0
497
13
0
00
185
70
05
0
186
18
0
05
464
72
01
0
461
25
0
00
462
62
02
460
0
16
06
0
434
97
03
0
435
23
0
03
436
30
00
0
438
28
06
0
437
01
80
0
399
47
00
0
371
86
06
0
372
60
08
370
0
13
0
01
662
95
00
0
375
07
04
663
0
31
00
0
365
30
0
04
379
71
08
0
625
00
64
0
356
10
00
0
357
85
08
0
355
54
01
0
358
45
02
0
308
81
00
0
647
42
01
0
354
1883 G1/04-7 3512
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
2
3
4
353
0
350
0
352
0
351
0
317
0
318
0
320
0
319
0
322
0
1815
0
1816
0
3031
0
5004
0
3029
0
3026
0
3024.
0
3025
0
3023
0
3020
0
0
3022
3021
0
2282
0
0
2283
0
2284
0
5690
0
5470
2279
0
2268
0
0
2269
0
2270
0
2271
2272
0
2274
0
0
2276
0
2254
0
5249
2255
0
2252
0
0
5282
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
05
80
02
68
00
10.
03
98
04
80
00
84
01
64
03
43
03
30
01
80
05
21
01
12
11
94
01
33
04
74
01
65
00
57
65
02
00
15
02
16
04
07
00
78
07
49
03
06
01
98
00
10
02
11
02
65
01
75
02
26
06
73
01
54
06
00
00
10
01
19
00
15
00
89.
03
54
02
22 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का सचचत्र: जुलाइ 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
4
2
3
0
5686
0
2253
0
2341
0
2319
0
2316
0
2318
0
2326
0
2329
0
2327
0
2330
0
2332
0
2333
0
2336
0
5549
0
2348
0
2347
0
2346
0
2350
0
2351
रानासाही
2621
0
2582
2616
0
0
2617
2615
0
2614
0
0
2636
2613
0
2611
0
2612
0
2608
0
2607
0
2441
0
0
2439
2437
0
2436
0
0
2435
2329
0
2330
0
2434
0
3513 :
6
5
02
38
02
73
01
59
02
20
00
75
06
00
03
86
03
09
00
10
04
15
00
79
08
43
09
07
00
83
01
95
11
50
00
86
04
33
01
40
14
60
00
86
08
08
01
48
00
17
04
96
00
17
27
01
00
57
36
05
04
96
12
32
14
74
02
22
01
43
01
33
45
03
00
10
12
84
46
00 3514
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
2
3
4
0
2331
2338
0
2332
0
2334
0
2333
0
0
2398
0
2383
0
2384
2386
0
0
2371
2387
0
2249
0
0
2246
0
2245
0
4144
2244
0
0
2249
0
4434
2248
0
2253
0
2250
0
4408
0
0
2251
4261
0
0
2255
0
2256
2257
0
0
2258
2259
0
2266
0
0
2262
2263
0
2264
0
0
2069
2070
0
2229
0
2226
0
2227
0
3925
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
05
01
08
82
01
90
02
79
02
16
10
43
11
28
00
10
00
10
00
77
08
77
14
47
02
08
06
14
07
55
00
49
14
48
00
10
00
10
08
91
00
49
10
00
00
10
03
25
00
38
02
13
24
02
76
01
01
02
04
03
00
81
02
97
00
94
01
50
07
41
06
30
00
10
18
66
67
09 3515
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
2228
0
2220
0
2219
0
2218.
0
4192
0
2215
0
2216
0
2897
0
2998
0
2901
0
2900
0
2902
0
2903
0
2904
0
2908
0
2907
0
2905
0
2906
0
1322
0
4189
0
2110
हिरीगान
0
2111
0
2112
0
2109
0
2113
2114
Q
0
2115
0
5606
0
5633
0
2177
0
2021
0
5524
0
2020
0
2019
0
2018
0
2017
0
1978
0
1977
0
1974
6
5
53
05
10
00
85
06
08
94
01
88
10
00
06
54
22
02
18
04
06
48-
65
00
75
05
01
42
83
11
25
00
10
00
69
05
40
04
14
01
02
52
96
04
16
04
07
18
43
15
06
03
40
01
93
00
10
00
45
01
00
59
13
67
16
06
63
05
27
01
01
96
00
10
15
14
05
98
48
02 3516
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12, 1926
2
3
4
1973
0
1966
0
1963
0
1960
0
1957
0
1698
0
1699
0
1956
0
1700
0
5555
0
1954
0
1703
0
1710
0
1711
0
5569
0
1713
0
1714
0
1715
0
5525
0
1716
0
1919
0
1906
0
1907
0
1901
0
1900
0
1895
0
1894
0
1887
0
1882
0 .
1883
0
1860
0
1867
0
1866
0
1862
0
1850
0
1851
0
0
1852
1842
0
1841
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 5
6
02
16
05
27
03
01
03
96
03
18
03
40
03
58
00
10
00
80
02
03
05
04
03
44
02
75
03
71
08
90
00
97
02
66
03
18
00
39
03
49
26
21
05
99
06
34
03
12
03
12
04
63
02
87
05
05
00
91
01
84
03
21
00
10
03
48
03
92
04
18
04
73
00
10
02
22
05
16 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3517
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
4
3
1843
0.
0
1844
1828
0
0
1827
1826
0
0
1817
1816
0 .
1815
0
0
1792
0
1794
0
1795
0
1718
0
1799
1809
0
0
1812
0
1811
0
418
0
421
409
0
408
0
407
0
406
0
391
0
390
0
0
379
373
0
0
381
0
380
386
0
382
0
383
0
0
190
0
191
175
0
172
0
176
0
0
174
0
173
0
177 5
6
03
85
04
29
06
47
03
76
03
25
02
74
06
38
12
07
10
03
02
24
01
19
'02
61
03
63
01
06
17
70
26
01
10
00
14
45
04
13
01
09
07
45
96
00
01
22
00
87
34
08
01
05
03
81
07
78
09
13
01
11
02
12
02
57
79
02
16
43
00
20
32
00
01
56
43
08
01
92 3518
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12 , 1926
2
1
3
4
0
178
0
179
0
180
0
181
157
ง
0
156
0
158
0
250
273
0
274
0
0
275
277
0
0
271
0
278
0
279
0
280
0
284
0
283
0
285
0
286
182
0
0
825
पात्रापाड़ा
0
824
0
802
800
0
0
796
0
795
794
0
0
791
0
790
0
786
785
0
781
0
773
0
779
0
772
0
760
0
0
757
0
758 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5
6
04
43
16
35
37
10
00
24
00
67
24
77
06
97
02
92
01
42
02
40
00
16
01
85
16
00
02
37
01
39
02
20
00
92
12
24
03
79
01
86
04
43
03
62
05
04
06
39
04
78
64
05
01
35
03
35
06
30
06
07
05
38
11
29
07
60
06
22
04
84
05
89
07
31
01
52
54
06 3519
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
766
754
0
0
745
0
746
0
747
0
1218
0
741
0
739
0
737
0
736
0
730
0
677
0
676
0
854
पुराना बालेसर
0
857
0
859
0
858 se
0
1165
0
868 es
0
870
0
873
0
880
0
879
0
881
0
882
0
878
0
894
0
893
0
897
0
898
0
900
0
904
0
905
0
915
0
014
0
916
0
913
0
912
0
949 1883 G1 /04-8
6
5
50
10
85
07
10
00
04
59
48
06
97
07
89
10
95
07
12
03
91
04
16
02
40
02
02
00
17
04
07
04
84
02
10
00
09
68
18
05
58
01
51
03
03
79
58
00
02
07
17
00
13
04
10
00
10
04
02
85
63
01
29
03
03
02
50
02
76
05
47
05
00
38
00
48
67
07
00
10 3520
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
4
3
0
948
0
947
0
964
0
963
0
962
1
961
0
1312
0
361
959
0
362
0
0
964
0
363
0
58
0
55
0
56
45
0
42
0
0
43
40
0
0
38
0
37
0
10
0
9
0
407
8
0
7
0
6
0
0
5
4
0
0
412
0
1
0
1627
0
2577
0
1626
0
948
पाल बालेसर
0
485
0
484
486
0
0
481...
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
06
09
04
39
01
08
04
84
04
51
44
144
02
26
00
10
07
11
06
78
01
08
92
01
05
91
56
00
01
29
00
15
06
92
35
07
02
25
09
11
00
90
03
02
83
10
05
55
03
89.
01
63
30
05
03
73
11
04
05
13
02
92
21
03
03
84
04
24
06
09
55
02
10
00
01
71
24
08 3521
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
487
0
461
0
334
0
333
0
341
342
0
0
340
0
339
0
521
0
346-
0
427
0
352
0
353
0
355
0
356
0
387
0
386
00
385
0
393
0
384
0
383
0
394
204
0
पाखराबाद
0
211
0
214
0
215
0
216
217
0
250
0
252
0
251
0
247
0
246
0
245
0
224
0
223
0
298
0
297
0
299
6
5
71
03
60
38
47
06
23
06
02
88
00
10
52
04
40
06
10
00
10
00
10
00
18
01
01
68
11
02
10
00
10
00
31
05.
77
00
00
05
04
76
01
64
12
03
19
03
65
00
38
06
32
01
38
04
10
00
64
09
83
01
79
02
10
00
75
03
10
00
36
04
22
01
07
04
58
00
22
03 3522
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926 1
2
3
4
300
0
0
543
0
542
301
0
528
0
520
0
529
0
0
531
532
0
526
0
0
525
0
524
0
757
499
0
0
498
0
497
0
500
0
493
0
492
477
0
0
481
0
480
0
478
811
0
0
454
0
839
156
0
0
455
0
451
0
457
0
458
0
452
0
450
459
0
785
0
धुसुली
782
0
0
781
780
0
0
754 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
6
5
03
67
03
37
00
48
00
17
09
45
00
10
02
37
02
41
39
08
05
03
00
10
03
86
00
93
73
07
05
56
00
34
00
40
02
49
40
09
08
12
00
97
36
02
97
02
03
53
00
10
01
35
39
01
02
76
01
03
02
02
04
26
00
84
01
05
00
10
01
77
04
14
03
52
10
00
13
01 3523
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
775
0
776
0
764
0
774
0
765
0
762
0
766
0
767
0
768
0
683
0
682
0
675
0
681
0
676
0
670
0
669
0
665
0
666
0
663
0
664
0
449
0
662
0
815
0
448
0
450
0
451
0
447
0
445
0
440
0
443
0
442
0
444
0
383
0
382
0
380
0
379
0
378
0
376
0
375
6
5
50
04
10
00
96
03
00
34
01
17
12
00
59
05
02
69
10
00
05
96
03
83
32
02
25
00
99
06
81
05
50
04
30
01
01
75
50
02
01
17
85
00
12
00
01
21
48
11
01
82
31
03
09
03
53
01
90
00
01
01
40
00
60
18
10
01
59
00
24
12
59
08
53
08
83
04
00
04 3524
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
4
2
3
1
374
0
100
0
डुमरिया
0
1109
0
193
0
113
0
117
0
116
0
192
0
118
0
190
206
0;
0
188
0
187
0
186
0
214
0
215
0
213
0
212
0
211
0
210
0
218
0
325
0
309
0
326
0
327
0
328
0
1066
0
329
0
330
0
1092
0
332
0
331
0
334
0
333
300
0
0
299
0
252
0
294
0
290
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
6
5
01
55
68
01
99
00
36
06
00
27
18
15
79
02
41
01
03
64
64
08
00
26
05
06
77
07
00
10
52
04
12
01
92
03
11
07
00
10
10
00
07
16
06
06
06
90
04
31
11
09
10
01
10
01
05
14
07
01
01
43
63
01
43
01
63
00
00
97
04
78
15
00
09
10
06
03
08
49 3525
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
2
3
1
0
292
0
291
0
288
0
286
0
287
281
0
0
358
0
357
0
367
368
0
0
366
363
0
0
375
0
377
0
485
0
254
मधुसुदनपुर
0
282
283
0.
0
618
0
617
0
616
0
615
0
609
611
0
0
610
0
613
0
630
0
640
0
643
0
639
644
0
0
646
0
647
0
714
0
653
0
705
0
655
0
704
700
0 5
6
64
01
40
04
01
05
01
38
47
04
32
00
80
08
29
04
03
74
46
00
01
41
56
08
07
07
00
45
03
45
02
70
05
88
78
00
75
00
94
05
34
02
01
79
17
00
03
36
50
09
78
02
80
08
33
01
65
02
17
00
29
09
06
59
33
05
35
06
21
04
11
48
03
77
01
82
69
04 3526
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926 1
2
3
4
0
698
0
695
808
0
0
809
810
0
0
685
0
813
815
0
817
0
816
0
1408
0
0
851
852
0
0
895
0
892
0
893
0
853
0
888
0
889
0
887
886
0
0
882
0
883
0
885
1473
0
0
1378
मन्दाधार
100
0
0
93
0
92
94
0
262
0
263
0
0
260
0
266
0
289
267
0
0
268
0
101
0
190 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
14
00
11
20
05
99
07
02
03
80
42
08
02
96
00
70
01
30
03
54
05
37
05
62
06
64
00
12
06
53
00
63
02
36
08
00
03
07
00
12
00
54
01
04.
07
85
00
25
01
26
03
42
04
57
10
31
00
10
09
55
79
06
00
74
56
08
03
68
74
03
13
37
02
59
04
02
67
03 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926 1
2
3
4
0
189
0
188
अकिनिया
316
0
0
318
0
315
317
0
0
314
302
0
363
0
304
0
305
0
294
0
310
0
0
292
0
291
286
0
354
0
0
284
0
179
0
135
0
142
0
136
0
138
137
0
0
335
112
0
0
109
111
0
74
0
0
75
76
0
79
0
0
80
0
33
81
0
32
0
7
0
0
6
1
0 1883 Gl/ 04-9
3527 5
6
01
53
00
10.
07
84
00
10.
67
05
00
10
06
15
31
00
00
30
89
09
03
17
03
65
05
79
04
20
02
16
03
70
04
25
08
30
00
83
07
72
00
10
10
00
05
58
07
72
00
10
08
28
40
00
08
37
02
50
01
45
03
04
02
59
06
67
06
90
63
04
02
70
10
00
14
82
12
13 3528
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
2
4 1
3
50
0
बिसन्प्र
51
0
0
52
0
53
0
46
44
0
55
0
0
56
43
0
0
39
0
32
33
0
0
31
0
29
0
30
0
3
0
649
0
648
0
647
646
0
0
645
644
0
0
639
0
640
0
625
0
624
0
62.1
0
620
0
617
0
609
0
611
0
610
0
189
0
130
0
96
0
95
94
0
0
100
0
99
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5
6
08
29
03
52
01
84
02
09
07
34
09
12
10
00
00
10
07
69
15
02
33
16
00
55
66
07
01
46
09
62
07
89
00
10
00
12
00
89
05
30
02
63
15
02
08
23
04
24
00
41
04
01
36
00
07
78
08
70
01
58
16
07
02
09
05
31
10
00
47
07
12
21
03
61
76
03
00
19 3529
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
4
3
2
1
0
93
0
हिन्जीला
501
0
500
0
497
0
494
0
493
227
0
0
219
0
220
0
218
0
213
212
0
0
214
0
211
0
208
0
209
0
95
0
527
0
86
0
21
0
22
0
24
0
17
0
25
0
26
0
28
0
507
0
518
0
27
0
507
0
15
0
16
0
17
0
766
अमारा
0
588
0
587
0
574
0
584
0
583 5
6
04
03
00
86
04
19
77
02
07
23
09
45
08
16
10
00
75
06
63
05
24
01
03
96
91
00
03
46
28
00
91
00
08
01
90
10
51
03
57
02
82
02
43
03
27
12
68
03
48
05
60
00
09
02
52
04
69
00
:
92
01
38
01
73
00
44
06
62
20
43
02
69
03
70
01
20
09
17
08 3530
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12 , 1926 1
2
3
4
579
0
522
0
0
3068
3069
0
0
3070
3066
0
3065
0
0
3107
3108
0
0
3109
0
3301
3225
0
0
3300
0
3226
0
3299
0
3290
0
3228
0
3284
0
3283
0
3282
0
3281
0
3236
0
3236
0
3233
0
3197
0
3237
0
3195
0
3193
0
3238
0
3192
0
3504
0
3191
0
3190
0
3246
0
263
बाहादलपुर
0
323
0
319
320
0
0
321 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 5
6
13
06
03
09
04
22
07
94
67
08
75
06
04
05
03
07
05
03
02
52
01
06
75
05
01
51
63
18
01
91
84
01
01
53
04
11
76
02
29
00
02
08
30
62
00
28
10
00
04
94
00
28
06
91
69
01
00
37
31
12
00
46
10
14
10
61
00
10
04
39
00
10
32
03
02
54
17
08 3531 .
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
6
5
322
0
00
31
308
0
23
82
0
313
09
45
0
13
57
309
01
285
0
30
299
0
03
54
0
15
37
298
0
04
24
293
0
04
80
292
[फा. सं. आर-25011/19/2004-ओ.आर-1 ]
रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 25th June , 2004
S. O. 1528.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crudeoil from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited .
And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification .
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act- 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein.
Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the layir.g of the pipeline under the land to Shri . Ashok Kumar Dash , Competent Authority , Paradip Haldia Pipeline Project , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Corporation Limited Marketing Housing Complex , Meghadambara, Postoffice- Kuruda , Balasore - 756 056 (Orissa ) .
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3532
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
Schedule
State : Orissa District :Balasore
Khasra No.
Came of Tehsil
Name of Village
Area Are
Sq. mtr .
Hectare
6
5
4
3
2
1
40
02
0
618
Gud
Soro
80
05
0
6194
10
00
0
619
04
52
0
6193
0
12
95
622
52
00
0
624
57
00
0
6191
45
01
0
623
72
01
0
678
38
00
0
676
20
04
0
683
10
05
0
682
12
01
0
681
60
01
0
677
05
04
0
504
19
01
0
199
34
00
0
498
69
13
0
200
33
01
0
201
20
00
0
203
00
04
0
202
10
0
00
204
86
08
0
205
06
37
0
207
73
07
0
233
05
15
0
234
48
0
12
264
01
69
0
265
03
40
0
267
04
01
0
266
17
03
0
85
45
06
0
94
77
00
0
95
45
02
0
100
72
02
0
101
53
01
0
103
49
02
0
105
92
05
0
115
62
0
11
116
10
00
0
113 33
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भान II-खण्ड 3(ii ) ]
Khasra Nc Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
112
0
117
0
118
122
0
0
123
0
124
(0
125
121
0
0
127
0
128
131
0
132
0
141
142
0
140
0
0
892
0
893
0
891
894
0
0
895
896
0
0
890
0
889
0
1471
0
1473
0
1464
0
1472
0
1484
0
1503
0
1463
0
1504
0
1537
0
1538
0
1536
0
1553
0
1554
0
1531
0
1555
0
1556
0
1592
0
1583
0
1581
0
1582
0
1585
0
1584
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
6
5
37
00
74
03
01
48
12
01
01
58
01
82
13
02
01
35
99
06
05
93
63
07
00-
10
01
66
33
04
02
30
03
33
00
10
01
32
37
00
01
22
01
65
05
07
01
95
07
14
18
00
77
JO
55
05
02
79
01
04
43
04
44
09
00
10
04.
97
26
02
24
07
99
05
70
01
32
02
92
05
10
00
00
58
49
11
10
00
79
00
10
00 3534
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
1587
0
1586
0
1654
0
1655
0
1653
0
1656
0
1657
0
1658
0
1648
0
1661
0
1662
0
1644
0
1643
0
1660
0
1684
0
1642
0
1641
0
1687
0
0
1688
1686
0
0
1689
1690
0
0
1196
0
1695
1696
0
1694
0
1697
0
0
1180
1177
0
0
2526
2527
0
2528
0
2529
0
2533
0
2535
0
2532
0
2531
0
2581
0
2537
0
2580
0
2579
0
0
2582
0
2612
2611
0
2613
0
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
01
63
00
10
01
60
03
71
01
38
01
78
03
52
00
67
01
96
04
85
23
05
02
30
02
32
00
10
00
32
01
74
01.
24
07
59
01
71
00
39
04
53
01
22
03
08
01
21
00
10
01
92
09
73
00
17
02
81
07
78
04
20
02
74
00
10
08
15
01
05
06
31
04
86
00
27
04
02
07
06
00
10
02
90
02
99
00
48
04
07 3535
'भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
3
4 1
2
2614
0
0
2615
0
2623
0
2624
0
2621
0
2628
0
2622
0
2625
0
2627
0
2630
142
0
Patimunda
0
71.
72
0
74
0
0
238
46
0
0
47
0
48
6
0
0
5
0
4
0
219
Dinapahi
220
0
0
216
0
223
0
207
0
206
0
205
0
224
0
204
0
200
C
198
201
0
199
0
154
0
153
152
0
0
1
0
770
Baliktiran
0
792
0
584
0
581
0
586
0
585
0
590
1883 G1/04-10
Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
00
10
73
10
67
00
00
81
00
88
10
01
03
53
10
00
00
59
05
24
57
02
97
01
86
02
21
02
40
01
83
02
60
05
04
11
86
03
01
29
02
69
05
49
06
16
03
10
28
17
61
00
09
05
72
04
08
01
04
09
06
39
28
00
10
00
11
24
52
19
18
05
00
29
25
03
92
02
03
01
01
69
45
03
65
02
07
03
58
11 3536
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tersil
Khasra No.
Name of Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
0
591
0
589
0
595
594
0
596
0
598
0
0
600
774
0
607
0
606
0
470
0
0
454
456
0
455
0
457
0
451
0
0
450
449
0
447
0
460
0
0
438
436
0
0
434
435
0
433
0
340
0
348
0
345
0
346
0
349
0
141
0
Chhatubati
169
0
0
294
290
0
295
0
289
0
0
296
288
0
0
285
0
286
283
0
281
0
0
282
284
0
0
277
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Area
Are
Sq . mtr.
5
6
10
00
00
42
06
43
01
55
05
85
02
06
02
17
01
53
11
72
06
02
00
47
09
71
03
76
00
94
06
81
00
10
00
31
01
27
06
81
43
01
03
38
09
44
00
87
91
00
01
63
01
01
46
06
01
86
00
09
03
16
03
15
01
20
03
38
58
04
01
36
16
32
00
24
16
32
08
81
07
72
79
03
00
94
61
05
33
06
11
02 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3537-
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Nameof Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
3
4
276
0
0
278
272
0
271
0
270
0
267
C
268
0
0
269
262
0
261
0
260
0
259
0
257
0
258
0
Poradiha
0
1236
1237
0
1238
0
0
1239
1240
0
1244
0
0
1223
1222
0
1208
0
0
1217
1216
0
1215
0
0
1214
0
909
1262
0
Brahampur
0
619
0
620
618
0
614
0
615
0
612
0
0
611
610
0
529
0
609
0
535
0
0
534
0
530
0
531
528
0
525
0 Area Are
Sq.mtr.
6
5
05
80
02
09
07
76
00
49
00
26
00
30
09
95
00
37
02
50
02
06
04
33
05
07
01
99
02
61
03
75
01
58
00
46
06
70
00
10
03
54
04
50
01
75
02
71
02
52
02
15
01
01
56
02
03
54
00
97
31
07
00
46
03
670
04
02
00
30
01
38
61
04
01
38
04
17
01
08
01
79
01
23
00
70
00
86
02
95
10
14 3538
[PART II-SEC. 3 (in) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926 Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare
2
3
1
4
0
524
0
469
0
468
0
464
0
463
414
0
0
465
413
0
411
0
412
0
406
0-
0
403
0
402
401
0
400
0
395
0
0
396
0
319
0
358
357
0
327
0
0
1245
328
0
330
0
332
0
0
333.
334
0
337
0
336
0
0
206
200
0
0
198
197
0
180
0
179
0
0
49
0
50
178
0
177
0
176
0
175
0
168
0
169
0
0
158
0
170
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
00
10
15
03
13
74
01
75
01
96
71
03
01
43
02
30
08
91
03
75
40
14
04
05
36
00
05
56
10
00
01
66
03
45
61
10
04
85
00
79
86
03
01
77
11
06
04
07
01
23
02
87
04
80
01
78
03
46
01
59
03
31
00
99
02
50
01
37
01
99
00
19
02
14
00
80
01
02
04.
68
00
28
11
00
67
06
03
01
56
01 3539
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
157
0
151
0
156
0
152
0
154
0
153
0
155
142
0
0
143
0
144
0
145
0
146
0
143
0
144
145
0
0
127
0
107
0
108
0
106
0
109
0
110
0
1221.
0
96
0
99
0
931
0
992
0
993
0
994
0
995
0
996
0
997
0
1002
0
1220
0
1333
Anjee
0
1335
0
1339
0
1336
0
1338
0
1341.
1342
-0
0
1346
0
1352
0
1347
0
1351
0
1353
Area
Are
Sq. mtr .
6
5
00
04
24
01
47
00.
04
68
17
03
80
03
15
00
10
00
02
25
01
22
02
02
00
89
01
98
49
01
02
02
55
00
13
01
11
06
88
01
01
62
36
03
13
01
11
06
04
55
01
30
03
98
57
03
25
02
18
02
04
59
07
05
52
09
43
01
01
63
53
03-
14
00
21
01
13
25
22
11
31
04
90
03
97
01
98
05
04
05
10
00 3540
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
1350
0
2954
0
1349
0
0
2793
2791
0
2794
0
2927
0
2928
0
2804
0
2807
0
2806
0
2805
0
2789
0
2819
0
2821
0
2820
0
2825
0
0
2779
2776
0
2726
0
2772
0
0
2771
2770
0
2769
0
0
2768
2840
0
0
2762
2767
0
0
2761
0
2760
0
2634
0
2635
0
2484
0
2483
0
2636
0
2482
0
2638
0
2480
2950
0
2479
0
2478
2463
0
2464
0
0
2414
0
2405
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
05
28
00
47
00
10
02
30
01
29
11
63
00
53
02
12
04
15
00
77
00
67
02
86
10
00
01
73
02
02
02
29
04
81
00
81
03
16
00
76
00
75
05
04
01
94
05
66
17
08
02
27
01
47
00
10
07
89
03
30
29
39
00
10
00
10
02
63
00
10
02
90
01
91-
05
42
38
02
02
68
00
83
07
34
14
60
08
48
16
05 3541
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड, 3 ( ii ) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
2404
0
2403
0
2406
0
2383
0
2384.
2382
0
0
2381
2368
0
2367
0
0
2339
0
2355
2356
0
0
2352
2353
0
0
2354
0
2356
2355
0
2241
0
2240
2245
0
0
2238
0
2239
2237
0
0
2236
0
2927
Sahaspura
0
2928
0
2926
0
2925
0
2924
0
2929
0
7
Ranbhanjpur
0
8
0
6
0
9
0
5
0
15
0
4
0
407
0
677
Kanheiogalpur
0
713
0
714
712
0
711
0
708
0
0
685
Area
Are
Sq . mtr .
6
5
43
01
53
01
73
00
03
73
02
94
03
14
33
10
09
74
83
00
03
04
12
61
76
01
01
89
02
61
34
00
06
75
61
12
00
03
04
49
10
00
36
10
40
03
03
33
33
01
34
03
00
10
01
22
01
00
04
27
00
44
01
74
02
88
08
21
01
73
03
95
00
41
03
70
00
17
60
01
02
56
36
07
42
06
10
00
28
08
19
02 3542
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926 Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
3
4
685
0
707
0
705
0
706
0
0
686
692
0
690
0
0
691
0
693
673
0
696
0
0
695
694
0
744
0
743
0
745
0
0
1091
742
0
747
0
758
0
0
757
759
0
765
0
763
0
761
0
0
762
791
0
0
792
793
0
787
0
1070
0
779
0
781
0
1104
0
794
0
1105
0
0
1027
0
1026
0
1025
855
0
856
0
0
860
0
861
0
858
0
863
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
02
94
02
01
01
29
02
18
02
27
01
25
00
76
21
00
05
44
01
31
00
77
02
67
00
28
02
33
06
03
03
12
00
72.
93
02
01
15
04
61
01
68
38
04
01
13
02
02
02
23
05
76
00
91
01
09
04
17
02
15
00
48
13
60
08
41
02
17
00
42
02
77
01
01
00
54
00
80
00
62
00
85
14
25
01
41
10
00
91
05 3543
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
887
0
890
0
889
0
888
0
917
0
898
0
915
0
916
0
920
0
913
0
912
0
908
0
910
0
909
0
907
0
940
0
941
0
942
0
943
0
923
Rahaniaganj
0
924
0
933
0
932
0
961
0
955
0
954
0
952
0
951
0
979
0
981
0
980
0
982
0
983
0
989
0
990
0
991
0
988
0
992
0
993
0
860
0
859
0
857
333
0
834
0
831
1883 G1 /04-11
Area Are
Sq. mtr
6
5
97
00
73
00
10
05
82
05
14
00
20
00
73
02
06
05
30
04
89
01
41
05
42
04
05
01
10
03
10
00
83
02
03.
08
23
07
17
01
10
00
22
06
10
00
59
15
42
10
25
10
29
09
10
00
56
11
20
03
52
05
72.
00
07
01
93
06
39
05
47
02
45
00
03
05
51
03
41
08
32
24
15
02
10
00
93
06
62
04
11
02 3544
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
835
0
836
0
830
0
829
0
827
0
0
488
1856
0
Karanjabindha
1855
0
1945
0
1854
0
1853
0
1844
0
1847
0
1848
0
1759
0 .
1796
1797
1795
1760
0
1761
1747
1748
1746
1742
0
1743
17:44
1689
1692
0
1691
0
1705
0
1695
0
1703
1704
0
1698
0
1697
1703
0
1072
0
1206
1073
0
1205
1074
1204
C
1203
C
1202
0
0
1201
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Area
Are
Sq. mtr .
5
6
04
18
02
96
05
01
08
02
00
80
07
25
01
81
06
22
01
11
05
34
06
26
00
10
07
33
00
78
10
43
00
10
01
24
02.
94
04
69
04
23
03
86
00
39
11
08
08
66
00
10
00
10
12
53
11
14
04
09
01
44
00
34
02
04
01
75
00
45
01
50
08
96
02
88
00
50
04
91
01
41
01
56
07
4?
02
16
00
95
06
78 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil Nameof Village
3545 Area Are
Hectare
4
2
3
0
1169
0
1170
0
1171
1172
0
0
1173
0
1197
0
1176
1174
0
0
1175
0
978
0
977
0
976
975
0
0
974
0
705
0
706
0
707
0
708
0
710
0
711
0
712
0
900
0
899
0
734
733
0
0
735
731
0
732
0
740
0
730
741
0
746
0
742
0
745
0
750
0
751
0
744
0
756
C
755
0
758
0
759
281
0
282
0
283
0
285
Sq: mtr.
6
5
76
05
57
05
21
06
06
01
00
10
35
04
07
32
00
87
20
00
09
38
03
96
05
08
02
46
04
02
00
78
03
69
12
24
03
30
04
56
04
21
04
29
03
57
29
03
33
02
70
02
03
02
27
00
36
00
46
02
00
10
66
01
36
02
02
01
28
04
45
07
01
11
10
00
43
00
93
04
15
05
02
04
10
00
18
06
27
05
20
05 3546
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Area
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare
Are
Sq . mtr.
6
2
3
4
1
5
04
76
286
295
00
57
0
00
22
296
0
0
294
01
19
56
0
14
297
96
0
00
298
01
64
0
251
0
00
32
253
01
11
2015
53
0
00
2003
C
01
08
247
99
246
03
0
0
00
78
245
0
05
80
235
05
59
0
234
10
0
00
215
00
212
0
98
0
07
00
214
0
211
04
54
00
89
210
0
0
05
80
209
0
83
190
00
01
71
0
158
02
104
0
82
0
02
105
69
35
08
106
0
01
83
89
0
28
40
107
04
15
108
0
02
84
0
1994
0
14
113
41
0
02
95
12
10
0
832
82 Dolpur
0
03
95
831
00
0
02
833
01
53
830
04
0
04
834
32
0
02
835
46
0
08
829
33
02
0
828
02
0
98
827
90
0
09
824
02
57
0
825
04
02
826
0
05
0
02
797 3547
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil Name ofVillage
Hectare
4
2
3
0
798
0
794
799
0
0
793
792
0
0
904
Fatehpur
908
909
928
0
929
0
910
0
911
912
927
0
0
919
0
921
0
851
0
352
0
348
0
349
0
847
0
846
0
991
0
844
842
0
841
840
0
332
0
0
330
0
329
0
827
0
824
0
1314
Kalyani
0
1311
0
4023
0
1310
1308
1303
0
0
1309
1301
0
1302
1234
0
1287
0
1286
0
1279
Area
Aree
Sq. mir
6
5
02
59
86
02
46
01
05
82
02
12
12
02
00
49
68
04
43
00
20
00
02
91
02
90
02
07
06
00
11
06
47
07
91
00
10
02.
98
07
02
02
83
01
89
02
46
05
69
06
13
03
37
02
33
01
87
12
07
00
94
05
67
00
10
01
36
08
96
01
35
07
87
10
00
65
05
55
03
13
05
00
39
66
09
10
00
06
38
12
02 3548
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:
ULY 3,2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
3
4
1273
0
1271
0
1272
0
1269
0
602
0
605
0
607
0
609
0
606
0
610
0
595
584
0
585
0
586
0
414
C
417
0
416
415
0
419
0
421
0
400
399
0
393
0
392
0
396
0
391
0
384
385
0
386
0
372
373
C
374
0
375
0
198
0.
0
199
197
0
196
0
195
0
210
161
C
210
211
160
0
159
C
158
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] Area Are
Sq . mtr.
5
6
04
15
02
56
04
87
01
26
01
33
06
92
00
79
00
53
07
19
08
21
07
60
03
92
04
00
03
32
11
24
11
09
01
49
00
27
05
41
00
10
02
15
02
28
02
31
01
69
03
10
01
35
00
10
04
08
05
19
05
61
03
43
03
19
03
48
01
96
02
72
03
28
04
16
04
12
05
85
05
84
00
10
00
86
06
36
77
04
01
3 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12; 1926 [ भाग -खण्डा 3( ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil Name ofVillage
3549 Area Are
Hectare
2
3
4
0
156
155
0
0
83
0
82
0
81
0
34
35
0
31.
0
0
29
0
1178
Nuapur
0
1179
0
1180
1181
0
0
1185
0
1186
0
1187
0
1188
1172
0
0
1168
0
1189
0
1166
0
1165
0
1167
0
1164.
1120
0
0
1121
0
1122
0
1123
0
1125
0
1124
1126
0
0
4051
0
1131
0
1134
0
1132
0
1111
0
1108
0
1107
0
1106
0
292
0
297
0
299
0
4057
0
300
0
235
Sq. mtr .
6
5
10
58
32
02
00
90
01
54
00
73
02
84
05
66
04
79
36
11
11
12
02
47
00
14
00
10
26
04
05
76
34
02
00
41
11
02
10
00
01
48
05
61
00
52
94
00
03
08
00
10
01
28
01
31
57
05
92
09
76
02
00
10
07
25
10
04
34
02
75
04
00
03
09
03
04
42
97
02
66
04
07
11
33
07
01
03
45
07
07
04 3550
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
Nameof Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
4
3
236
0
252
0
253
0
0
251
0
248
0 .
250
0
249
34
0
33
0
0
35
0
4095
36
0
0
38
0
21
20
0
4078
0
0
19
0
39
43
0
0
18
17
0
0
16
11
0
13
0
0
12
7
0
6
0
1300
0
Salagan
0
1299
0
1298
1297
0
0
1295
0
1290
0
1296
0
1291
0
1294
0
1293
0
1224
0
1225
0
1226
0
1222
0
1223
0
1221
0
1203
0
1206
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
05
10
07
30
06
62
07
95
00
46
03
76
00
10
09
94
03
96
02
68
03
49
73
03
03
04
52
01
01
20
03
66
01
81
02
15
02
21
07
37
11
85
00
80
01
88
01
83
01
67
04
10
04
47
00
64
00
10
03
43
04
50
23
04
50
02
14
00
20
05
51
00
63
02
00
92
96
08
00
10
32
01
82
03
05
38
37
01
00
24 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
3551
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4 1
2
3
0
1205
0
1201
0
1202
0
1160
0
484
0
485
0
474
0
473
0
472
471
0
0
470
0
465
464
0
0
431
0
432
463
0
0
462
0
437
0
438
0
439
0
440
399
0
0
398
0
400
0
401
0
232
0
233
0
234
0
226
0
235
225
0
0
221
224
0
0
222
0
219
0
218
0
216
0
185
0
1425
0
1426
0
183
0
142
0
140
0
136
0
137
1883 Gl/04-12
Area
Are
Sq. mtr .
6
5
00
10
11
90
02
98
63
12
82
02
01
97
02
59
10
34
01
62
00
67
00
10
01
55
06
34
00
10
10
00
04
80
01
76
11
88
03
61
14
05
71
04
55
08
10
00
04
26
93
05
19
11
10
00
01
04
12
92
00
10
01
84
03
30
01
16
03
44
30
04
01
72
28
04
07
53
01
96
03
94
05
10
01
12
06
23
22
15
03
20 3552
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]
Area
Khasra No.
Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Are
Hectare
Sq. mtr.
5
1
2
3
4
6
7
0
00
80
6
0
02
23
0
00
74
5
1
01
0
77
746
0
00
49 Odshal
0
02
27
742
743
0
05
21
0
00
10
745
744
0
00
87
0
01
739
76
05
0
02
740
741
0
03
53
03
729
0
96
01
730
0
20
0
01
10
728
00
10
542
0
0
00
537
38
0
536
02
88
0
01
79
535
01
64
525
0
76
0
04
453
Narayanabara
04
18
0
1382
40
0
01
1381
0
10
1367
08
0
16
02
1379
32
02
1378
0
0
00
61
1368
0
00
10
1369
21
1377
04
0
0
19
14
1387
00
0
25
1389
0
01
81
1375
01
0
65
1390
0
74
03
1392
0
13
78
1970
Balasore
Srijang
0
00
20
1971
01
94
0
1969
66
00
0
1968
01
57
0
1967
03
15
0
1966
20
G
00
1965
70
25
0
1943
03
95
0
1942
28
02
0
1941
63
08
0
1940 [ -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Nameof Tehsil Name ofVillage KhasraNo.
Hectare 1
2
3
4
1911
0
1912
0
0
4910
5358
0
4909
0
4911
0
0
1910
0
1908
1907-
0
1903
0
0
1902
0
1901
1897
0
1898
0
1885
0
0
1853
1852
0
0
1854
1849
0
0
1848
0
1798
0
1797
1796
0
0
1795
1794
0
1793
0
4944
0
1792
0
1791
0
1726
0
17
0
Chak Srirampur
16
0
11
0
13
0
14
0
80
63
0 .
4
0
3
0
27
0
61
0
2706
Boita
0
2566
0
2567
0
0
2572
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6 03
84 05
93 02
99 00
72 03
24 00
87 00
20 07
94 00
10
01 02
01
52 06
86 04
99 03
85 01
20 03
74 13
37 01
36 08
24 07
90 17
43 01
08 07
71 08
66
94 08
06
18 04
37 01
48 00
15 03
99 07
84 09
78 07
51 07
89 03
10 04
52 07
21 07
92
95 02
10 00
01
51
48 03
02
64
63 02
02
65 [PART II SEC. 3554
JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :
Area
Khasra No.
Name of Tehsil
Name of Village
Sq. mtr.
Hectare
Are
6
5
4
3
2
1
02
45
0
2571
54
02
0
2570
35
0
06
2574
95
01
0
2531
73
0
01
2530
12
01
0
2524
0
03
08
2525
36
04
0
2527
22
04
0
2528
25
00
0
2511
10
00
0
2510
03
53
0
2512
82
0
05
2513
10
00
0
2495
04
82
0
2494
53
01
0
2740
74
06
0
2493
63
05
0
2492
35
00
0
2497
10
04
0
2480
20
01
0
2489
05
28
0
2488
66
08
0
2481
15
09
0
2487
62
02
0
2019
88
46
0
2014
46
06
0
1989
36
0
02
1992
65
00
0
1991
66
00
0
1993
29
07
0
1994
40
01
0
1998
01
03
0
1997
00
0
05
1999
26
00
2000
06
02
0
1996
95
08
2003
10
00
0
2002
58
02
2004
10
00
C
120
10
00
C
120
Rahaniyagadia
26
02
0
121
43
00
0
122
03
05
0
119
03
04
0
114 3555
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil Name of Village
Hectare
4
2
3
1
0
123
174
0
0
173
0
172
0
180
0
182
0
183
0
184
0
214
170
0
163
0
0
162
0
160
0
159
0
158
0
157
0
155
136
0
0
137
0
138
0
97
0
96
0
31
95
0
0
89
93
0
0
94
0
91
0
90
0
92
0
209
0
34
0
35
0
60
59
0
0
37
44
0
0
46
0
47
0
1359
Gambharia
0
1360
0
1361
0
1358
0
1364
0
1354
Area Are
Sq..mtr.
6
5
04
49
20
00
10
01
04
95
01
36
10
00
00
82
46
01
04
93
70
03
47
C4
00
10
01
23
31
02
00
68
82
03
03
04
31
03
00
61
34
04
01
28
61
07
10
00
04
14
00
10
00
88
01
59
46
00
71
02
23
01
52
01
92
03
03
74
08
53
02
03
63
01
03
78
27
06
10
00
75
15
88
09
17
02
10
00
96
05
09
02 3556
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Name ofVillage
Hectare 1
2
3
4.
1368
0
1369
2637
1421
0
1422
1425
1426
1424
0
1428
1429
1430
0
1431
0
1432
0
1524
0
0
1523
1513
2620
0
1512
0
1511
1510
0
1509
0
0
1508
1502
0
2549
0
1503
0
0
1500
1504
0
2.585
0
0
1499
0
1498
0
1497
1494
0
0
1496
1495
0
0
1604
1616
1701
0
1617
0
1618
0
1698
0
0
1619
1620
0
0
1622
1623
G
1624
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
04
90
03
11
04
39
00
23
03
54
02
15
02
43
01
36
01
82
02
31
02
17
01
67
01
60
00
53
02
36
05
85
00
20
01
58
37
02
05
33
02
30
02
95
00
28
11
01
04
41
00
81
00
20
05
12
01
32
03
59
04
50
01
21
04
04
00
10
04
08
03
17
00
10
04
54
01
78
04
33
01
85
02
43
01
85
85
03
03
20 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
3557
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare
2
3
4 1
0
1628
0
1666
0
1664
0
1665
0
1663
0
1668
1662
0
1657
0 پر
0
1651
0
1650
0
1649
0
1647
1646
0
0
2501
0
2502
0
1645
0
2503
2506
0
2504
0
0
2505
774
0
Tundra
776
0
777
0
779
0
781
0
5653
0
783
0
0
784
0
786
0
819
4967
0
0
818
0
816
0
815
814
0
813
0
0
812
0
810
0
809
0
847
0
852
0
851
0
850
0
871
0
872
Area Are
Sq. mtr .
6
5
01
96
63
04
00
17
02
77
21
02
00
31
05
06
02
73
05
89
07
18
05
74
04
46
01
27
00
41
04
27
00
10
05
00
01
48
11
00
01
66
74
00
37
03
01
54
01
61
01
44
02
69
01
94
01
87
04
11
73
05
01
45
64
06
11
37
09
35
01
18
04
40
02
69
00
43
71
01
78
09
03
44
16
01
39
02
52
01
16
00 3558
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Khasra No. Nameof Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
3
4
2
1
0
870
0
4045
0
4812
0
4813
0
865
0
220
Kuanrpur
0
221
0
216
0
211
0
210
0
209
0
208
0
184
0
185
0
207
0
206
0
205
204
0
202
203
0
192
0
196
302
0
303
0
0
304
0
544
0
536
537
0
0
532
0
531
0
524
0
523
0
525
0
519
0
518
0
514
0
513
0
1544
0
512
0
511
0
562
0
565
0
569
0
567
0
568
[PART II-SBC .
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
6 5
02 16
52 03
58 00
00
90 03
33
23 02
00
43
41 16
00
11 06
11
10 00
02
82 03
93
63 02
10 00
36 01
04
03
18 07
10 00
44 00
52 06
26 06
94 00
74 00
00
90
60 01
04
88
18 04
02
12
71 02
90 00
00
10 10
94
22 04
38 00
97 04
23 02
97 00
14 02
18 00
15 00
42 10
67 07
77 01
94 07 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़12, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
3559 Area Are
Hectare
4
3
2
0
695
570
0
0
571
0
694
0
688
0
692
0
691
1567
0
1479
0
689
0
684
0
685
0
0
670
671
0
668
0
0
667
793
0
666
0
162
0
Bhimpur
161
0
157
0
156
0
0
155
0
149
0
150
0
145
0
143
136
0
0
137
130
0
0
4385
0
104
105
0
107
0
121
0
0
111
0
110
0
109
0
89
C
87
0
80
0
78
79
0
0
77
0
4698
1883 Gl/04-13
Sq. mtr .
5
6
03
39
00
10
00
93
01
02
05
36
26
03
06
59
03
90
00
35
60
11
01
53
06
05
08
76
01
72
36
07
90
03
31
03
01
52
08
96
94
04
65
04
18
04
10
00
05
54
02
31
07
49
15
03
58
04
03
18
60
05.
90
04
15
00
12
00
00
10
13
36
03
30
03
07
02
69
65
02
88
03
72
05
10
00
94
02
31
00
03
94 3560
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12 , 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
62
0
0
61
0
60
59
0
51
0
54
0
56
0
4764
0
58
0
4763
0
57
0
0
35
33
0
34
0
22
0
0
25
0
29
0
28
0
268
275
0
0
4579
276
0
0
1
0
26
27
0
0
525
Chandipur
0
421
585
0
422
0
0
419
420
0
423
0
413
0
0
414
0
415
0
411
410
0
0
356
354
0
0
357
353
0
508
0
352
0
0
350
0
351
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Area Are
Sq. mtr .
5
6
00
10
04
51
01
10
01
04
01
18
00
16
24
05
01
64
00
56
01
26
20
03
01
03
04
04
72
02
40
00
07
09
07
26
01
73
09
08
13
08
01
32
04
50
01
45
01
24
03
56
03
26
02
35
00
85
03
90
00
34
06
26
34
00
02
36
62
03
01
16
00
43
04
14
05
59
04
56
03
95
00
10
50
00
04
69
95
01
03
45 3561
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Khasra No. Name ofTehsil
NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
348
0
582
491
Chheliapada
0
492
0
494
0
519
0
495
0
446
0
447
0
450
0
521
0
522
0
523
0
451
0
452
0
445
0
408
0
407
0
414
0
415
0
416
0
404
0
344
0
341
0
343
0-
342
0
340
0
337
0
338
0
310
313
0
0
312
336
0
0
314
0
321
0
315
0
545
316
0
0
48
Sahajanagar
0
1684
0
1685
0
47
0
45
0
46
0
44
Area Are
Sq . mtr .
6
5
27
05
10
00
00
55
32
05
74
05
33
00
04
29
33
03
03
21
06
04
00
22
54
03
51
00
18
06
74
01
36
04
00
04
77
04
75
07
18
03
20
00
41
06
41
04
05
09
10
00
01
03
55
01
05
09
05
02
74
01
80
03
17
00
10
00
85
03
22
00
04
99
50
00
12
01
80
01
36
01
07
01
76
04
23
05
10
00
14
03 3562
3,2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
THE GAZETA
Name ofTehsil
Khasra No.
Name of Wirage
Hectare
2
1
3
4
43
41
0
38
0
36
0
0
39
0
1495
35
C
32
0
33
0
22
25
0
23
0
24
0
16
0
0
15
14
0
13
0
0
1440
0
1439
0
1438
10
0
7
0
5
0
0
1
0
2282
Jaydevkasba
0
2286
0
2287.
2285
0
0
2318
5045
0
0
2320
2316
0
2315
0
0
2314
5576
0
2313
0
2337
0
0
2336
0
2339
5376
0
0
2340
0
2341
5034
0
0
3057
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Area
Are
Sq. mtr .
5
6
03
63
04
26
03
40
01
29
01
27
39
04
01
66
46
01
02
35
05
04
00
36
00
34
03
22
04
53
00
10
04
04
01
87
01
81
01
63
00
82
00
10
09
33
03
21
01
42
01
06
08
89
06
86
19
93
07
66
00
10
00
10
10
00
04
47
04
66
03
40
00
40
01
61
01
86
01
17
01
56
07
00
10
05
82
37
00
00
81 3563
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
0
5345
0
3052
0
3051
0
2342
0
3046
0
3045
0
3041
0
3021
0
3022
0
3023
3017
0
0
3016
0
3013
0
3004
0
3003
0
2998
0
2997
0
2963
0
2962
0
2980
0
2965
0
2981
0
2967
0
2969
0
2968
0
5587
0
2976
0
2971
0
2904
0
2905
0
2901
0
2899
0
2840
0
2829
0
2839
0
2830
0
2831
0
2838
0
5547
0
2837
0
5365
0
2804
0
2803
0
2802
0
2801
Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
6
5
97
04
71
00
56
02
53
02.
15
05
55
05
02
23
34
02
96
01
47
00
01
98
62
03
71
08
36
05
12
65
60
03
02
88
76
03
59
00
85
01
03
96
00
40
04
25
95
02
10
00
88
02
04
27
16
04
98
01
01
98
63
03
03
44
68
00
60
04
32
01
60
00
87
00
49
01
76
00
74
01
14
03
18
03
83
05
10
00
00
83 3564
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
3
4
0
2798
0
5294
2797
0
2796
0
5505
0
2755
0
0
2795
2760
0
2761
0
532
0
531
0
92
0
Majhikia
93
0
88
0
87
0
0
86
0
85
84
0
59
0
0
96
97
0
58
0
57
0
56
0
18
0
19
0
9
0
24
0
26
0
1015
0
1023
0
27
0
29
0
0
993
30
0
60
0
Purastarnpur
61
0
63
0
64
0
0
65
112
0
Barakia
111
0
105
0
104
0
110
0
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] Area
Are
Sq . mtr.
5
6
06
13
00
10
05
26
01
74
09
96
08
52
00
10
08
40
00
10
04
04
31
08
01
70
03
62
05
80
02
87
02
47
03
02
02
53
07
40
00
10
10
00
00
30
00
83
05
03
09
83
07
99
05
52
05
07
03
83
00
53
07
14
03
44
04
38
00
53
00
90
06
40
37
03
05
68
04
94
06
45
06
11
07
29
01
27
00
10
08
50 3565
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
109
0
106
0
103
0
1672
0
78
0
82
0
1278
0
81
0
84
0
1690
0
1689
0
67
0
201
0
1746
0
1694
0
1778
0
203
0
202
0
205
0
206
0
207
0
1867
0
209
0
208
0
210
0
1687
0
32
0
31
0
30
0
29
0
22
0
222
0
28
:
0
25
0
26
0
5
0
314
0
313
0
312
0
307
0
309
0
308
0
342
0
331
0
341
Area Are
Sq . mtr.
6
5
40
04
10
02
23
05
99
07
04
88
97
03
10
01
53
04
40
01
04
14
89
00
86
01
05
88
32
02
00
70
92
04
49
00
11
03
61
04
62
03
62
02
10
00
40
00
54
08
02
04
34
00
77
02
04
01
22
09
81
01
73
20
10
00
20
00
75
01
72
01
74
02
10
00
97
06
73
08
40
00
18
06
39
00
59
01
08
01
01
05 3566
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12 , 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
3
2
4
0
339
340
0
338
0
337
0
336
0
344
0
0
335
1
0
462
0
Padampur
0
505
0
511
0
513
0
512
0
532
533
0
0
535
0
534
536
0
537
0
508
0
0
582
0
583
0
580
0
584
0
615
0
604
0
605
0
609
0
606
607
0
0
608
0
1822
0
1874
0
1878
0
1877
0
1872
0
1879
0
1880
1870
0
1881
0
0
2019
0
1907
0
1908
0
1906
0
1916
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] Area Are
Sq . mtr .
5
6
00
91
02
42
01
47
00
23
11
72
28
00
12
01
03
29
03
78
02
98
06
02
01
68
01
58
01
75
01
24
06
66
00
75
98
06
00
13
00
29
04
80
02
73
67
01
01
45
05
89
01
77
01
69
01
69
01
21
30
02
02
88
05
19
06
37
04
46
00
33
01
46
37
03
87
00
05
95
07
81
57
00
06
40
00
68
33
06
43
07 3567
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
3
4
2
1
0
1917
0
1915
0
1914
0
1913
0
1925
0
1963
0
1962
0
1961
0
1964
0
1960
0
1954
0
1953
0
2092
0
2086
0
2087
0
2091
0
2096
0
2095
0
2482
0
2481
0
2479
0
2478
0
2477
0
2476
0
2474
0
2475
0
2466
0
2473
0
2468
0
2457
0
2453
0
2452
0
2451
0
2448
0
2438
0
2437
0
2449
0
2436
0
2405
0
2399
0
2404
0
2403
0
549
Talapada
0
551
0
550
1883 GI/04-14
Area Are
Sq . mtr.
6
5
10
00
10
00
26
06
63
08
07
01
98
00
57
01
92
08
10
00
93
09
31
01
99
08
01
14
74
01
20
00
35
16
22
00
10
00
50
05
39
03
01
04
45
00
20
02
02
03
01
84
34
00
43
07
08
01
53
00
20
12
75
09
00
68
11
05
31
05
71
02
77
01
10
00
29
01
31
02
01
02
91
09
10
00
16
01
10
00
84
02 3568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
3
2
4
552
0
0
553
0
554
627
0
0
560
561
0
562
0
569
0
568
0
571
0
572
0
574
0
573
0
0
580
0
581
0
519
517
0
0
516
518
0
510
0
508
0
0
509
507
0
0
493
494
0
496
0
0
497
0
185
0
186
464
0
461
0
462
0
460
0
434
0
0
435
436
0
438
0
437
0
399
0
371
0
0
372
0
370
0
662
0
375
0
663
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Area
Are
Sq.mtr.
5
6
00
43
02
40
05
01
07
32
09
36
00
82
00
20
00
69
04
67
05
24
05
55
05
32
00
17
02
40
05
16
05
50
01
85
00
10
11
35
00
29
00
89
07
74
02
32
00
30
04
22
08
72
08
37
00
13
70
05
05
18
01
72
00
25
02
62
06
16
03
97
03
23
00
30
06
28
01
80
00
47
06
86
08
60
13
01
00
95
04
07 3569
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare
4 1
2
3
365
0
0
379
625
0
356
0
357
0
0
355
0
358
308
0
647
0
0
354
353
0
350
0
0
352
0
351
0
317
318
0
0
320
319
0
0
322
0
Gudu
1815
1816
0
0
3031
0
5004
3029
0
3026
0
3024
0
0
3025
3023
0
3020
0
0
3022
3021
0
2282
0
0
2283
0
2284
0
5690
0
5470
2279
0
0
2268
0
2269
0
2270
0
2271
0
2272
2274
0
0
2276
0
2254
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
00
31
30
04
71
08
00
64
00
10
85
08
01
54
02
45
00
81
01
42
05
80
68
02
00
10
03
98
04
80
00
84
01
64
03
43
03
30
01
80
05
21
12
01
11
94
01
33
04
74
01
65
00
57
02
65
00
15
16
02
04
07
00
78
07
49
03
06
01
98
00
10.
11
02
02
65
01
75
26
02
06
73
01
54
06
00
10
00
01
19 3570
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926 Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
0
5249
2255
0
2252
0
5282
0
0
5686
0
2253
2341
0
2319
0
0
2316
0
2318
2326
0
0
2329
0
2327
0
2330
2332
0
2333
0
0
2336
0
5549
0
2348
0
2347
0
2346
0
2350
0
2351
Ranasahi
2621
0
2582
0
2616
0
2617
0
0
2615
2614
0
2636
0
2613
0
0
2611
0
2612
2608
0
0
2607
0
2441
0
2439
2437
0
2436
0
0
2435
2329
C
2330
0
0
2434
0
2331
0
2338
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
00
15
00
89
03
54
02
22
02
38
02
73
01
59
02
20
00
75
06
00
03
86
03
09
00
10
04
15
00
79
08
43
09
07
00
83
01
95
11
50
00
86
04
33
01
40
14
60
00
86
08
08
01
48
17
00
04
96
00
17
01
27
00
57
05
36
04
96
12
32
14
74
02
22
01
43
01
33
03
45
00
10
12
84
00
46
05
01
08
82 3571
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil Nameof Village
Hectare
4
3
2
1
0
2332
0
2334
0
2333
0
2398
0
2383
0
2384
0
2386
0
2371
0
2387
0
2249
0
2246
0
2245
0
4144
0
2244
0
2249
0
4434
0
2248
0
2253
0
2250
0
4408
0
2251
0
4261
0
2255
2256
0
2257
0
2258
0
2259
0
2266
2262
0
0
2263
0
2264
0
2069
0
2070
0
2229
0
2226
0
2227
0
3925
0
2228
0
2220
0
2219
0
2218
0
4192
0
2215
0
2216
0
2897
Sq . mtr.
Area Are
6
5
90
01
79
02
16
02
43
10
28
11
10
00
10
00
77
00
77
08
47
14
08
02
14
06
07
55
00
49
14
48
10
00
10
00
91
08
49
00
10
00
10
00
25
03
00
38
13
02
24
02
76
01
01
02
04
03
00
81
97
02
00
94
50
01
41
07
30
06
10
00
66
18
67
09
53
05
10
00
85
06
94
08
88
01
10
00
54
06
22
02 3572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
2998
0
2901
0
2900
0
2902
0
0
2903
2904
0
2908
0
2907
0
2905
0
2906
0
1322
0
4189
0
2110
0
Hirigan
2111
0
2112
0
2109
0
2113
0
2114
0
2115
0
5606
0
5633
0
2177
0
2021
0
5524
0
2020
0
2019
0
2018
0
2017
0
1978
0
1977
0
1974
0
1973
0
1966
0
1963
0
1960
0
1957
0
1698
0
1699
0
1956
0
1700
0
5555
0
1954
0
1703
0
1710
0
1711
0
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Area
Are
Sq . mtr.
5
6
04
18
06
48
00
65
05
75
01
42
11
83
00
25
00
10
05
69
04
40
01
14
02
52
04
96
04
16
07
18
15
43
03
06
01
40
00
83
00
10
01
45
00
59
13
67
06
16
05
63
01
27
01
96
00
10
14
15
05
98
02
48
02
16
05
27
03
01
03
96
03
18
03
40
03
58
00
10
00
80
02
03
05
04
03
44
02
75
03
71 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3573
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
3
4
0
5569
1713
0
1714
0
0
1715
5525
0
1716
0
1919
0
1906
0
1907
0
1901
0
1900
0
1895-
0
1894
0
1887
0
1882
0
0
1883
1860
0
1867
0
1866
0
1862
0
0
1850
1851
0
1852
0
1842
1841
0
1843
0
1844
0
1828
0
1827
1826
0
1817
0
1816
0
1815
0
0
1792
0
1794
0
1795
1718
0
1799
0
1809
0
1812
0
1811
0
418
0
421
0
409
0
408
0 Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
08
90
00
97
02
66
03
18
00
39
03
49
26
21
05
99
06
34
03
12
03
12
04
63
02
87
05
05
00
91
01
84
03
21
00
10
03
48
03
92
04
18
04
73
00
10
02
22
05.
16
03
85
04
29
47
06
03
76
03
25
02
74
06
38
12
07
03
10
02
24
01
19
02
61
03
63
01
06
17
70
01
26
00
10
14
45
04
13
01
09 3574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
Nameof Village
Hectare 1
2
3
4
407
0
406
0
391
0
390
0
379
0
373
0
0
381
380
0
0
386
382
0
383
0
0
190
191
0
175
0
172
0
176
0
174
0
0
173
177
0
0
178
0
179
180
0
0
181
0
157
156
0
158
0
0
250
0
273
0
274
275
0
277
0
271
0
278
0
0
279
280
0
284
0
0
283
0
285
0
286
182
0
825
0
Patrapada
824
0
802
0
800
0
796
0
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
07
45
00
96
01
22
00
87
08
34
01
05
03
81
07
78
09
13
01
11
02
12
02
57
02
79
16
43
00
20
00
32
01
56
08
43
01
92
43
04
16
35
10
37
00
24
00
67
24
77
06
97
02
92
01
42
02
40
00
16
01
85
00
16
02
37
01
39
02
20
92
00
12
24
03
79
86
01
04
43
03
62
04
05
06
39
04
78
64
05 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़, 12, 1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
Khasra No. NameofTehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
4
3
2
0
795
0
794
0
791
790
0
0
786
0
785
0
781
0
773
779
0
772
0
0
760
0
757
0
758
0
766
0
754
0
745
0
746
0
747
0
1218
0
741
0
739
0
737
0
736
0
730
0
677
0
676
0
854
Purana Balasore
0
857
0
859
0
858
0
1165
0
868
0
870
0
873
0
880
0
879
0
881
0
882
0
878
0
894
0
893
0
897
0
898
0
900
0
904
1883 GI /04-15
3575 Area Are
Sq . mtr .
6
5
35
01
35
03
30
06
07
06
05
38
29
11
60
07
22
06
84
04
89
05
31
07
52
01
54
06
50
10
85
07
10
00
59
04
48
06
07
97
10
89
95
07
12
03
91
04
16
02
40
02
00
02
17
04
07
04
84
02
10
00
68
09
05
18.
01
58
51
03
79
03
58
00
02:
07
17
00
13
04
10
00
10
04
65
02
63
01
29
03
03
02 3576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
Khasra.No.
Name of Tehsil
Name ofVillage
Hectare
3
4 1
2
0
905
0.
915
0
914
0
916
0
913
0
912
0
949
948
0
0
947
0
964
0
963
0
962
1
961
1312
0
361
0
959
0
362
964
0
0
363
0
371
0
370
372
0
0
373
386
0
0
381
0
382
61
0
0
59
0
60
0
386
0
58
0
55
0
56
0
45
0
42
0
43
0
40
0
38
37
C
0
10
0
9
0
407
8
0
7
0
6
(.
!
[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ]
Area
Are
Sq. mtr.
6
5
02
50
76
05
05
47
00
38
00
48
07
67
00
10
06
09
04
39
01
08
04
84
51
04
44
144
02
26
10
00
11
07
78
06
01
08
92
01
11
00
68
00
06
55
69
06
53
04
78
06
53
04
08
00
11
03
07
36
10
00
91
05.
56
00
29
01
15
00
92
06
07
35
25
02
09
11
90.
00
03
02
83
10
55
05
89
03
63
01-
30
05 3577
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
Hectare
3
4
2
1
0
5
4
0
0
412
0
1
1627
0
0
2577
0
1626
0
948
0
485
PalBalasore
0
484
0
486
0
481
0
487
0
461
0
334
0
333
0
341
0
342
0
340
0
339
0
521
0
346
427
0
0
352
0
353
0
355
0
356
0
387
0
386
0
385
0
393
0
384
0
383
0
:94
0
204
Pakhrabar
0
211
0
214
0
215
0
216
0
217
0
250
0
252
0
251
247
0
0
246
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
73
03
11
04
13
05
92
02
03
21
84
03
04
24
06
09
55
02
10
00
71
01
08
24-
71
03.
60
38
47
06
23
06
88
02
10
00
52
04
40
06
10
00
10
00
10
00
01
18
68
01
11
02
10
00
10
00
31
05
77
00
00
05
76
04
64
01
12
03
19
03
65
00
38
06
32
01
38
04
10
00
64
09
83
01
02
79
10
00
75
03 3578
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil Nameof Village
Hectare
4
2
3
1
0
245
0
224
0
223
0
298
0
297
0
299
0
300
0
543
0
542
0
301
0
528
0
520
0
529
0
531
0
532
0
526
0
525
0
524
0
757
0
499
0
498
0
497
0
500
0
493
0
492
477
0
481
480
0
0
478
0
811
0
454
0
839
0
456
0
455
0
451
0
457
0
458
0
452
0
450
0
459
785
0
Dhusuli
782
0
781
0
780
0
754
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ].
Area Are
Sq. mtr.
6
5
10
00
36
04
22
01
07
04
00
58
22
03
03
67
03
37
48
00
00
17
09
45
00
10
37
02
41
02
39
08
03
05
10
00
86
03
93
00
73
07
56
05
34
00
40
00
02
49
40
09
12
08
97
00
36
02
97
02
53
03
10
00
35
01
39
01
76
02
01
03
02
02
26
04
84
00
05
01
10
00
77
01
14
04
52
03
10
00
13
01 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
Khasra No. Name of Tehsil NameofVillage
3579 Area
Are
Hectare
4
2
3
0
775
0
776
764
0
0
774
0
765
762
0
0
766
0
767
0
768
0
683
0
682
0
675
0
681
0
676
0
670
0
669
0
665
0
666
0
663
664
0
0
449
662
0
0
815
0
448
0
450
0
451
0
447
0
445
0
440
0
443
0
442
444
0
0
383-
382
0
0
380
0
379
0
378
0
376
0
375
0
374
0
100
Dumuria
0
1109
0
193
0
113
0
117
Sq. mtr .
6
5
50
04
00
10
96
03.
34
00
17
01
12
00
59
05
69
02
00
10
05
96
03
83
32
02
25
00
99
06
05
81
50
04
01
30
01
75
02
50
17
01
85
00
12
00
01
21
48
11
01
82
31
03
03
09
53
01
90
00
01
01
40
00
60
18
10
01
00
59
12
24
59
08
53
08
04
83
00
04
01
55
68
01
99
00
36
06
27
00
15
18 3580
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926 Name of Tehsil
Khasra No.
NameofVillage
Hectare 1
2
4
3
0
116
0
192
0
118
0
190
0
206
0
188
187
0
0
186
214
0
0
215
213
0
212
0
211
0
0
210
218
0
0
325
0
309
326
0
0
327
328
0
0
1066
0
329
330
0
0
1092
0
332
331
334
0
333
0
0
300
299
0
252
0
0
294
290
0
0
292
291
0
0
288
0
286
0
287
0
281
0
358
357
0
367
368
0
0
366
0
363
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Area Are
Sq. mtr.
5
6
02
79
01
41
03
64
64
08
00
26
06
05
07
77
00
10
04
52
01
12
03
92
07
11
00
10
00
10
07
16
06
06
06
90
04
31
11
09
01
10
01
10
05
14
01
07
01
43
63
01
43
01
00
63
00
97
04
78
00
15
10
09
03
06
08
49
01
64
40
04
05
01
38
01
04
47
32
00
08
80
04
29
03
74
00
46
01
41
56
08 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3
4
2
0
375
0
377
485
0
254
Madnusucianpur
0
282
283
0
618
0
617
0
616
0
615
0
609
0
611
610
0
513
0
630
0
640
0
643
0
639
0
644
0
646
0
647
0
714
0
653
0
705
ני
655
0
704
0
700
698.
695
0
808
0
809
810
0
685
0
813
0
815
0
817
0
816
0
1408
0
851
852
0
895
0
892
0
893
0
853
0
388
0
889
0
887
3581
6
5
07
07
45
00
45
03
70
02
88
05
78
00
75
00
94
05
34
02
79
01
17
00
36
03
50
09
78
02
08
23
01
65
02
17.
CO
29
09
59
06
33
05
35
06
21
C4
48
11
77
03
82
01
69
04
00
14
11
99
05
02
07
80
03
42
08
96
02.
70
00
30
01
54
03
37
05
62
05
64
06
12
00
53
06
63
00
36
C2
00
08
07
03
00
12 3582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
2
3
4
0
886
882
0
0
883
0
885
0
1473
0
1378
0
Mandadhar
100
0
93
0
92
0
94
0
262
Tentulimundi
0
263
0
260
0
266
0
289
0
267
0
268
0
191
0
190
0
189
0
188
0
316
Akinia
0
318
0
315
0
317
0
314
0
302
0
363
0
304
0
305
0
294
0
310
0
292
0
291
0
286
0
354
0
284
0
179
0
135
0
142
0
136
0
138
0
137
0
335
0
112
0
109
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]
6
5
00
54
04
01
07
85
00
25
26
01
03
42
57
04
10
31
10
00
09
55
79
06
74
00
56
08
03
68
74
03
13
37
59
02
02
04
03
67
01
53
10
00
07
84
10
00
05
67
10
00
06
15
31
00
00
30
89
09
03
17
65
03
79
05
20
04
02
16
70
03
25
04
30
08
83
00
72
07
10
00
00
10
58
05
72
07
00
10
28
08
00
40 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
4
3
2
0
111
0
74
0
75
0
76
0
79
0
80
0
33
0
81
0
32
0
7
0
6
0
1
0
50
Bishnupur
0
51
0
52
0
53
0
46
0
44
0
55
0
56
0
43
0
39
0
32
0
33
0
31
0
29
0
30
0
3
0
649
Sargan
0
648
0
647
0
646
0
645
0
644
0
639
0
640
0
625
0
624
0
621
0
620
0
617
0
609
0
611
0
610
0
189
Junagadia
1883 G1/04-17
3583
6
5
37
08
50
02
45
01
04
03
59
02
67
06
90
06
63
04
70
02
10
00
82
14
13
12
29
08
52
03
84
01
09
02
34
07
12
09
10
00
10
00
69
07
15
02
33
16
55
00
66
07
46
01
62
09
89
07
10
00
12
00
89
00
30
05
63
02
15
02
23
08
24
04
41
00
01
04
36
00
78
07
70
08
58
01
16 07
09 02
31
05 3584
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3, 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
1
2
3
4
0
130
96
0
95
0
94
0
100
0
99
0
0
93
501
0
Hinjila
500
0
497
0
494
0
493
0
227
0
219
0
220
0
0
218
213
0
212
0
214
0
211
0
208
209
0
95
0
$27
0
86
0
21
0
22
0
24
0
17
0
25
0
26
0
28
0
507
0
518
0
27
0
507
0
15
0
16
0
17
0
Amara
766
588
587
0
574
584
0
583
0
579
C
522
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii )] 5
6
00
10
07
47
12
21
03
61
03
76
00
19
04
03
00
86
04
19
02
77
07
23
09
45
16
08
00
10
06
75
05
63
01
24
03
96
00
91
03
46
00
28
00
91
01
08
10
90
03
51
02
57
02
82
03
43
12
27
03
68
05
48
00
60
02
09
04
52
00
69
01
92
01
38
00
73
06
44
20
62
02
43
03
69
01
70
09
20
08
17
13
06
03
09 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
4
2
3
1
0
3068
Padabadgan
0
3069
0
3070
0
3066
0
3065
0
3107
0
3108
0
3109
0
3301
0
3225
0
3300
0
3226
0
3299
0
3290
0
3228
0
3284
0
3283
0
3282
0
3281
0
3236
0
3236
0
3233
0
3197
0
3237
0
3195
0
3193
0
3238
0
3192
0
3504
0
3191
0
3190
0
3246
0
263
Bahadalpur
0
323
0
319
0
320
0
321
0
322
0
308
0
313
309
0
285
299
0
298
0
293
0
292
3585
6
5
22
04
94
07
67
08
75
06
05
04
07
03
03
05
52
02
06
01
75
05
51
01
63
18
91
01
84
01
53
01
11
04
76
02
29
00
08
02
62
30
28
00 88
10
94
04
28
00
91
06
69
01
37
00
31
12
46
00
14
10
61
10
10
00
39
04
10
00
32
03
54
02
17
08
31
00
82
23
45
09
57
13
30
01
54
03
37
15
24
04
80
04
[No. R-25011 /19/2004- O.R. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.
3586
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] श्रम मंत्रालय
That Shri Bhagwat Rai Burman was appointed as Sr. LoaderOperator on muster roll w.e.f. 1-10-1980 .
नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004
That Shri Eknath , Mechanic is presently getting wages in the time scale of Rs . 950-1500 and Shri Bhagwat Rai Burman , Sr. Loader Operator is getting the wages in the time scale of Rs . 1200-1800 respectively.
का. आ. 1529.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी. डब्ल्यूडी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 82/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
That after thejudgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Surinder Singh and others vs. Engineer - in- Chief, CPWD dated 17-1-1986, the workman got arrears of wages as equal pay for equal work as their counterparts have been getting the pay scales attached to their posts .
[सं. एल -42011/11/94- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004
That the management has been performing the work for maintenance of building , road , construction work etc. so the establishment is covered under Section 2 ( g) of the payment ofWages Act , 1936 .
That under the management , more than 25.000 workmen are working in their establishment in Delhi i.e. CPWD/PWD and under the establishment of Executive Engineer , PWD Division-5 , also more than 400 workmen areworking.
S.O. 1529. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 82/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 8-6-2004.
That the management has not been regularising the services of the workmen on the ground that they have not qualified the trade test on the same work they have been performing since their engagement in the grade .
[No. L -42011 / 11 /94-IR(DU)]
KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
That the authorised persons of the above management had taken the trade test and completed all the formalities before engaging them on muster roll so both of them are performing their duties efficiently and acquired sufficient experience and knowledge in the actual discharge of duties attachedto the posts held by them.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - II , RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI
LD . No. 82/95
In the matter of:--
Shri Eknath and Bhagwat Rai Burman
Versus
That the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhagwati Prasad and Delhi State Mineral Development in thejudgement dated 15th of December , 1989 has held that once the appointments were made as daily rated workers and they were allowed to work for a considerable length of time, it would be hard and harsh to deny them the confirmation in the respective posts on the ground that they lack the prescribed eduational qualifications .
Management of C.P.W.D.
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -42011/ 11/ 94 - IR ( DU ) Central Government Dt . 04-08-1995 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder: --
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that Shri Eknath was engaged as a daily wages worker (Muster Roll -Khallasi) w.e.f. 20-10-1984 i.e as unskilled daily wages labour . His wages were increased w.e.f. 26-10-1984 and he continued to work as daily wages worker (Muster roll Assistant Mechanic) . He failed in the trade test as per the result declared by the Supdt. Engineer ( Coordination) on dt .4-10-1993 which is annexure - I . Passing of the trade test is a pre - requisite condition for the recruitment at the post ofmechanic. He also does not possess the trade certificate from a recognized Vocational Training Institute.
"Whether the action of the management of C.P.W.D. in not regularising the services of S / Shri Eknath Mechanic and Bhagwat Rai Barman . Sr. Loader Operatorw.e.f. 20-10-1984 and 1-10-1980 respectively is legal and justified ? If not . to what relief the concerned workman are entitled ? "
The claimant has filed statement of claint. In the statement of claim , they have stated that Shri Eknath . workınan was appointed as Muster Roll Mechanic w.e.f. 20-10-84 as skilled workman .
Shri Bhagwat Rai Barman was engaged as Sr. Loader Operator on Muster Roll w.e.f. 1-10-1980 , the pay scales were allowed in the light of judgementdt . 17-01-1986 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
3587 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
workmen should be relaxed in view of their long experience of work. The workmen deserve to be regularised. The reference is replied thus :-
It has been stated in the written statement that they are not eligible for regularisation in their present posts as they do not possess qualifications as laid down in the CPWD Munual .
The workman has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder, they have denied the statement of claims and they have stated that even if they have not passed trade test and even ifthey do not possesses requisite qualification, they have been working for a very long period and they should be regularised at the post at which they are working.
The action of the management of C.P.W.D. is not regularsing the services of S/ Shri Eknath , Mechanic and Bhagwat Rai Barman, Sr. Loader Operator w.e.f. 20-10-1984 and 1-10-1980 respectively is neither justified nor legal. The workmen deserve to be regularised from the date of their initial servicei.e. 20-10-1984 and 1-10-1980 respectively. Dated: 7-6-2004
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
R.N. RAI, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004 का. आ. 1530.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दिल्ली मिल्कस्कीम के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011/49/95- आई.आर. (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004 It has been submitted by the side of the workman thatthey have been employed since 1980 and 1984 so they have worked for a longer period and after considering their qualification, they have been so engaged so they need not be required again to possess qualification or to pass trade tests inview of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court . The Hon'ble APEX Court has held in the matter of Bhagwati Prasad Versus Delhi State Mineral Development in itsjudgementdt . 15th December , 1989 that qualifications are to be considered at the time of initial appointment and test should be taken at the time of initial appointment . The workman who has worked for a very long period, he cannot be required to pass trade test and to possess requisite qualifications as this matter should have been considered at the time of initial appointment . The Hon'ble APEX Court has further held that the qualifications may be relaxed, if the workman has worked for a longer period and passing of the trade test is not necessary , it ought to have been taken at the time of initial appointment, the workman had worked since 1980-1984 as they possess sufficient qualification and they have worked for 11 to 15 years .
S.O. 1530.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/98 ) 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 Delhi Milk Scheme and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
Itwas argued from the side of the management that theworkman do not possess the required qualification and they have not passed the trade test . For their regularisation, minimum requisite qualification is necessary.
[No. L-42011/49/95 -IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI LD. No. 67/98
Inthe matter of:-
In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement, the passing of the trade test after 10-11 years service is not necessary . Even the educational qualifications may be relaxed in case the employees have worked for a very long period. The employees in this case are working since 1984 and 1980 so till date they have put more than 20 years of service . After completion of 20 years of service , the requisite qualifications cannot be expected from them. It should be relaxed. So far as trade test is concerned, the Hon'ble APEX Court has held that the trade test is not essential it should be taken at the stage of initial appointment.
Dharam Chand
Versus
Management of Delhi Milk Scheme AWARD
TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -42011/49/ 95 - IR(DU) Central Governmentdt. 20-02-1998 has referred That in the Light ofthe judgement ofthe APEX Court, theworkmen deserve to be regularised on the post held at present from the date of their appointment i.e. 20-10-1984 and 1-10-1980 . The rules ofestablishment regarding recruitment cannot be override or brush aside the directions of the Hon'ble APEX Court . As such , trade test and minimum educational qualification in respect of these two 3588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
the following point for adjudication . The Point runs as hereunder
"Whether the action of the management of Delhi Milk Scheme in denying regularisation and promotion to Shri Dharam Chand , Boiler- cum-Mechanic while regularising and promoting his junior Shri Dharam Singh , even though he also did not meet the qualification requirement is legal andjustified? Ifnot to what relief is the workman entitled to ? " The workman has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim, he has stated that he has worked for about five years as fireman/boiler inechanic in factories in Haryana . He was awarded a second class Boiler Attendant Certificate of competence from Delhi State in April, 1964, and was thus qualified to hold the post of Boiler -cum- Mechanic. The appointment was for a specific period from 5-7-1964 and he was directedto report for duty on 5-7-1964 atthe Milk Collection and Chilling Centre, Baghpat. He reported for duty on the forenoon of 5-7-1964, the workman continued to be in employment as badli Boiler- cum-Mechanic at various centres upto 31-12-1965 when his services were terminated on the alleged grounds of not possessing middle class educational qualification.
That the management of Delhi Milk Scheme notified the new Recruitment Rules for the post of Boiler- cum- Mechanic on 5-7-1964 which were prescribed as follows:-
Middle School standard pass .
Mustpossess 2nd class Boiler Attendant Certificate .
Must have 3 years experience as Boiler Attendant out of which at least one year should be after obtaining the Boiler-Attendant Certificate .
Ithas been further stated that a proviso bearing No. 7-111/64/DD was however, introduced in the recruitment rules on 23-12-1964 . According to the said proviso "nothing in these rules shall be deemed to preclude any person holding any of the said posts on a regular basis at the commencement of these rules from being confirmed in that post ...... " Thus , a provision was made that persons already appointed prior to the promulgation of the new recruitment rules would not suffer any infirmity , and the workman was appointed prior to promulgation of the said Recruitment Rules ,
It has been further stated that " Badli " means a worker who is employed for the purpose of working in place of regular employees who are temporarily absent .
"Provided that a badli worker who has actually worked for not less than 240 days in any period of 12 months shall be transferred to regular establishment governed by the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules . " It has been stated in the statement of claim that he has not been regularised and the termination of the services is arbitrary and illegal .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] The management has filed written statement and it has been stated in the written statement that the claimant has filed petition in the Central Administrative Tribunal and was dismissed on merit, hence the present claim petition is barred by the principle of res-judicata , hence liable to be dismissed.
That the present claim petition is barred by the limitation as the claimant approached this Hon'ble Tribunal after more than 35 years , hence liable to be dismissed.
Itiswrong and denied that the claimant worked about five years as Fireman/Boiler Mechanic . However, it is submitted that claimant was appointed on daily wages for different periods during the year 1964-65 . Some of the paragraphs of the claim have been admitted and most of the statement ofparagraphs have been denied . It is further submitted that the workman worked for 32 days in 1964 and 223 days in 1965 so he has not worked for 240 days in any calendar year. Age limit for direct recruitment is between 18 to 25 years . Educational and other qualifications are middle school.
The claimant has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder he has stated that he has worked for more than 240 days and he has emphatically denied all the allegations of the written statement .
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . Letter dt. 15-10-1982 indicates that the workman does not have the requisite qualification so his case was not considered for promotion.
Acertificate has already been issued that Shri Dharam Chand/mate was appointed as Boiler -cum -Mechanic in Delhi Milk Scheme on daily wages w.e.f. 5-7-1964 and he worked for Boiler- cum - Mechanic for 169 days from 8-1-1965 to 25-6-1965 continuously without any break at the Collection &Chilling Centre, Dhanakaur . Acopy of letterdt. 7-1-1965 from Delhi Milk Scheme and note dt. 25-6-1965 from Officer Incharge , Dhankaur shows that the workman worked on all holidays . The workman was relieved from his duties on 25-6-1965 aftemoon and worked as Boiler-cum-Mechanic atthe Central Dairy from 29-6-1965 to 26-7-1965 for 28 days , thenworked for 61 days from 1-10-1965 to 30-11-1965 . When his services were terminated on 30-11-1965 afternoon, the workman had rendered continuous service for 258 days during the preceding twelve months .
It was argued from the side of the management that since the workman has not completed 240 days in 12 months , he is not entitled to get the benefit of proviso . He has worked in the year 1965 for 223 days in eight months and w.e.f5-7-1964 to 5-8-1964 for 32 days . As such , he has worked for only 9 months in total. The workman has worked for 255 days in two years i.e. 1964-1965 . He has not worked for 240 days in 12 months or a calendar year . So proviso is not applicable in his case . It has been further submittedby the management that he does not come under the age limit as well as the educational qualification so he was not regularised in view of circular referred to above .
3589 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENTINDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEWDELHI
LD. No. 10/94
PresidingOfficer : R.N.RAI.
In the matter of:-
Chander Bhan
Versus
Dr. RamManohar Lohia Hospital
AWARD
It has been submitted from the side of the workman that he has worked for 255 days so he should be regularised. So far as the working period of the workman is concerned, it relates to one month in 1964 , and eight months in 1965 so he has worked for 9 months and that too on leave vacancy as is evident from the certificate filed by the workman himself. If some month , he has worked for 5 days only and itindicates that whenever any employee in any department was absent due to leave , he was called and posted there so he has not worked regularly for 12 months or 240 days. It is the burden of the workman to prove that he has worked for 240 days but this workman has failed to prove that he has worked for 240 days continuously in 12 months or 240 days in a year . As such , the action of the management is justified . He has filed this ID case after 35 years . Though there is no period of limitation but 35 years period is a long period and he has not completed the 240 days work . So his claim is liable to be rejected and he is not entitled to any relief.
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -42012/55/ 93- IR(DU) Central Govemment Dt. 07-01-1993 has referred the following point for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder:-
The award is replied thus: -
"Whether the Medical Supdt . , Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital , New Delhi isjustified in removing Shri ChanderBhan, Nursing Attendant from service w.e.f. 2-12-1988 ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?
The action of the management ofDelhi Milk Scheme in denying regularisation and promotion to Shri Dharam Chand, Boiler - cum-Mechanic while regularising and promoting his junior Shri Dharam Singh, even though he also did not meet the qualification requirement is legal and justified. The workman is not entitle to get any relief.
The workman was appointed as TemporarilyNursing Orderly in the Hospital in scale of Rs . 196-220- EB - 3-232 plus usual allowances as admissible w.e.f. 19-4-1980 (FN) .
Dated: 26-05-2004
R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer
That the above said workman had unblemished and untouched record of services to his credit and he had never given a chance of complaint to the management .
नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2004
Thatall of a sudden and to his great surprise , the above said workman was asked to submit explanation about the certificate submitted by him at the time of appointment.
Shri I.J.S. Bhatia, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer for holding a domestic enquiry into the charges levelled against the said workman , by the management.
का० आ० 1531.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डा. राम मनोहर लोहिया अस्पताल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 11 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
Hewas not afforded full opportunity of being heard andthe enquiry officer being an employee of the hospital wasbiased .
[सं. एल -42012/55 /93- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 8th June , 2004
That the enquiry so conducted by the hospital authority against the workman was not fair and proper and the charges levelled against the workman were baseless , and frivolous .
S.O. 1531. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 10/94) 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 Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
[No. L-42t ) 12/55/93 -IR(DU)]
KULDIPRAI VERMA, Desk Officer
That the workman at the time ofhis employment was asked to submit the certificates i. e . Birth Certificate, School Leaving Certificate of the Head Master, M.C. Primary School , Dabri , New Delhi . The workman further applied to the school authorities for changing his name as Chander Bhan instead of Maha Singh, and on his request the said certificate was issuedby the school in the name ofChander Bhan which was submitted by the workman to the management. Unfortunately , the school authorities had not corrected the name of the workman in the school records and as such at the time ofverification , the school authorities could not certify the correctness of the said school leaving 3590
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
was given and a certificate in the name of Chander Bhan was issued but in the school record . it was not corrected.
certificate to the management . It is pertinent to mention here that if the workman had any malafide intention then he could not have submitted the said certificate to the management . Further if the said school certificate had been false then the father's name of the workman , his date of birth and the caste to which the workman belongs would not have been the same as given in the said school leaving certificate at admission No. 627 .
The management has filed written statement . The management has stated that the claim is bad for non -joinder and mis -joinder of necessary parties as much as the workman has failed to implead Union of India, which is necessary party in the matter and the same is liable to be dismissed .
That the workman was removed from service after holding departmental enquiry and considering the findings of departmental inquiry conducted under CCS Rules for submission of a false SLC at the time of his appointment w.e.f. 2-12-1988 . The workman was employed in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital , New Delhi , temporarily w.e.f. 19-4-1980 and forefeits his right to claim terminal Gratuity onhis removal as penalty .
It has been stated in the written statement that the workman who entered into Government service on the basis ofa false certificate of education deserves no leniency on the part of the management and the Medical Supdt . was jujstified in removing hun from service after a proper departmental inquiry .
It was sumbitted by the management that he has submitted the certificate of Chander Bhan son of Shri Balbir Singh whereas in the school register , his name has been recorded as Maha Singh son of Shri Balbir Singh and he haspassed. He passed 5th class in 1974 so his date of birth is the same. Father's name is the same and according to Village Pradhan certificate , the address of the village is also the same. It cannot be said that Maha Singh and Chander Bhan are not the same person . On going through the evidence on record , it appears that Maha Singh was his nick name but the workman applicant was negligent . He did not get his name corrected and therefore , the departmental enquiry was held and his services were terminated . As such , the workman has committed a serious mistake and the opposite party has to institute the enquiry . Since Maha Singh and Chander Bhan have got the same parentage , same age and same address and his photo has been certified as Maha Singh and the photo of Chander Bhan is the same . The workman applicant is the same . So it appears that by mistake in school register, his nick name was recorded and when an enquiry was made , it came to the knowledge of the opposite party that he had filed a false certificate . The certificate is not false one but it is due to mistake that his name rernained Maha Singh whereas the date of birth, his address and his father's name is the same. These are such circumstances which undoubtedly indicate that Shri Maha Singh and Chander Bhan are one and the same person .
That the workman has caused the great difficulty to the management by producing apparently a false certificate so the workman is not entitled to get any back wages . He is entitled to the reinstated in service from 1-1-2000 and he will get due increments but no back wages .
The award is replied thus: -
The workınan has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder , he has denied all the allegations of the written statement and has emphatically submitted that Shri Maha Singh and Chander Bhan are the same persons . It is due to the illiteracy ofhis grand mother that she got his nick name recorded in the school instead of his actual name Chander Bhan and thatis on the records of the MC Primary School. The name of the workman existed as Maha Singh instead of Chander Bhan. The said facts were duly brought in the knowledge of the management by submitting different documentsto this effect i.e. a certificate issued by Head Master of M.C. Primary Schooldt. 27-5-1987, upon which the photo was also attested by the principal .
The Medical Supdt . , Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital , New Delhi is not completely justified in removing Shri Chandr Bhan , Nursing Attendant from service w.e.f. 2-12-1988 . The workman is entitled to be reinstated from 1-1-2000 with due increments but without any back wages .
The award is given accordingly . Dated: 4-6-2004.
R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 जून, 2004
Heard arguinents from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . It was argued frorn the side of the workman that workman and Maha Singh are one and the same person . A certificate to this effect of Village Pradhan Dabri was also submitted to the management and a certificate from the Head Master of M.C. Primary School , Dabri , New Delhi alongwith attested copy of the photograph of the workman was also submitted to prove the genuineness of the school leaving certificate issued by the Head Master of the same institution.
का० आ० 1532 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, आकाशवाणी प्रबंधतंत्र के बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण जोधपुर ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2004 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
It was argued further that these paper established the fact that Maha Singh and Chander Bhan are the one and the same person. It may be thought by his illiterate grand mother that the name of his grand son was Maha Singh and the same was recorded in the school register but subsequently rectification was made and the application
[सं. एल-22012/254/2001- आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन० पी० केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी 3591 भारत का रोजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12,1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 8th June, 2004
S.O. 1532. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/2002) of the Industrial Tribunal, Jodhpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Akashvani and their workmen , received bythe Central Government on 7-6-2004.
[No. L-42012/254/2001 -IR(C- II)]
N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
अनुबंध
औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर
पीठासीन अधिकारी:- श्रीमती निशा गुप्ता, आर.एच.जे.एस. औ.वि. ( केन्द्रीय )
सं.:- 20/2002
अर्जुन कुमार पुत्र श्री वल्लभ जी जाति ब्राह्मण निवासी प्लॉट नं . 47 रिफ्युजी कॉलोनी,
प्रार्थी
प्रतापनगर, जोधपुर
बनाम
केन्द्र निदेशक, आकाशवाणी,
पावटा सीरोड़,
अप्रार्थी
जोधपुर
उपस्थिति:-
(1 ) प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री एल.एल. शर्मा उप.
(2) अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री रवि भैसाली उप.
अधिनिर्णय
दिनांक 2-4-2004
अप्रार्थी ने उक्त एवार्ड की पालना न कर माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में रिंट याचिका प्रस्तुत कीजिसमें दोनों पक्षों को सुनकर 7-3-95 को याचिका निर्णित करते हुए मामला केन्द्रीय न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर को 240 दिन की गणना हेतु प्रेषित कर दिया, केंन्द्रीय न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा पुनः दोनों पक्षों को सुनकर 5-1-96 को निर्णय पारित किया व प्रार्थी की सेवा को निरन्तर बनाये रखते हुए पुनः सेवा में बहाल होने का व जाँच की अवधि का समस्त वेतन व अन्य आर्थिक लाभ नियमानुसार प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी घोषित किया जिसपर अप्रार्थी न पुनः रिट याचिका पेश की जिसपर माननीय उच्च न्यायालय ने पुनः 23-10-97 को याचिका निर्णित करते हुए 240 दिवस की गणना हेतु केन्द्रीय न्यायाधिकरण जयपुर को प्रकरण प्रेषित किया, केन्द्रीय न्यायाधिकरण द्वारा उच्च न्यायालय के निर्देशानुसार पुनः सुनवाई कर 26-11-97 को एवार्ड जारी किया व प्रार्थी की 3-3-84 से सेवा समाप्ति को अनुचित व अवैध घोषित करते हुए सेवा समाप्ति से सेवा में लिये जाने तक के बीच की अवधि का 50 प्रतिशत वेतन व अन्य लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी घोषित किया जिसपर अप्रार्थी द्वारा पुनः रिट याचिका प्रस्तुत की जो 17-8-99 को निर्णित की गई व 50 प्रतिशत के स्थान पर 30 प्रतिशत वेतन व अन्य लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी घोषित किया, उक्त निर्णय के विरुद्ध अप्रार्थी ने कोई अपील नहीं की व निर्णय के पश्चात् प्रार्थी अप्रार्थी के यहां काम पर उपस्थित हो गया परन्तु उसे कार्य पर नहीं लिया गया व अन्ततः दिनांक 15-11-99 को कार्य पर लिया व 15-3-2000 को पुनः अचानक आदेश जारी कर प्रार्थी की सेवाएं समाप्त कर दी जो 25- एफ के प्रावधानों के सर्वथा विपरीत है तथा अनुचित श्रम अभ्यास है । यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी को हटाने के पश्चात् राजेन्द्र को चपरासीं से एल.डी.सी. के पद पर स्थाई कर दिया अन्नाराम को भी चपरासी पद पर स्थाई करदिया, 1987 में ओमप्रकाश की नियुक्तिकी जिसे भी माली के पद पर स्थाई कर दिया। यह भी कहा गया है कि 15-11-99 को कार्य पर लेने के पश्चात् पिछला बकाया का भुगतान भी नियमानुसार नहीं दिया बल्कि35194/ की राशि ही अदा की । अन्त में निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी की 15-3-2000 से सेवामुक्ति अनुचित एवं अवैध घोषित की जाकर प्रार्थी को पुनः सेवा की निरन्तरता में पूर्ण लाभों सहित सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित किये जाने का एवार्ड जारी किया जावे।
श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार नई दिल्ली में अपनी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल. -42012/254/ 2001 दिनांक 29-7-2002 से निम्नविवाद वास्ते अधिनिर्णय इस न्यायालय को प्रेषित किया है :-
e
" क्या निदेशक आकाशवाणी जोधपुर द्वारा श्रमिक श्री अर्जुन. कुमार पुत्र श्री बल्लभ को दिनांक 15-3-2000 से सेवा से पृथक करना उचित एवं वैध है ? यदि नहीं तो श्रमिक क्या राहत पाने का अधिकारी है ? "
अप्रार्थी की ओर से जवाब में कहा गया कि प्रार्थी को आकस्मिक कार्यों के लिए मज़दूरों की आवश्यकता होने पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में मस्टर रोल पर लगाया था, प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1980 में 209 दिन वर्ष 81 में 169 दिन एवं वर्ष 82 में व 83 में 188 दिन कार्य किया, इसके पश्चात्औ. प्राधिकरण जयपुर के निर्णय दिनांक 26-11-97 एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय जोधपुर के निर्णय दिनांक 17-8-99 की पालना में प्रार्थी को दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में पुनः रखा गया । यह कहा गया है कि वास्तव में माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय दिनांक 17-8-99 की पूर्ण रूप से पालना की गई एवं न्यायालय के आदेशानुसारं की प्रार्थी को 17-8-99 से सेवा में लिया माना गया जब कि प्राथर्थी ने वास्तव में उपस्थितिदिनांक 15-11-99 को दी, चूंकि अप्रार्थी कार्यालय में दैनिक वेतन भोगी मजदूरों के लिए स्पेसिफिक कार्य नहीं होने के कारण प्रार्थी को 15-3-2000 को सेवा से पृथक करते हुए औ. वि. अधिनियम की पूर्ण पालना करते हुए प्रार्थी को नियमानुसार भुगतान किया गया जो सही एवं वाजिब है । अप्रार्थी को जब- जब भी आकस्मिक श्रमिकों की आवश्यकता हुई मस्टर रोल पर रखा गया इसके अलावा जब भी वर्ग " घ " के पद रिक्त हुए उन्हें भरने के लिए नियोजन कार्यालय से सूची मंगवाई गई एवं साक्षात्कार की सूची अनुसार नियुक्ति दी गई इसी क्रम में प्रार्थी ने अपना मांग - पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए अभिकथित कियाकि प्रार्थी की नियुक्तिअप्रार्थी केअधीन 1-4-1980 को दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में हुई, प्रार्थी 22-6-83 को जब कार्य पर उपस्थित हुआ तो उसे बिना कारण के अप्रार्थी ने कार्य पर लेने से मना कर दिया, पत्र व्यवहार करने पर प्रार्थी को पुनः 9-1-84 को कार्य पर लिया परन्तु 3-3-84को पुनः बिना किसी कारण के सेवाएं समाप्त कर दीं जिसपर प्रार्थी ने केन्द्रीय श्रम आयुक्त, अजमेर के समक्ष विवाद प्रस्तुत किया लेकिन वार्ता असफल रही और मामला केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, जयपुर को निर्णय हेतु प्रेषित किया, केन्द्रीय न्यायाधिकरण , जयपुर द्वारा दोनों पक्षों को सुनकर 15-4-93 को निर्णयं करते हुए प्रार्थी की सेवाऐं 3-3-84 से समाप्त करने की कार्यवाही को अवैध अनुचित घोषित किया तथः पार्थी को संत्रा की निरन्तरता में सभी लाभों व पिछले समस्त वेतन साहे .अत्रा में पुन पापित किये जाने का अधिनिर्णय पारित किया,
1883 G1/04--18 3592
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]
को अवसर दिया जायेगा परन्तु प्रार्थी को ऐसा कोई अवसर नहींदिया गया।
यह स्थिति भी स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी के अधीन 1-4-80 से काम कर रहा था और उसे 15-3-2000 को 20 वर्ष की सेवा अवधि पूर्ण करने के पश्चात् काम नहीं होने के आधार पर हटाया गया परन्तु इसके पूर्व वरिष्ठता के क्रम का कोई ध्यान रखा गया हो ऐसी कोई स्थिति प्रस्तुत नहीं की गई है । प्रार्थी का यह कथम है कि राजेन्द्र, अन्माराम आदि को स्थाई कर दिया गया है इसका कोई खण्डन विपक्षी की ओर से प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है । विपक्षी की ओर से पेश साक्षी राकेश अम्बा को इस सम्बन्ध में कोई जानकारी नहीं है ।
राजेन्द्र एवं अन्नाराम को नियोजन कार्यालय की सूची अनुसार चपरासी एवं फरार्श के पद पर नियुक्ति दी गई जब कि प्रार्थी का नाम नियोजन कार्यालय से कभी प्राप्त नहीं हुआ, ओमप्रकाश माली की नियुक्ति भी वर्ष 1993 में नियोजन कार्यालय के मार्फत चयन के पश्चात् की गई । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को 3-3-84 से 14-11-99 की अवधि का बैंक वैजज माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशानुसार 35174 रुपये का भुगतान किया जा चुका है । यह कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी मस्टर रोल पर कार्य करता था साथ- साथ अपनी चाय का ठेला भी करता था चूंकि अप्रार्थी को अब दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है इसलिये धारा 25- एफ ( बी ) की पूर्ण रूप से पालना करते हुए 15-3-2000 का आदेश पारित किया है जो सही है । अन्त में निवेदन किया कि प्रार्थी का मांग-पत्र सव्यय खारिज किया जावे ।
मांग- पत्र के समर्थन में स्वयं प्रार्थी ने अपना शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत किया जिसपर अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई तथा अप्रार्थी की ओर से राकेश अम्बा का शपथ- पत्र पेश किया जिस पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधी द्वारा जिरह की गई । प्रार्थी की ओर से विभिन्न दस्तावेज़ात की फोटो स्टेट प्रतियां पेश की गईं ।
इस प्रकार प्रार्थी को बिना कारण हटाने का उद्देश्य उसे परेशान करना मात्र प्रतीत होता है और यह श्रम विरोधी कृत्य स्पष्टतौर से प्रतीत होता है, पुनः नियोजन में भी प्रार्थी को कोई अवसर नहीं दिया गया, यह स्थिति स्वयं प्रतीत होती है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा सेवा मुक्ति का विवाद न्यायालय में पेश करने के कारण उसे सेवा पृथक किया गया है । 20 वर्ष की सेवा अवधि पूर्ण करने के पश्चात् श्रमिक को बिना कारण हटाने का कोई आधार नहीं है ।
दोनो पक्षों के प्रतिनिधीगण की बहस सुनी, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया।
प्रार्थी की ओर से डब्लु.एल.सी. राजस्थान 1998 ( यू.सी ) पेज 328 वीरेन्द्र कुमार शर्मा बनाम श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर का विनिश्चय पेश किया जिसमें कर्मकार को परिभाषित किया गया जिसका कोई विवाद नहीं है । प्रार्थी द्वारा यह कहा गया कि उसे 1-4-80 को दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में नियोजित किया गया, उसकी सेवाएं 3-3-84 को समाप्त कर दी गईं परन्तु न्यायिक निर्णय के पश्चात्उसे 15-11-99 को पुनः कार्य पर लिया गया और 15-3-2000 के आदेश से उसकी सेवा समाप्त कर दीगई जो त्रुटीपूर्ण है जब कि उससे कनिष्ठ राजेन्द्र, अन्नाराम ओमप्रकाश आदि को स्थाई कर दिया गया है ।
विपक्षी द्वारा यह कहा गया कि प्रार्थी की आवश्यकता नहीं होने के आधार पर उसे हटाया गया और नई नियुक्ति के समय नियोजन कार्यालय से प्राथी का नाम नहीं आया था अतः उसे नियुक्ति नहीं दी गई ।
प्रार्थी की ओर से 1992 ( 1 ) डब्लु. एल. सी. ( राज. ) पेज 708 लोकेश कुमार बनाम राजस्थान राज्य, 1999( 1 ) डब्लु.एल.सी. ( राज. ) पेज 43 मदन सिंह रावत बनाम अजमेर सेन्ट्रल कॉपरेटिव बैंक, 2002 (3) डब्लु.एल.सी. राजस्थान पेज 728 भवानी सिंह बनाम राज्य के विनिश्वय पेश किये जिसमें स्पष्ट किया गया है कि जब नियमित पद हैं तब दैनिक श्रमिकों को नियोजित करना और उन्हें लम्बे समय तक इसी रूप में रखना त्रुटीपूर्ण है श्रम पद्वति है । प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में भी स्थिति इसी के समान है , प्रार्थी 1980 से विपक्षी के अधीन नियोजित है, उसके बावजूद भी बिना कारण सेवापृथक करना और पुनः नियोजन में धारा 25- एच की पालना नहीं किया जाना त्रुटीपूर्ण है ।
प्रार्थी ने अपनी प्रतिपरीक्षा में यह कथन किया है कि नियोजन कार्यालय की सूची में उसका नाम आया था या नहीं उसे पता नहीं और उसे गलत तौर पर हटाया है ।
विपक्षी की ओर से राकेश अम्बा अधीक्षण अभियन्ता पेश हुए हैं उन्हें राजेन्द्र , अन्नाराम ओमप्रकाश के सम्बन्ध में कोई जानकारी नहीं है, इन्होंने इस बात से इन्कार किया है कि प्रार्थी को दुर्भावना से हटाया हो ।
प्रार्थीकी सेवामुक्ति 15-3-2000 को की गई जब कि यह रेफरेन्स श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार द्वारा इस न्यायालय को 29-7-2002 को प्रेषित किया गया, यह स्थिति भी सही है कि प्रार्थी ने 15-3-2000 के पश्चात् कोई कार्य नहीं किया है अतः समस्त तथ्यों एवं परिस्थितियों को देखते हुए प्रार्थी को रेफरेन्स की तिथि 29-7-2002 से आदेश की पालना तक 25 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्व भूति के रूप में दिलाई जाती है।
प्रार्थी की ओर से विभिन्न निर्णय जो उसके पक्ष में हुए वे पेश किये गये हैं जिससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी की सेवा मुक्ति पूर्व में अवैध मानी गई थी और उसे पुनः सेवा में स्थाई करने का आदेश दिया गया, उसकी सेवाएं निरन्तर मानी गईं ।
अधिनिर्णय
अतः यह अधिनिर्णित किया जाता है कि निर्देशक आकाशवाणी जोधपुर द्वारा श्रमिक श्री अर्जुन कुमार पुत्र श्री बल्लभ को दिनांक 15-3-2000 से सेवा पृथक करना अनुचित एवं अवैध है । अतः आदेशित किया जाता है कि विपक्षी नियोजक प्रार्थी को तुरन्त सेवा में पुर्नस्थापित करे, प्रार्थी की सेवाएं निरन्तर मानी जावेगी, प्रार्थी विपक्षी नियोजक से रेफरेन्सकी तिथि 29-7-2002 से आदेश की पालना तक 25 प्रतिशत राशि पूर्व भूति के रूप में प्राप्त करेगा ।
निशा गुप्ता, न्यायाधीश 15-3-2000 का आदेश पेश हुआ है जिसमें कहा गया है कि प्रार्थी के लिए कोई विशिष्ट कार्य नहीं है अतः उसे हटाया जा रहा है । परन्तु म्वंय विपक्षी के जवाब से यह स्थिति स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी को हटाने के बाद अन्य व्यक्तियों राजेन्द्र , अन्नाराम आदि को नियोजित किया गया एवं नियोजन के पूर्व प्रार्थी को कोई नोटिस भेजा गया हो या उसे नियांजन का कोई अवसर दिया गया हो ऐसी स्थिति नहीं है । विपक्षी का यह कहना कि नियोजन कार्यालय से नाम नहीं आया परन्तु नियोजन कार्यालय से नाम नहीं आने मात्र से विपक्षी धारा 25 - एच के प्रावधानों की पालना करने से मुक्त नहीं हो जाता । धारा 25 - एच में यह स्थिति स्पष्ट है कि यदि नियोक्ता पुनः नियोजन करेगा तो पूर्व में कार्यरत श्रमिकों 1
3593 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
नई दिल्ली, ३ जून, 2004
ofthe bank from 5-8-1986 but he was required to perform theduties/functions ofa full -fledged poon-cum-waterman from the very date of his appointment. He was assigned thejob ofgoing to the post offices for delivery registered dak, telegrams etc. He deposited the amounts ofelectricity bills, telephone bills ofthe branch whenever received, का. आ. 1533 ,-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संत्रक नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दित्व औधोगिक विभाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 113/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12012/267/96- आई. आर. ( बी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
That apart from requiring the workman to perform theduties ofan office peon-cum - waterman, as mentioned above, the services of the workman were also being utilized by the branch to work in the staff canteen established by thebank for providing canteen service to the staff at their seats.
New Delhi, the 8th June, 2004
That the staff canteen which was situated in the premises ofthebranch was being managed by a Committee consisting of the Manager and Accountant and one more official ofthe Branch, which, apart from looking after the entire affairs of the staff canteen was also maintaining accounts of the staff canteen and was determining the costs oftea, coffee and other articles to be supplied by the staff canteen.
S.O. 1833,-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 113 / 97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, New Delhi - II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government an 8-6-04 .
[No. L- 12012/267/96- IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
That the amount which was being paid to the workmanby the Bank through the account ofstaff canteen committee was Rs . 300 per month to start with which was increased from time to time and was Rs . 600 per month at the time of termination of services of the workman in 1995 and as regards the performance of duties ofa water server inthe office, the workman was being paid Rs. 100 for this dutyby way of monthly vouchers which are on the record ofthe Branch concerned.
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI
R. N. RAI : Presiding Officer
LD. NO. 113/97
In the Matter of :
That neither any written order/letter terminating the sevices of the workman , nor any prior notice therefore was given to the workman by management and his services were terminated just by way of oral orders of the Branch Manager, and even though the workman had been working continuously in the Branch , no reterenchment compensation and notice pay was paid to him while terminating his services from 20-6-1995.
HARI SHANKAR VERSUS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
AWARD
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it has been stated that the bank never appointed Shri Hari Shankar in its subordinate cadre as Peon and as such, there is no employer and employee relationship between the bank and Shri Hari Shankar.
TheMinistry of Labourby Its letter No. L - 12012/267/ 96/IR (B- II) Contral Government dt . 29-07-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as herounder:
"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , Bulandsahar in terminating the services of Shri Hari Shankar, Ex-daily wager w.e.f 20-06-1995 is legal and justified ? If not, to' what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date ? "
That he was contracted by the branch to provide certain services which are totally unrelated to the main function of the bank such as purchase of electrical goods , candles , match box etc. for which he was compensated at agreed rates . As and when the job came to an end, his engagement also came to end authomatically. As such the alleged termination/dis - engagement cannot be termed as termination in view of specific provisions of the Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the ID Act .
The claimant has filed statement of claim. In his statement of claim , he has stated that he was appointed at Debal Branch of Punjab National Bank under its Bulandshar Region w.o.f. 5-8-1986,
That some of the paragraphs of the statement of claim have been denied and some have been admitted and it has been stated emphatically that he was a canteen contractor and not an employee of the bank. He was made lumpsum payment according to his work .
That no formal letter was given by the management to the wrokman at the time of taking him in the employment 3594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
failed to establish this fact, he is not entitled to get any reliefas prayed for.
1
The award is replied thus:
Shri Hari Shankar was not an employee either temporary or otherwise of the bank and there was no appointment letter , service agreement etc. and as such there is no question of taking Shri Hari Shankar in the permanent service of the bank . Also reasons given by Shri Hari Shankar in the stateinent of claim are not applicable . The decision to discontinue the contract was not illegal . His claim of being treated as permanent employee is not maintainable.
The action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Bulandsahar in terminating the services of Shri Hari Shankar , Ex -daily wager w.e.f. 20-06-1995 is legal and justified. The workman is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
The award is given accordingly .
Dated: 27-05-2004
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer
नईदिल्ली , 9 जून , 2004
That the workman has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder, he has stated that he performed the duties of full time member of the subordinate staff at Debai Branch froin 5-8-1986 10 20-06-1995 when his services were terminated by the Manager of the Branch . He was not a contractor and there was no agreement of contract for supplying , tea and snakes etc. He was a workman of the branch office and he prepared tea for them besides preparation of tea etc.He performed other duties of the peon and he worked regularly inthe thank
का. आ. 1534,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा ० को० को० लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , II धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-06-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/7/97- आई. आर. ( सी. 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
NewDelhi, the 9th June, 2004 Heard arguments from both the sides of the parties and perused the papers on the record . It was argued from the side of the workman that the National Federation of Bank Employees Union , Ghaziabad has espoused his case. As such , according to the union, he was a workman . If he made unauthorized entries in the record, the action should be taken against those persons who are the custodians of therecord but the management witness has admitted that no action by the bank has been taken against those employees of the bank . From the evidence of the management witness, it is clear that he has not made any unauthorized entry in the registers . He has filed few vouchers to which payments have been made and he has delivered dak registers .
S.O. 1534. - 1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 25/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , II Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-06-20104.
[No. L-20012/7/97 - IR( C - 1 )] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTAL 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 . 25 OF 1998
PARTIES :
Employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman .
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the workman
: None
: Mr. H. Nath , Advocate
On behalf of the employers
It was argued from the side of the management that there are rules regarding the appointinent of a peon in the bank and the Branch Manager has got no power to recruit any person as Peon . Annexure W/ 1 shows that workman was paidbut in all the vouchers , certain daks were given to the workman for delivery to the parties ctc . Labour charges have been paid to Shri Hari Shankar on 09-01-1995 . Water and electricity charges paid to Shri Hari Shankar. This indicates that Shri Hari Shankar received payments for a particular work he has done . The amount paidto Shri Hari Shankar for water charges for the month of June , 1995 is Rs .6h only. These vouchers can also prove that Shri Hari Shankar was employed in the bank but he did some duties of the bank of particular period for which separate payment have been made but these payments are for 10 days work on different dates . It is the duty of the workman to show that he has worked for more than 240 days but no paper bas been filed. Simply some vouchers have been filed but they are for labour charges or electricity and light charges and not regular payments , as such, the workman applicant has received no regular payment monthly . He has not filed any paper which may indicate that he was getting monthly payment . Only 2-3 vouchers for labour charges, electricity charges cannot establish the fact that he continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year . Since he has State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Dated, Dhanbad , the 17th May , 2004
AWARD
TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act . 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/7 / 97- IR(Coal- I) , dated, the 20th/ 27th February , 1998 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Baiju Mohra, Ex. Miner Loader of Angarpathra Colliery isjustified and legal ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? "
2. Case of the concerned workman according to Written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union on his behalf in brief is as follows:
The sponsoring Union submitted that the concerned workman was a permanent Miner/Loader at Angarpathra Colliery . The alleged that the management without any sufficient ground issued a chargesheet dt . 23-5-94 with the allegation of committing misconduct under clause 26 ( 1 ) for remaining himself for unauthorised absence with effect from 25-3-94 . They submitted that the concerned workman had no intention at all to remain himself absent from duty. But the circumstances compelled him from time to time to be absent as there is none to look after in his family and also his brother would remain ill always and there is none to look after him. They submitted that inspite of accepting reply submittedby the concerned workman management decided to hold domestic enquiry against him. They alleged that on the basis of purverse enquiry report submitted by the enquiry Officer management dismissed the concerned workman from his service illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principles of natural justice. Accordingly they submitted representation to the management to reconsider the order for dismissal and to allow him to join his service but as the management did not do anything in view of their appeal they preferred an industrial dispute which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service setting aside the order of dissmisal and alongwith other consequential relief.
3. Management on the contrary after filing Written statement- cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegation which the sponsoring Union asserted in their W.S. submitted on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned worknfan was chargesheeted on 23-5-94 for absenting frorn duty unauthorisedly without sanction of leave and permission from the management as his reply to the chargesheet was not found satisfactory the disciplinary authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against the concerned workman and accordingly appointed Mr. J.K. Sinha , Dy. P.M. as Enquiry Officer. They submitted that the concerned workman during hearing of the enquiry
3595 proceeding fully participated and full opportunity was given to him to defend his case . After completion of the hearing ofthe Enquiry Proceeding the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . Accordingly disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the enquiry report and also considering all other aspects including his past conduct dismissed the concerned workman from his service. They submitted that they did not commit any illegality or took any arbitrary decision is dismissing the concerned workman from service. Accordingly in view of the facts and circumstances they further submitted that prayer of the concerned workman for his reinstatement in service is liable to be rejected .
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Baiju Mohra, Ex-Miner Loader of Angarpathra Colliery is justified and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration whether domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman by the management through enquiry officer was fair, proper and in accordance with the principal of natural justice or not ? The said issue in preliminary point was disposed vide Order No. 17 dt. 1-12-2003 and it was decided that the domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Here the point for consideration iswhether management have been able to substantiate the charge which has been brought against the concerned workman. Considering the chargesheet which during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M- 1 It transpires that against the concerned workman management have brought two fold allegations . Their first allegation is that the concerned workman started absenting from duty with effect from 25-3-94 unauthorisedly and without taking permission from the management and the second allegation is that the past conduct of the concerned workman in this regard was bad. The concerned workman after receipt of the chargesheet submitted his reply which during evidence wasmarked as Ext. M -2 . In the reply he disclosed that on the ground of the illness of his brother and wife he could not attend to his duty . He further disclosed that his absence from duty was not intentional and for which he submitted prayer to condone unintentional latches committed by him. As the reply given by the concerned workman was not satisfactory management decided to hold domestic enquiry against him. It transpires from the evidence of MW- 1 that he was appointed as Enquiry Officer by the management to hold domestic enquiry against the concerned workman. This witness disclosed that he took up hearing of the enquiry proceeding in presence of the concerned workman and gave him full opportunity to defend his case . During hearing of the enquiry proceeding the concerned workman 3596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12, 1926
took the same plea for remaining himself absent from duty witheffect from 25-3-94 . It transpires that inspite ofgiving full opportunity the concerned workman did not consider necessary to produce a single scrap of paper to show that hisbrother and thereafter his wife fell ill and for which he could not attend to his duty . No. satisfactory explanation isforthcoming on the part of the concerned workman to the effect what circumstances prevented him to intimate the management well ahead about the illness of his brother and wife which compelled him to remain himself absent . It is seen from the document Ext . M - 7 that the concerned workman during past three years i. e . during 1991 , 1992 and 1993 worked under the management for 12 days , 56 days and 29 days while during the year 1994 he worked only for 3 days . Therefore, it is seen that since 1991 the concerned workman grossly misused the privilege given to him . It is seen that he took it up as of his desire to attend his duty or not. It is unthinkable to note that during total period of 4 years the concerned workman attended to his duties in all for 100 days . The Ground assigned by the concerned workman for compelling himself absent from duty is far from satisfactory in absence of any medical paper . Accordingly there is no scope to hold that the enquiry officer committed any illegality in holding the concerned workman guilty to the charge in the enquiry report submitted by him. The disciplinary authority after consideration of enquiry report and all other aspect decided to dismiss the concerned workman from his service and accordingly he was dismissed from his service with immediate effect . Order ofdismissaldt. 12-11-94 was marked as Ext . M - 8 during evidence of MW - 1 .
I have carefully considered the charges brought against the concerned workınan , his reply and also papers relating to enquiry papers and I am fully satisfied that the management have been able to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman.
6. Now the point for consideration is whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief under Section 11A of the I.D. Act , 1947. Section 11A of the I. D. Actspeaks as follows :
"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge ordismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and in the course of the adjudication proceedings, the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal as the case may be , is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified , it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatcinent 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 . "
Before application of Section 11A of the I.D. Act it is tobe taken into consideration whether punishment imposed up on the concerned workman was justified or note . The
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] charge sheet was issued to the concerned workman not only for his remaining absent with effect from 25-3-94 but also in respect of past attendance . Management through evidence clearly pointed out that during last 3 years precedingto '94 the concerned workman in all attended to his duties for 96 days . Onus accordingly shifted on the concerned workman to establish the ground for his unauthorised absence for years together in such ugly manner. It is to be borne into mind that in every industry maintenance of discipline on the part of the workman is considered with all importance not only for proper production but also for maintenance of admistration . The concerned workman was a permanent employee under the management . As such there is sufficient reason to believe that continuous absence for years together affected the production of the management not only but also indulged in indisciplinary act. No doubt the concerned workman begged apology his conduct. Learned Advocate for the management submitted that if on the basis of apology begged by the concerned workman the order of dismissal is recalled in that case in future not only the concerned workmanbut also other workman will follow the same course and in that case the management will face serious difficulty to maintain proper production and also to keep proper discipline in the industry .He submitted further that dismissal of the concerned workman was justified for the interest andgrowth of the industry as because other workmen will think twice before committing any such illegal acts . As none appeared on behalf of the concerned workman I did not get any chance to hear the reply against submission ofthe learned Advocate for the management .
7. However, after careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances I find sufficient reason to hold that the concerned workman considered to attend his duty as of his choice. He did not consider necessary to maintain discipline as a disciplined worker . It is seen that for years together the concerned workman was in the habit of enjoying unauthorised leave. It is further seen that the management gave sufficient scope to the concerned workman to attend his conduct but he did not consider necessary to do so and for which ultimately management issued the present chargesheet to the concerned workman. Oncareful consideration of all the facts and circumstances Ihold that the management neither committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision in dismissing the concerned workman from his service. I have failed to find any cogent ground relying on which there is scope to say that the order of dismissal issued by the management was unjustified . Accordingly I find no scope to give any relief to the concerned workman under Section 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947. In the result, the following award is rendered:-
"The action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M / s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Baiju Mohra, Ex . Miner Loader of Angarpathra Colliery is justified. Consequently, the concemed workman is not entitled to get any relief. "
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer 3597 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़12, 1926
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
dependent son of Smt . Bhathini Bhuini as peri VoluntaryRetirement Scheme (Female) ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled ?"
2. The case ofthe concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring Union onher behalf is as follows:----
का. आ. 1535.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा० को ० को लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोज़कों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण II , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 177/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-06-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-20012/312/92- आई. आर. ( सी.1 ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi, the 9th June, 2004
S.O. 1535. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 177/ 93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labe Court, II Dhanbad, now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-06-2004.
TheSponsoring Union submitted that Smt. Bhathini Bhuini i.e. the concerned workman was a permanent wagon loader under the inanagement . They disclosed that the management launched V.R. scheme in respect of his employees and in particular amongst the female workers with option tonominate a male dependant in her place. Being attracted with the said scheme said Bhathini Bhuini opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme in the year 1986 alongwith medical fitness certificate dt. 25-6-86, when she was56years ofage . Thereafter management prepared a list of12workmen including the concerned workman Smt Bhathini Bhuini and issued Office Memo . dt. 25-6-86 asking them to send their dependents nominated under Voluntary Retirement Scheme for medical examination of fitnessat Kustore Central Hospital which the workman comterned had compliedwith.
[No. L-20012/312/92-IR (C- 1 )]
S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT :
Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer
Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947.
Reference No. 177 of 1993
They alleged that thereafter out of 12 workmen as permemo dt. 25-6-86 dependents of other workmen were provided with the employment but the dependent of Smt. Bathini Bhuini was not intimated about his position of employment. As a result the matter was brought to the notice of the management but to no effect and thereby deprived the concerned workman from providing employment to her dependent arbitrarily , illegally and violating the principle of natural justice . Accordingly through the sponsoring Union she raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted refererice to this Tribunal for adjudication.
PARTIES:
Employeers in relation to the management of Rajapur Open Cast Project/South Jharia Colliery under Kustore Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman .
The sponsoring Union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to provide employment to the dependent of Smt . Bhathini Bhuini, wagon loader with retrospective effect from 1986 along with other consequential relief.
APPEARANCES :
Onbehalf of the workman : Shri S. Bose, Treasurer.
Onbehalf ofthe employers : None .
State: Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Dated, Dhanbad, the 17th May , 2004
AWARD
TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of thepowers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.vide their Order No. L-20012(312)/ 92.-I.R. (Coal - I) , dated, the 9th November, 1993 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Rajapur Open Cast Project/South Jharia Colliery under Kustore Area of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. was justified in not providing employment to the
3. Management in the contrary after filing written statement -cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman. They admitted that they launched a V.R. Scheme with a view to improve the manpower structure against their actual requirement and for generating a productive labour force against female employees who are not being gainfully employed. They submitted that in the present casethe concerned workman was gainfully employed till her attaining the age of superannuation . They further submitted that the concerned workman did not whole heartedly opted the said V.R. Scheme and for which she remained in service although till her retirement as on 1-7-96 and she availed full benefit of the retirement. They alleged that in spite of knowing this t sponsoring Union on her behalf raised the present dispute only for wrongful gain and to harass them. They submitted that an agenda videletter date 25-1-92 with various demand along with the 3598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
illegal demand of the employment of the dependent of the concerned workman by the representative of the R. C.M.S. was raised and dismissed and thereafter a decision was taken inpresence of both sides, wherein the claim of the concerned workman was rejected and the said decision takerı on 7-3-92 at Koyala Bhawan was duly accepted by the representatives of the R.C.M.S. They submitted that decision taken by the management as per the agenda refusing employment of the dependent of the concerned workman was valid, proper and binding upon both sides. They submitted that the concerned workman never requested the management to stop her from her duty against V.R. Scheme ( Female ) and to provide employment to her dependent son rather she regularly attendantto her duty fully during her service period and ultimately superannuated from service on attaining her age of sixty years . They further submitted that question of committing any illegality or taking any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice did not at all arise and for which the instant claim is liable to be rejected.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the management of Rajapur Open Cast Project/ South Jharia Colliery under Kustore Area of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd wasjustified in not providing employment to the dependent son of Sint. Bhathini Bhuini as per Voluntary Retirement Schente (Female) ? It 110t, to what relief the workman is entitled?
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring Union with a view to substantiate their claim have examined three witnesses while management also in support. of their claim examined two witnesses .
Here the point for consideration is whether management illegally and arbitrarily refused to give employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman Smt . Bhathini Bhuini on the basis of V.R. Scheme launched by union . It is admitted fact that Smt . Bhathini Bhuini was a perinanent wagon loader at South Jharia colliery. It is also admitted fact that management in the year 1985 introduced V.R. Scheme amongst female workers to improve the manpower structure against the actual requirement in B.C.C.L. and for generating productive labour force against such female employces who are not being gainfully employed subject to condition that the said female worker should be below 58 years of age .
MW- 1 during his evidence relied on the circular (Ext . M- 1 ) relatingto the scheme in question . According to that circular age linút was fixed at 56 years though this witness admitted that by subsequent circular ( Ext. M - 2 and M - 3 ) the age limit was extended upto 58 years . It is the contention ofthe sponsoring union that Smt. Bhatini Bhuini was below 56 years when the first circular (Ext . M- 1 ) was issued by the management . They submitted that in response to that circular of V.R. said Bhathini Bhuini along with others submitted applications for her voluntary retirement with a view to get employment of her dependent son as per
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] conditions laid down in the said scheme. It is the contention of the sponsoring union that thereafter management prepared a list of 12 workmen including the concerned workman Smt . Bhathini Bhuini and issued an office order dated 25-6-86 asking the workman who had opted for voluntary retirement to send their dependents nominated under V.R. scheme for medical examination of fitness at their Kustore Central Hospital . This fact the management not only in their pleading but also in course of evidence have admitted . MW -2 during his evidence categorically admitted that as per instruction received from the headquarters medical test of the son of the concerned workman i.e. Smt. Bhathini Bhuini was conducted before providing employment to her son as per the said scheme . This witness is silent whether the son of the concerned workman attended medical test as per instruction received from the headquarter . The concerned workman in support of the fact disclosed in the pleading pointed out categorically during her evidence that her son attended medical test as per direction of the management but even after that medical test he was not provided with any employment . This fact the management neither denied in their pleading nor during evidence on their part. Therefore, there is sufficient reason to hold that the dependent son of the concerned workman attended medical test as per direction of the management .
It is not the case of the management that as the dependent son of the concerned workman was declared medically unfit the claim for his employment was turned down. It is the specific allegation of the sponsoring union that as per the said scheme when management have provided employment to the dependents other or other female workers they did not make any whisper about giving employment of the dependent son of the concerned workman. They further alleged that for the said reason the management did not consider necessary to give any explanation. It transpires clearly considering the wirtten statement submitted by the management and also considering their evidence that they did not assign any reason why the dependent son of the concerned workman was not provided with employment even after his medical test particularly when he was not declared unfit.
The object of the said V.R. Scheme was to improve the man power structure against the actual retirement in BCCL for generating a productive labour force against such female employees who are not being gainfully employed. it is seen that management prepared a list of female workers including the concerned workman foracceptance of their V.R. inview ofapplication submitted by them. Moreso , the management issued instruction to the concerned workman to produce his dependent son for his rnedical test. It is also clear that the said dependent son of the concerned workman attended his medical test . Therefore , it is clear that management decided to accept V.R. of the concerned workman as her service was not gainful to the insterest of the management. In absence of any congent document there is sufficient reason to hold that the concerned workmanwas not declared medically unfit while he appeared before the said medical test at Kustore Central Hospital .
3599 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Therefore , onus absolutely rest on the management to justify why employment of the dependent son of the concerned workman was not given. As per clause 1 (General Ext . M- 1) it has been specifically mentioned that "To abvoid any hardship and delay , as soon as an employee is found to be eligible to retire on the basis of the scrutiny carried out at the area/Headquarter level, the nominee of the applicant should be referred for medical examination. Themedical report should be immediately forwarded to the G.M. (Personnel) by retaining a copy thereof in the office ofthe G.M. 1/4 HQ. Clause 2 further speaks that " From the date a nominee of the retiring employee gets employment the retiring employee shall automatically ceased to work. "
She retired on 1-7-90". Therefore , it is clear that management did not agree to provide employment to the son of the dependent as she retired from her service on 1-7-90but no explanation is fourth- coming why her case was not considered within the period of four years before superannuation particularly when the case of other workmenwere considered. From the circular marked as Ext. M-1 there is nowhisper whether acceptance of V.R. was at thediscretion ofthe management or not excepting the facts lisclosed in the "Objective " of the scheme . On this point have already discussed in details above . As such I consider it absolutely not tenable to accept the plea taken bythe management that she was in service till date ofher superannuation.
Therefore, as per clause 1 there is no dispute to hold thatas the concerned workman was found to be eligible to retire from her service on the basis of scrutiny carried out by the management her dependent son was asked for his medical examination .
It is seen that for reason best known to the management why they did not provide employment to the dependent son ofthe concerned workman after that medical test particularly when it is evident that he was not declared medically unfit during his medical test.
It should be borne into mind that amanagement is a Govt. ofIndia Undertaking and not a private organisation . Therefore it is absolutely expected that management will consider the case of all workmen maintaining all impartiality. Every workman has right to know the reason why her prayer was ignored. It is seen that management did not consider necessary to show minimum courtesey to inform the concerned workman why her case was not considered by them. It is fact that employment of the dependent and retirement of the workman as per V.R. are co - related asper clause 2 of the scheme . If all aspects are taken into consideration there is sufficient scope to believe that for deliberate, whimsical and arbitrary acts of the management the concemed workman was deprived of getting reliefwhich completely has violated the principle of natural justice . The management cannot avoid their responsibility tojustify why the case of the concerned workman was not considered inspite of fulfilment of all conditions incidental tothe employment of her son. As they have failed to justify the reason, I should say that management cannot evade their responsibility to provide employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman . It is seen that management for their arbitry and discriminative act had shown absolutely miscarriage of justice to the concerned workman and for which she is entitled to get relief.
In the result, the following Award is rendered:-
It is the contention of the management that question of giving employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman did not arise as she worked till her attaining age of 60 years . Ifprovision of clause 2 is taken into consideration it will expose clearly that the service of the female employee will automatically cease the moment employment is given to the dependent of the employee. It isadmitted fact that the concerned workman submitted her application for acceptance of the V.R. while she was below 56 years. It is also admitted by the management that vide officeMemo .dt. 25-6-86 management asked the concerned workman to produce her son for medical test along with the dependents of listed 12 workmen. If the facts disclosed in clause 1 (General, Ext. M -2) is taken into consideration it will expose clearly that management launched that scheme for its implementation immediately and for which office memo dt. 25-6-86 was issued.
८
"The action of the management of Rajapur Open Cast Project/South Jharia Colliery under Kustore Area of B.C.C.L. was not justified in not providing employment to the dependen son of Smt . Bhathini Bhiuni as perVoluntary Retirement Scheme (Female) Consequently, the dependent son of Smt. Bhathini is entitled to get employment under the management as per Voluntary Retirement Scheme (Female). Management is directed to provide employment to the dependent son of Bhathini Bhuini if he is not employed already by the management and if he is found medically fit. "
The management is further 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 Considering facts disclosed in the peadings ofboth sides and also considering all other materials on record there is sufficient reason to believe that when management issued letter of appointment to the dependents of other femaleworkers opted for V.R. without assigning any reason did not issue any letter of appointment to the dependent son of the concemed workman in spite of getting four long years till the date of her superannuation from service in the year 1990. There is reason to believe considering all facts and circumstarices that deliberately management withheld letter ofappointment to the dependent son of the concerned workman with a view to force her to work till she attended her date of superannuation. It is admitted fact that for such arbitrary and deliberate acts of the management the case of the concemed workman was taken up by the sponsoring union and over that issue there was discussion in between the sponsoring Union and the management, the notes of discussion (Ext . M - 5 ) it is mentioned "Her case rejected.
1883G1/04-19 3600
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
SCHEDULE
नईदिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
"Whether the action of the management ofTISCO. Ltd. , in notproviding employment to the dependent son of Sri Jethulal Jashwara isjustified ? If not , to what relief the said dependent is entitled?
का. आ. 1536.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को 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 92/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2. The case of the concerned workman according to WrittenStatement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-
[सं. एल०-20012/74/2000- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004
S.O. 1536. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal II , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 3-6-2004.
[No. L -20012/74/2000- IR( C -I ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy .
The sponsoring Union submitted that the concemed workman initially got his employment under the management on 3-7-03 as Miner/Loader and in course of timehe got his promotion as M.S. Crew at Jamadoba Colliery. They submitted that he superannuated from his service with effect from 28-6-99 after successfull completion of35 years 11 months service to the entire satisfaction of the management . They submitted that as per employment procedure maintained by the management one dependant ofthe employee, on his superannuation etc. after rendering minimum 30 years ofservice is given outright employment provided none of his dependent is employed carlier on the strength of his service. They submitted that none of the dependent of the concerned workman was offered outright employment on the strength ofhis service .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer.
In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.
REFERENCE NO . 92 OF 2000
PARTIES:
: Employers in relation to the Management of TISCO. Ltd. and their Workman.
APPEARANCES :
They submitted that management simply enrolled the name of Sri Bajrangi Jaiswara S/o the concerned workman in the employment dependent's register and on 9-8-91 though he was asked to furnished certain documents as per requirement and in response to call though the said documents were furnished and though he fulfilled all criteria required for employment they did not offer any employment to his said son . On the contrary they offered employment to a good number of dependent's sons having less service strength oftheir fathers than that of the concerned workman. They alleged that refusal to offer employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman is an infringement of the agreement of National Coal Wage . They submitted that as the management refused to provide employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman an Industrial Dispute was raised before ALC ( C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. N.G. Arın, Autho . Representative. R.C.M.S. Union .
They accordingly submitted prayer to pass an award directing the management to provide employment to the dependent son of the concerned workman.
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma,
Advocate
State: Jharkhand
: Industry: Coal .
Dated, Dhanbad , the 17th May , 2004.
3. Management on the contrary after filing written statement-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring Union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman
AWARD
The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/74/ 2000 dated , the 29th August , 2000.
They submitted that the concerned workmanjoined his service on 3-4-63 and superannuated from his service on 28-6-93 . They in this connection disclosed that as per theprocedure for employment of dependent, the concerned workmangot his son Sri Bajrangi Jaiswara enrolled in the 3601 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
employees dependent register on 21-5-90 for providing him employment on the basis of his service strength . The date ofbirth of the Sri 'Bajrangi ' has been indicated as 4-2-95 and he was miner on the date of enrolment for his employment as such he could not be provided with employment at that time . He attained his majority i.e. 18 years of age on 4-2-93 by which time a large number of dependents of employees have been enrolled in the temporary post of the company and unless the temporary post is exhausted and they are adjusted against future vacancies, it is difficult to provide the son of the concemed workman employment in the service ofthe company.
They submittedthat excepting in the case of some exceptional circumstances like meeting accidental death or becoming invalid in periodical medical examinations conducted by the medical Board according to Mines Rules 1955, requiring compassionate employment, no employment isgiven to the dependent of the employee at the present stage in view of non- availability of vacancies in the collieries.
$
management did not eager to give any employment to SriBajrang Jaiswara; his son . On the contrary management just registering his name in the employees dependent register finished their duties . The said workman in response todirection given by the management submitted all relevant papers in respect of the son on 9-8-91 but inspite of furnishing all requisites no employment was offered to him. The letter through which the workman was asked by the management to produce requisite particulars of his son during evidence of WW1 was marked as Ext . W- 5. Considering this document it transpires that those particulars were called for by the management for consideration offuture employment of the son of the said workman. From document marked as Ext. W-4 it transpires that the workman enrolled the name of his son Sri Bajrangi Jaiswara in the Employees Dependent Register as per policy ofthe management on 16-4-90 for consideration of his future employment. It transpires from the record that date ofbirth of the said son of the workman was recorded as 4-2-75. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of enrolement ofhis name in the Employees dependent register he was miner. From the document marked as Ext. W-6/ 1 it transpires that inthe year 1990 he was offered employment as a temporary worker by the management but the said offer could notbe actedupon as he was found minor at that time.
Apart from the facts stated above they submitted further that due to installation of modern technology in the mining processes requirement of man power has been reduce considerably making several workers surplus and in order to adjust the man power, voluntary retirement schemes have been introduced. In the face of such compelling circumstances the demand for employment of thedependents is without merit and the same is liable tobe rejected.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
It isthe specific contention ofthe sponsoring Union that asper policy of the management on dependent of an employee is entitled to get direct employment when a workman retires after rendering atleast 30 years of service. The sponsoring Union in course ofhearing have failedto produce any such cogent paper in support of their claim.
"Whether the action of the management of Tisco . Ltd, in not providing employment to the dependent son of Sri Jethulal Jashwara is justified ? If not, to what relief the said dependent is entitled?"
5. FINDING WITH REASONS
It transpires from the record that the sponsoring Union with a view to establish their case examined one witness as WW - 1 while management also in support of their claim examined one witness as MW- 1.
On the contrary it is the contention of the management that employment is offered, to the registered dependent ofan employee who ceases to be in employment after completing 30 years or more service, subject to availability of vacancy in the standard force and requirement of such employment to the registered dependents may be offered along with that in temporary post subject topriorities agreed with theUnion. Such policy wasadoptedby the management after it was being agrood by the management. Therefore, according to this policy precondition for employment is to register the watne ofthe dependent in the employees dependent register.
Thesecond condition which has been imposed is in respect ofclear vacancy so that offer for employntent could be given. Howsoever, management submitted that employment to the dependent of a workman on compassionate ground is taken into consideration in case ofhis accidental death or is found to be invalid during periodicalmedical examination conducted by the medical Board.
Itisseen that Jethulal Jaiswara enrolled the name of his son in the Employees dependent register on 16-7-90 while he was miner. He attended 18 years of age on4-2-93.
Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence of WW1 and MW- 1 there is no dispute to hold that Jethulal Jaiswara got his employment under the management as wagon loader on 3-7-63 and superannuated from his service on 28-6-99 as M.S. Crew after rendering service of more than 35years. It is the contention ofthe sponsoring Union that one dependent of an employee under the management who superannuated retired from his service after rendering minimum 30 years ofservice is given outright employment provided none ofhis dependent is employed earlier on the strength of his service. Disclosing this fact they submitted that knowing fully well of the fact that none of the dependent of the said workman was offered with employment on the strength of his service previously the 3602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
As per Mines Act a person is not eligible to get employment until and unless he attains his age of 18 years . However , in case of offering apprenticeship training a person having 15 years of age is eligible to get so . MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that as it is not the policy of the management they do not offer apprenticeship training to any dependent son of a worker. During hearing the sponsoring Union have failed to establish the falsity of this claim by producing cogent papers , of this claim. Accordingly, it transpires that question of offering employment to the son of the workman only cropped up on and from 4-2-93. i.c. the date when he attained the age of 18 years
WW-2 during his evidence disclosed that in the year 1992 nmanagement offered employment to dependent sons who renderedemployment less than the service period rendered by the concerned workınan and in support ofhis claim he disclosed the names of some persons. MW - 1 during his evidence disclosed that in some cases management provided employment to the workers dependents who completed less than 30 years of service because of the fact that at that relevant time vacancy was available . He also disclosed categorically that he had no knowledge to the effect that management provided employment deviating from their own employment procedure . Accordingly , onus shifted on the sponsoring Union to stablish that management in cases deviated from Hamir own employment policy in giving employment to the ends of the workers . The sponsoring Union inspi Sting opportunity have miled to establish any such
Concering all facts and circumstances , it transpires that offering employment to dependents son whose names have brolled in the employees dependent register dependr . availability of existing vacancy. MW- 1 during his evidene disclosed that as the management is facing surplus stand there is no vacancy even in the temporary roll. He further disclosed that as and when permanent vacancy arises the same are filled up from the workers of temporaryroll .
WW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that in the year 1990 about 300 employees worked under the management at Jharia Division ontemporary basis the number ofwhich has become now 1090. This witness during his cross- examination adniitted that management time to time in- troduce V.R.S. & E.R.S scheme amongst the employees . This very evidence ofWW - 1 definitely has exposed a grim picture about non - existence of permanent vacancies . Had that not been so there was no scope to increase the number of temporary workers in such huge number. There was also no scope to launch V.R.S. and E.R.S. scheme amongst the workers to bring down the strength of workers .
It is to be bome into mind that the management of TISCO Maintains their own employment policy for the benefit of their workers . Therefore , there is no scope to say
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] that the policy for employment to the dependent of the workers is a camouflage one. It is admitted fact that management not only maintains temporary rolls of the workers who had been recruited through employees dependents register but also time to time subject to availability ofpermanent vacancy they are regularised as per seniority. Question of giving employment definitely depends on the availability of vacancy . It is the specific claimofthemanagement that they are facing surplus staff. Administration of WW- 1 during his evidence in the matter ofintroduction of V.R.S. & E.R. S. definately will support this claim. It is not the claim of the sponsoring Union that ignoring the employees dependents registers management started offering employment to the outsiders violating their own employment policy. It is their contention that due to surplus man power it has become difficult on their part to provide employment to the son of the concerned workman in the temporary roll even. Counteracting such claim the sponsoring inform have failed to produce any cogent paper. Onthe contrary WW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that inthe post of temporary workers the number has been to more than 1000 from 390 which was in the year 1990. No evidence is forthcoming to show that the management provided employment to other dependents superseding the claim ofthe concerned workman. Therefore , there is no scope to draw conclusion that management intentionally with any bad motive ignored his name for employment . Actually the surplus man power has compelled the management to restrict themselves in offering employment to the dependents whose names have been enrolled in the employees dependents register. Accordingly. I find it difficult to arrive into any such conclusion that the management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice ignored the claim of the concerned workman.
In the result, the following Award is rendered:- "The action of the management of TISCO . Ltd, in not providing employment to the dependent son of Sri Jethulal Jashwara is justified . Consequently , the concernedworkman is not entitled to get any relief."
B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1537.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 85/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल०-12012/148/93- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव 3603 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii). ]
New Delhi, the 9th June, 2004
ofthemissing of cash ofRs. 3.50 lakhs at the said Branch. Simultaneously, the Branch Manager, Accountant, Chief Cashier and Armed Guard of the said branch were also placed under suspension alongwith the workman in connectionwith the same incident which is annexure W/2.
S.O. 1537.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 85/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , New Delhi - II as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-04.
That it has been further stated that the Bank lodged FIR in the same matter with the police on the day of the said incident on 11-2-1983 in which the workman and the Chief Cashier ofthe branch were named as suspects in the eyes ofthe management, which is annexureW/3 .
[No. L-12012/148/93 - IR(B -II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
That the workman and the concemed Chief Cashier both were arrested by the police but were subsequently released on bail .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI
That the workman after obtaining the bail explained the facts and requested for withdrawal of suspension which is annexure W/4 but his application was rejected and disciplinary authority issued a chargesheet dt. 8-8-1993 to the workman simultaneously instituting an enquiry against him which is annexure W/5 .
PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N. RAI
I.D. NO . 85/93
IN THE MATTER OF :-
M.K.GUPTA
VERSUS
It has been further stated that vide letter dt . 26-8-1983 , the disciplinary authority informed the workman that inaccordance with para 19.4 of the bipartite settlement and as mentioned in the workman's letter dt . 14-03-1983 , thedepartmental enquiry against him in terms ofthe charge- sheet dated 8-8-1983 was being kept in abeyance which is annexure W/ 6 .
MANAGEMENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 148/93 /IR (B -2) Central Government Dt . 24-11-1993 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, dismissing the services of Shri M. K. Gupta, Asstt. Cashier w.e.f. 4-9-1990 is justified ? If not to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled? "
That, however, on 28-07-1984, the enquiry officer commenced the inquiry against the workman, which was concluded on 5-3-1985 and the parties were askedto submit their respective arguments in writing to the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly written arguments dated 13-3-1985 and 28-03-1985 were submitted to the Enquiry Officer on behalf of the management and the workman respectively . Accordingly, written arguments were submitted. It was only on 29-6-1990 . i.e. after 5 years 3 months after the conclusion ofthe inquiry that the workman received a show cause memo dated 20-06-1990 from the new Disciplinary Authority, Mr. P. N. Arora, together with a report ofthe enquiryofficer dated 29-4-1985, whereby the Disciplinary Authority had proposed the dismissal of the workman by way ofpunishment under clause 19.6 (a) of the Bipartite Settlement, which is annexure W/7 .
3
The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim, it has been stated in the claim that he was illegally dismissed from service vide orderdt. 4-9-1990, which is annexure W/ 1 . He was initially appointed as a temporary Asstt . Cashier at Ghaziabad Branch of the Bank in the year 1968 and his services were regularised in the same post w.e.f. 18-7-1970 . Though his services were governedby Sastry Award and the Desai Award and various bipartite settlements entered into between the managements of various Banks including Central Bank of India and their workmen through their trade unions from time to time.
That the management had kept the workman under suspension despite his repeated representations for lifting hisunjustified prolonged suspension . The workman made representations on 17-7-1984 and 20-9-1984, Annexure W/8 and W/ 9 stating that his request for payment of full wages for the period of suspension could not be acceded to since he himself claimed the privilege underpara 19.4 of thebipartite settlement .
That it has been further submitted that the criminal trial instituted against him consequent upon the FIR dated 11-2-1983 filed by the Bank resulted into his clear acquittal bythe trial courtvide its order dt. 29-6-1989 and on getting That it has been further stated that in February, 1983, when the workman was working at Lajpatnagar, New Delhi branch of the Bank, he was placed under suspension by an order dated 11-2-1983 issued by the Chief Manager of the Bank at its New Delhi Regional Office , following an incident 3604
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
(c) Inview of the orders of the Trial Court acquitting the workman and the provisions of the Sastry Award and theBipartite Settlement dt. 19-10-1966 , the management had no powers to dismiss the workman by way of punishment under clause 19.6 (a) of the Bipartite settlement as was done by the Disciplinary Authority .
anattested copy of this order, the workman submitted it to the bank with a letterdt. 4-12-1989 thereby requesting the management that in view of his acquittal by the Trial Court, he was entitled to be deemed on duty during the period of his suspension and to be paid his full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension from 11-2-1983 and the management should treat him accordingly which is annexure W/10 and W/ 11 .
(d) That the prosecution had failed to prove the entrustment of the missing cash to the workman on 11-2- 1983, after a full trial and after considering the same documentary and oral evidence which was produced by the management in the inquiry held against the workman .
That the workman appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 17-08-1990 for personal hearing against his orders ofproposed punishment dated 20-06-1990 and made detailed written submissions as well as oral submissions before the Disciplinary Authority and he thereby challenged the validity of the findings of the enquiry officer and the validity of the orders of the proposed punishment of the disciplinary authority and pleaded to be reinstated with full pay and allowance which is annexure W/ 12 .
(e) That in awarding the punishment of dismissal to the workman, the disciplinary authority failed to consider the past unblemished service recored of the workman and the extenuating factors and circumstances of the case, which the Disciplinary authority was required to do in terms ofclause 19.12 (c) of the Bipartite settlement .
That ignoring or rejecting all the pleas and pleadings ofthe workman, the disciplinary anthority passed his final orders on 4-09-1990 confirming the proposed punishment of dismissal against him, which is annexure W/ 1 . He filed an appeal but his appeal was also rejected. The copies of the appeal and minutes ofhearing are attached as Annexure W/13 and W/ 14 respectively . The appellate authority tooks one year time in deciding the appeal which is annexure W/15.
It has been further stated that the workman served a notice of demand dated 26-5-1992 on the management through their Deputy General Manager Zonal Office , New Delhi , which is annexure W/ 16 .
The action of the management in dismissing the workman from service by orders of the Disciplinary Authority dated 4-9-1990 is assailed to be illegal and unjustified on the following grounds .
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement, it is stated that on 11th February, 1983 , cash of Rs . 3.5 lacs from Lajpat Nagar Branch to Nehru place Branch was to be sent and Shri M. K Gupta was instructed to effect the cash remittance of the said amount from B/o Lajpat Nagar to B/ o Nehru Place . He got the relevant vouchers and manifold relating to the remittance signed/ authorized by the Accountant/Branch Manager and took a delivery of the cash ofRs . 3.5 lacs , for the said purpose from the Chief, Cashier. According to the procedure laid down for carrying cash from one branch to other, he was required to put the cash in the proper steel boxbut instead of adhering to the laid down instructions , he unauthorisedly placed the cash in a briefcase which was obtained by him from the accountant , Shir V. N Wadhawan . Shri M. K Gupta thereafter reported that the said brief case containing cash or Rs. 3.5 lacs was missing which was left by him in the Chief Cashier's cabin. By the acts of Shri M. K. Gupta bank was put to loss of Rs . 3.5, lacs . He was charge sheeted vide charge sheet No. PRS; DAD 83: 1000 dt . 8-08-1993. Thereafter he was suspended from bank's service under the provision of the Bipartite Settlement and was paid subsistance allowance during the period of suspension .
( a ) The action against the workman vide charge- sheet was invalid since after having taken steps to get the workman prosecuted in connection with the incident of 11-2-1983 by filing an FIR on the same day . In view ofthe prohibition imposed by clause 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlementdt . 19-10-1966, hence the enquiry held and orders passed against the workman as a consequence of such illegal initiation of disciplinary action and as such illegal order of inquiry issued on 8-8-1983 were invalid.
Ithas been stated that in this incident of shortage of cash of Rs. 3.5 lacs , Shri B.R Midha, Branch Manager, Shri V.N. Wadhawan, Accountant, Shri B.P. Jain, Chief Cashier and Shri K.P Shukla, ArmedGuard were also placed under suspension by the bank.
It is stated that all these employees were charge. sheeted for acts of misconduct and whereas Shri B.R. Midha, Branch Manager was awarded punishment, V.N. Wadhawan , Accountant and Shri B.P Jain were also awarded punishments and Shri K.P. Shukla , Armed Guard was exonerated from the charges levelled against him.
(b) The management had decided to wait for the outcome of the criminal trial launched against the workman at the instance of the management as was done by the management, it was incumbent upon the management/ disciplinary authority to examine , consider and take into account the verdict of acquittal of the workman passedby the trial court while passing any orders in disposal of the inquiry held against the workman , but the Disciplinary Authority refused and failed to do so and arbitrarily dismissed the workman by completely ignoring the order ofthe trial court and also the provisions contained in para 505 of the Sastry Award .
Theworkman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has submitted that all the so -called preliminary objections raised by the management in its written statement are not भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
only misconceived and untenable, but also totally frivolous and have been raised only for the sake of objections.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
It was argued from the side of the workman that the show -cause notice was given to the workman and he replied to that but his reply was not considered . It was unsatisfactory so the enquiry proceedings were initiated.
My attention was drawn to Delhi- 1985-1-185 , it has been held that the reasons should be recorded on the reply ofthe show- cause notice . It was submitted from the side of the management that reasons have been assigned and reply was found unsatisfactory. As such , enquiry was held against him . As such, the ample opportunity was given before initiation of the enquiry proceedings . My attention was drawn to 1978 -Lab.I . Cases 1530, it has been held that it is not permissible under law that enquiry officer should be appointed and charges should be framed simultaneously . This citation of the Hon'ble Court is not applicable as show -cause notice was given to the workman and thereafter enquiry officer was appointed and charges were framed against him.
My attention was drawn to 1972-Lab.I . Cases- 1613 at page 1616 , it has been held that a notice is vague on other grounds as well. In what way was the explanation of the appellant unsatisfactory? In this case, Rs . 3.50 lacs were missing and the workman has given the explanation which was rejected as being not found satisfactory by the D.A. It was submitted from the side of the workman counsel that paragraph 505 of the Sastry Award lays down:-
"We have occasionally come across instance where a bank management has persisted in its application under S. 33 inspite of an acquittal by an ordinary court of the land after a full trial . The decisions of our courts are entitled to the highest respect and the management should reinstate an employee who is honourably acquitted and pay him his full salary and allowance . The acquittal should not be lightly challengedby departmental enquires for disciplinary action unless the bank management feels that there has been such a gross violation of the departmental rules as to necessitate a further enquiry in the interests of the institution on matters other than those in respect of which he has been already acquitted."
Inthis context, it was argued that since the workman has been acquitted by the trial court, he should be reinstated with full salary and allowance . He has been acquitted on the technical ground that he has not put signatures after receiving the cash in the register. it may be that he took the money and placed in the brief case and thenhe went to the toilet . In the mean time , the brief case was lost so his acquittal is on technical grounds and on the grounds of benefit of doubt .
3605 My attention was drawn to 1975 Lab. I cases . It has been held in the aforesaid cases of the Hon'ble Court that ifthe findings ofthe trial court are on the same facts then the management is stopped from further proceedings . He againpronounced a contrary view as an appellate authority. However, acquittal is by giving benefit of doubt then department is free to take disciplinary action.
In 1989 II LLJ 608 annexure A/7 , it has been held that the disciplinary authority should consider the matter of acquittal and given its due weight and it is not open to the management to ignore the criminal court's judgement .
In 1992-1 Labour law notes , it has been held that acquittal in the criminal charge may not be a ground to say that there cannot be a departmental proceeding. It will be of significance and importance in the departmental proceeding and go a long way to show the innocence of the delinquent officer.
From the perusal ofthe above citations from the side of the workman , it becomes apparent that in case the acquittal is not clear cut and the acquittal is on technical. grounds or the accused has been given benefits of doubts, the department could proceed against the workman . The above citations of the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case . It has been submitted by the management that the workman has been acquitted on the ground of benefits ofdoubts and on technical grounds so after the decision of the trial court, a notice was issued to him for personal hearing regarding proposed punishment and after hearing him, the punishment of dismissal without notice. waspassed.
!
Inthe departmental enquiry , the witnesses have been examined and Chief Cashier has said that the cash waskept in the brief case and the workman took that brief case and went away . After some time, he came and knock the Chief Cashier's door and said that the brief case was missing. He did not leave the brief case in the Chief Cashier's cabin when he allegedly went to toilet . I have perused the statement of the witnesses and by evidence of the witnesses, it is not proved satisfactory that the workman embezzeld the amount but his gross negligence and misconduct is proved as he was entrusted with the work of remittance of the cash and he should be precautious regarding the cash. He should not take it lightly . Whenever, the Chief Cashier's cabin is opened and somebody goes out, it is closed again. The workman inhis affidavit has written that the cash was placed in a brief- case and he went to toilet . The workman ought to have entrusted the brief case to the Chief Cashier but it has no where been stated that when he went to the toilet, he entrusted the brief case containing the cash with the Chief Cashier. He has only said in the affidavit that money was placed in the brief case and he went away to the toilet so he has not given a satisfactory reply that why he did not entrust the brief case to the Chief Cashier and why he left thebriefcase containing money and went away. As such , 3606
'THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
the money was placed in the brief case , it was the bounded duty of the workman applicant to take precaution of the brief case and to place it in safe custody. It indicate the negligence on the part of the workman. Embezzlement of the money has not been proved. Still in case , there is no embezzlement , there is gross misconduct of the workman inhandling the brief case containing the money. The steel box was not available so he should not place the money in brief case on advice of anybody . The enquiry was with held because of the trial and the owe request of the workman.
In de caquiry, the workman has been afforded full opportunity and the principle of natural justi , have been followed and the workman was found guilty of gross negligence and miscondut and so the punishment was dismissal with notice was given to him.
An FIR was lodged against the workman and embezzlement is not proved even in the equiry . No independent witnesses have come but according to the own version of the workman . the money was placed in the brief case and he had to take the brief case to Nehru Place Branch but leaving the brief case in the Chief Cashier's cabin unattended, he went to the toilet. This conduct of the workman is suspicious and it amounts to gross and grave misconduct in handling the cash of a very huge amount , So far as punishment in concerned, it amounts to victimization of the workman applicant as he has been dismissed for gross misconduct.
In the circumstances of this case , his increment should be held with cumulative effect and he should be reinstated after sometime without back wages . As such the punishment inflicted is not consumerate in view of the misconduct of the workman .
In the police investigation , only the workman was found guilty and chargesheet was submitted against him. Final report was given against the Chief Cashier so inpolice investigation also , the workman applicant was found guilty of the offence under Section 409 IPC. This is also a circumstance which indicates that the workman applicant committed grave irregularity in discharging of his duties . No chargesheet by police was given against the Chief Cashier.
I am of the view that his two increments should be withheld with cumulative effect and he should be reinstated with 50% back wages from 1-1-2000 .
The reference is replied thus : ----
The action of the management of Central Bank of India, in dismissing the services of Shri M. K. Gupta, Asstt . Cashier w.e.f. 4-9-1990 is not completely justified. The wrokman deserves reinstatement from 1-1-2000 with the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect . The workman applicant will be entitled to get 50 % back wages after 1-1-2000 with the stoppage of his two increments with cumulative effect .
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 27-5-2004
R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
का. आ. 1538.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं. एल०-12012 /403/91- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June, 2004 S.O. 1538. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , New Delhi - II as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004 .
[No. L - 12012/403/91 -IR(B- II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI
LD. No. 83/93 PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N. RAL IN THE MATTER OF :-
SOHAN LAL
VERSUS
MANAGEMENT OF CANARA BANK
Camplaint under section 33A of the ID Act 1947 regarding change of status ofservice.
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012 / 403/91 -IR(B - II) Central Government Dt. 19-9-94 has referred the following point for adjudication .
The point runs as hereunder :-
"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in stopping one annual increment with cumulative effect of Shri Sohan Lal isjustified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 3607 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
The reference was given in I.D. No. 41/92 and that was decided in 1994 and withholding of one increment withcumulative effect was converted into withholding three increments for first three years without any cumulative effect. This reference was decided in 1994. In the meantime, status of the service of the complaint was changed.
salary, he should not be reverted to the post where he gets less salary. As is apparent from the papers . WW/1 to WW/12 that the workman has been designated as driver. It indicates that he must be getting the emoluments of skilled workman. Subsequently, his status in service was changed during the pendency of the ID Act cases from driver to driver-cum -peon. This change is unwarranted. Once the person has beengiven the status ofa skilled workman, his status cannot be subsequently changed to an unskilled workman. He is not getting the allowances of a driver so he hasfiled complaint under 33 -A of the ID Act for change in the status of the service ofdriver. In the circumstances, his status cannot be changed . As such, the management is to be directed to provide him the work and assignment of driver and provide the grade as applicable to the driver to theBanking Industry with arrears and also the wages of the workman deducted by the management. The change of status from driver to peon is illegal and unjustified..
The complainant has filed a complaint under 33 Aof the ID Act regarding change of Status of service during the pendency of I.D. No. 41/92. It has been stated in the application under 33 -A of the ID Act 1947 that the complainant workman before he transferred to the present management has been in the employment of M/s . Laxmi Commercial Bank as driver . Consequent upon the amalgamation of the previous Bank with the Canara Bank sometimes in 1985 , the complainant performed the job of driver under the present management since 1985. Since certain charges were levelled against him and the enquiry was held in which he was punished with stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. As such, the management wasnot in good terms with him and the management denied his designation from driver to driver- cum -peon. Since the complainant was discharged the duties of the driver, his status of service should not be changed from driver to driver- cum -peon and the work of unskilled peon should not be taken from a skilled driver.
The management is directed to provide the workman/ applicant the status of driver and pay him all the arrears from the date of his reversion from the post of driver to the post ofpeonupto date. The management is further directed to reimburse the illegal deduction which has occurred due to change in the status of service within three months from the date of order . The management is further directed to give him emoluments of driver and post him as driver.
The award is given accordingly.
Dated: 7-6-2004
R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1539.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 62/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । The management has filed written statement. In the written statement, it has been stated that the initial appointment in 1986 of the complainant was of peon. Subsequently, he learned driving and he performed the duties ofa driver. As such, he was originally appointed as peon, thereafter re -designated as driver-cum -peon at his own request. It has been further stated that the driver in the Bank industry is not at par with the grades of clerical staff as alleged. He is performing the duties of the driver. peons and drivers are all part of the sub - staff. It is wrong and denied that the wages were denied to the workman and the designation of the workman has been changed as alleged . The position was made clear to the claimant by the Bank, before his letter of24-6-1993.
[सं. एल०-12012/73/96- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June, 2004 The claimant has filed rejoinder . In his rejoinder he has stated that he was a skilled driver and he used to carry cash from one place to another and he has been given the designation of driver as is evident from Exhibit Nos. WW 1/4 , 1/5 , 1/6 , 1/7, 1/8 and WW 1/9 and there are so many other papers just as 1/10, 1/11 , 1/12 and 1/13 inwhich he has been designated as driver . Thereafter he has been designated as driver- cum -peon. The workman cannot be both skilled workman and an unskilled workman .
S.O. 1539. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government herebypublishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on8-6-2004.
[No. L - 12012/73/ 96- IR(B -II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused thepapers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the workman that once the workman has been given the status of a skilled workman, it cannot be reverted subsequently to the status of unskilled workman as there is difference in wages . A person who is getting higher
1883 G1/04-20 3608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II SBC. 3 (ii)] ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER :
there is no law for de novo enquiry . Disciplinarty Authority may take action on its view andDisciplinaryAuthority is not bound by the findings of the enquiry officer: The enquiry has been challenged on various grounds . Those grounds will be referred to hereafter.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI
LD. No. 62/97
PRESIDING OFFICER: R. N. RAL
IN THE MATTER OF:---
CHITARANGAD RAO
VERSUS
MANAGEMENT OF BANK OF INDIA
AWARD
The mangement has filed written statement. In the written statement, the management has denied some of the paras of the written statement and admitted some of the paragraphs . The enquiry officer procured further documents and witnesses and he came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the workman were proved by the evidence of the witnesses . Hence the enquiry is proper andjustified. Principles of natural justice have been followed in this case. The Enquiry officerwas not biased. All the papers were shown and given to the workman applicant and he was given opportunity to defend himself.
The Ministry of Labourby its letter No. L- 12012/73 / 96- IR(B - 2) Central Government Dt. 3-5-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.
The point runs as hereunder-
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of india la dismaissing the services of Shri Chitarangad Rao is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the said workmana is entitled and from what date ? "
The workmanhas filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has stated that no de novo enquiry can be instituted against him according to the provisions of bipartite settlement . There could only be one enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority may take a different view . It is denied in the rejoinder that the action of management in dimissing the workman vide ortler dated 26-12-1994 which was modified in Branch Manager's letterdt. 30-12-1994 and the order of Appellate Authority dated 24-6-1995 were valid and legal . It is further denied that the de novo enquiry which itself was impermissible was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice or that the workman was punished for proved misconduct after giving him reasonable opportunity, as fondly but falsely claimed by the management .
Inthe entire facts and circumstances of the case, the management's request for permission to lead evidence on merits deserves to be rejected in view of the fact that the firstenquiry officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority had already found that the charges against the workman were untenable and had not been proved, after holding a full fledged enquiry .
The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim , it has been stated that he was appointed as an Agricultural Assistant in Clerical Cadre in the Bank of India in the you 1985. His conditions of service including in the matter ofdisciplinary action and procedure therefor, were governedby the provisions of the Sastry Award as modified in the Desai Award and as further modified in the subsequent Bipartite Settiement, enteraf into between the managements of banks including the Bank of India and their workinen from timeto time. He was posted at Harsaon Branch in Ghaziabad Region of the Bank, where he was served a chargesheet d . 9-7-1993 accompanied by an order of the same issued by the Regional Manager/ Disciplinary Authority , Ghaziabad , instituting a departmental enquiry and appointing the enquiry officer for holding an enquiry against the workman , without providing any list of documents/witnesses in support of the charges framed and without being given any opportunity of submitting an explanation to the charges by the Disciplinary Authority .
That the Enquiry officer , Mr. Main Chand appointed bythe disciplinary authority , conducted the enquiry against the workman and after concluding the enquiry , submitted his report/Findings dated 8-12-1993 , hoiding that the charges framed against the workman were without substance and that the managementnent had failed to prove the charges against the workman .
That on 2-3-1994 , the de novo enquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority and it was commenced by the New . Enquiry Officer Mr. Bajpai and after the completion of the enquiry , he found the cisarges proved and the services of the workman were traninated whereas
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was argued from the side of the workman that the de novo enquiry was conducted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and with prejudiced mind. The enquiry officer of the de novo enquiry allowed the presenting officer the management to produce new documents and witnesses in support of the charges . This clearly shows the prejudiced mind and the ulterior motive for which the de novo enquiry was ordered. It will be seen from the enquiry proceedings of the de novo enquiry that the enquiry was not held in consonance with theprinciples of natural justice and fair play. The de-novo enquiry was ordered only to fill up the gap /lacunae in the caseand to improve the case of the management . Prejudice has been caused to the workman by the arbitrary , unreasonable, unwarranted and unjustified conduct from the enquiry committee.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
That in the de novo enquiry , the workman was exonerated ofthe first charge but second charge held tobe proved though there was no evidence to that effect. There was no evidence that the amount deposited by the workman were the same currency notes issued to Shri Ram Kishan , borrower.
a
Itwas submitted from the side of the management that there is no hard and fast rule that the Disciplinary Authority cannot order a de novo enquiry. All the procedures have been followed in the de novo enquiry and the principles of natural justice have also been followed. In this context, from the side of the workman, my attention was drawn to SC- 1971 -Lab I.C.945 . It has been held by the Hon'ble APEX Court that the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Enquiry Officer to record further evidence in case all the witnesses have not been examined and all the documents have not been filed but there is no provision in rule 15 for completely setting aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer or Officers does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority . The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9. The Rule does not contemplate of a second enquiry ,
From the side of the workman, my attention was drawn to Bombay 1989-1, Current Labour Reports -395. It has been held that by ordering a fresh enquiry, very valuable rights of the delinquent were taken away by the Disciplinary Authority and, therefore , such fresh enquiry cannot be treated as valid .
My attention was drawn to Kerala - 1992 -Lab . I. Cases- 2527. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that a de novo enquiry cannot be ordered , erasing the earlier enquiry and the findings reached therein .
0
My attention was drawn to 1994 LAB IC NOC 124- AII. It has been held in this case that for filling up lacuna in the first enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer such second enquiry is not permissible under regulations and is illegal.
In Gauhati - 1997 - Lab . IC 932 , it has been held that para 10 Rule 15 really provides for one enquiry and if the Disciplinary Authority is not satisfied, he may ask for further enquiry or take its own view of the matter but second enquiry cannot be instituted.
From the side of the management, my attention was drawn to 1998 SCC (L & S ) 875 , it has been held that Disciplinary Authority may differ from the findings of the enquiry report and he has to record reasons for disagreement with the enquiry report and it is quite clear that Disciplinary Authority can disagree with the enquiry report but it cannot order a fresh enquiry . This citation is not applicable in this case.
In 1999 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) 384 , that it was opened to Disciplinary Authority to order de novo
3609 enquiry when it found that Enquiry Officer had not followed correct procedure in taking evidence of witnesses. This law relates to Central Reserve Police Force Rules , 1955, R. 27 (C) (6) . As such this law and the findings ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court are not applicable in the present case of the ID Act where there is provision for only one enquiry.
My attention was drawn to 1999 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 389. This relates to U.P. State Co -operative Land Development Bank Ltd. , and article 226, 12, 367 (1) and 372 so this case is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case . AIR 1999 SC 2407 is regarding evidence in the enquiry . This law is also not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case .
As such, from perusal of the law cited by both the parties and from perusal ofpara 10 Rule 15 ofthe Bipartite Settlement, it becomes quite explicit that a de novo enquiry cannot be set up by the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case, Shri Mam Chand has enquired into the matter and Enquiry Officer has reported that the charges levelled against the workman are not proved. He has followed the full procedure and has given his findings . The Disciplinary Authority might have dis - agreed with this view taking its own view but the Disciplinary Authority has no right to institute de novo enquiry . As such the setting up of de novo enquiry or fresh enquiry is against the principles of natural justice and the provisions contained in para 10 Rule 15 of the Bipartite Settlement, so the second enquiry is absolutely illegal and unjustified and in the first enquiry , the workman was exonerated of the charges levelled against him.
The bare look at the charges indicate that the workman was a conspirator. He caused the loan of Rs. 9000 to a man and a buffalo was purchased by that man and he claimed Rs . 9000 from the LIC Department as the buffalo died and Rs . 9000 was deposited in the account of the workman applicant. The workman is not directly concerned with all these things . He has been simply conspirator on the ground ofdoubt so charges levelled against him are vague and faise . As such, the charges are vague and second enquiry cannot be instituted. He was exonerated froin the first enquiry so the worknman deserves to be reinstated w.e.f. the date on which his services were dismissed.
The reference is replied thus:-
The action of the management of Bank of India in dismissing the services of Shri Chitarangad Rao is neither legal nor justified. the workman is entitled to be reinstated w.e.f. the date of his suspension with full back wages .
The award is given accordingly.
Dated : 8-6-2004 .
R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer 3610
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
का.आ. 1540- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आंध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 264/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल.- 12025/12/2004- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the Labour Court - I , Hyderabad in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others and transferred to this Court 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. 78/2000 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 264/2001 .
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004 S.O. 1540. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 264/ 2001) of the Central Clovernment Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
[No. L- 12025 / 12/2004- IR (B - II) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
Shri E. Ismail, B.Sc. LL . B. , Presiding Officer
Dated the 31st day of March , 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. I.D. NO . 264/2001 (Old L.D. No. 78/2000 Transferred from Labour Court - I, Hyderabad)
BETWEEN:
Sri R. Devadas, S/o R. Serbalingam, H.No. 3-2-84 , Nimbolidadda. Kachiguda, Hyderabad.
AND
The Personnel Manager , Andhra Bank, Head Office , 5-9-11 , Saifabad, Hyderabad.
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : M/ s G. Ravi Mohan , R. Devender Reddy, G. Srinivas Reddy &
G. Naresh Kumar , Advocates .
For the Respondent: M/s . S. Udayachala Rao , S.
Lavanya Lakshmi , S. Vikramaditya babu & S. Mujib Kumar , Advocates .
2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are : That the Petitioner was selected to the job in the Respondent bank as sub - staff on permanent basis from 1-3-74 . Thereafter, Peritioner continued to work in the same position till 1981. In the year 1981 he was promoted to clerical cadre and ever since he continuously attended to his duties till 14-11-92
3. The Petitioner's mother fell sick at Nalgonda District his native place, in the month of December , 1992 . Therefore, the Petitioner was forced to leave to his native Place Kandaluru in Nalgonda District for attending his mother . The Petitiner's mother was attacked with a stoke due to the same his mother got right side hand and leg paralysis . He gave a leave letter dated 16-11-92. The same was receivedby Respondent. The Petitioner subsequently gave a leave letter on 16-12-92 . He was looking after his mother. Finally when Petitioner returned to duty he was informed that he was terminated from service by an order dated 10-9-1993 . It is illegal and arbitrary. Hence, he may be reinstated into service with all back wages .
4. A counter was filed stating that the Petitioner was absent for more than 90 days from 15-11-92 without any leave . Anotice was sent on 30-7-93 in terms of clause 17 of Bipartite Settlement within 30 days . Although he received the said notice neither returned to duty nor submitted any explanation explaining the unauthorized absence within the time stipulated . Hence , the Respondent bank is left with no option having voluntarily retired from bankbank's service. That as per claused 17 of the Bipartite settlement no enquiry was necessary and therefore , the impugned proceedings are not illegal or unjustified. Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
5. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed that he absented from duty from 15-11-92 as one of his lung was operated and removed . That he gave all the necessary cerificates to the bank . The operation was performed in 1976. As he was sick, his mother was laid up with paralysis he could not attend to his duties . That certificate of posting is Ex . W1 which was sent to the Manager , Narayanaguda branch where he was working. Again he posted a letter Ex . W2 . Again he posted a letter which is Ex . W3 . Again he posted another letter Ex . W4 Another letter is Ex . W5 .
3611 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
asMW1 . That the Petitioner joined as sub -ordinate staff in the year 1974. He was promoted to the clerical cadre in 1981. He was absent for 108 days from 5-4-89 to 19-8-89. He was warned of misconduct on 7-3-1990. Again he was absent from 22-4-91 till 29-2-92 which was closed with minor penalty. He was again chargesheeted for his unauthorized absence from 23-7-92 till 18-5-92 . The same was closed with minor penalty . Again he absented himself from 15-11-92 . Hence , he was treated as having voluntarily retired from service from 30-8-93 . Various documents were marked from Ex. M2 to Ex. M9. In the cross examination he deposed that he does not know the Petitioner personally. As he did not report, a final order dated 10-9-93 was passed.
8. Sri G. Ramalinga Swamy, Retired Bank Officer, deposed as MW2 stating that the Petitioner was habitual absentee and he has addressed various letters reporting his absence and that finally he addressed a letter dated 8-7-93 to the Head Office reporting that the Petitioner was not attending from 16-11-92 and he did not submit any leave applications and also that he did not have any leave to his credit . He was reporting his unauthorized absence to the zonal office of since 15-11-92 . The said letter dated 8-7-93 is Ex. M20 . In the cross examination he deposed that he knows the Petitioner from August, 1991. He denied that the leave letters were received .
9. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been working since 1-3-74. He was promoted in the year 1981 as clerk . No enquiry was conducted and he has been issued with a termination order. Such a major punishment was uncalled for when it is admitted that his lung was removed and further his mother was affected with paralysis. Therefore , he may be reinstated with back wages . He further relied on his Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1993(67) FLRpage 111 wherein their Lordships were dealing with a case ofD.K. Yadav and M/s . J.M.A. Industries Ltd. , where it was held that, " standing orders provides for automatic loss of lien-Service terminated-without any enquiry and opportunity of hearing" . Hence , the order of termination is liable to be set aside . So he submits that as there was no enquiry held and further the voluntary cessation of employment under clause 17 of the 5th Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-1989 shall stand. So in this case no enquiry was conducted . He may be reinstated .
6. In the cross examination he deposed that he was atKandaluru of Nalgonda District attending to his mother for about 10 months . He deposed that no letters were issued stating that the proceedings were dropped or that he was exonerated. That he has no acknowledgement to show he gave all certificates pertaining to his sickness in 1976 itself. He has not filed any certificate to show that his mother was laid up with paralysis during the relevant time. Hehas not filed any documents about his sickness in the Court that his permanent house address is , H. No. 3-2-84, Nimboliadda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. He did not know that he was removed. The General Manager signed the termination order. That himself, his wife and elder brother and his mother are elder members ofhis family who stay in the house bearing No. 3-2-84 , Nimboliadda, Kachiguda, Hyderabad . He further deposed that he has filed Writ Petition in the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. before filing this ID. Writ Petition was filed in 1998 and it was withdrawn . He does not know whether the said Writ Petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh Writ Petition. No further Writ Petition was filed and he approached this Court . He was operated in 1976. There were two disiplinary proceedings against him between 1976 to 1992 for unauthorized absence . It is not true that he received the termination order on 3-8- 93. He denied that he voluntarily absented from 22-4-91 to 29-2-92 . He does not know whether the total period ofhis unauthorized absence is about 580 days . He is not aware that the total unauthorized absence of an employee during entire period of service shall not be more than 365 days . He does not know whether he was chargesheeted thrice for his unauthorized absence . Ravalkot Damodar is his elder brother. He does not know whether he borrowed money from Bank of Maharashtra . It is not true to suggest that he guaranteed for the said loan amount. It is correct he has filed Writ Petition No. 11591/98 which is Ex.M1 xerox copy of the affidavit of the Petition . He does not know whether anywrong information was given in Ex. M1 . That he has not step -mother and his mother has got second heart attack two days back . He has not averred in the affidavit Ex. M1 that is he was prevented by necessity and for fundamental duty towards his mother's attendance during her indisposition . Thereafter after her demise he returnedto Hyderabad and joined duty. He has no proof that he was at Kandaluru , Nalgonda District for a few months . That he has not mentioned in the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. affidavit that he has sent leave applications under certificate ofposting . It is true that he worked under Sri M. Rama Linga Swamy, Manager. It is true that one Mr. T. Ravindra Nath, was his defence representation in the enquiry conducted against him by the Management . He did not face any criminal trial at any time in Warangal District or any other District . The bank's information that he faced a criminal trial and was convicted and imprisonned isnot correct .
10. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that he is a habitual absentee and this is first occasion as it has come out in the evidence of MW1 and MW2 . MW2 has categorically stated that he has reported several times about the absence ofthe Petitioner and further there is no proofofhis having submitted letters forwarding his leave applications . Secondly in the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. he has averred that his mother has died and- in the cross examination he says that his mother had second heart attack. She is very much alive. So it can be safely concluded that he has simply bluffed and made different 7. Sri B. Prasada Rao , Law Officer in Andhra Bank atPersonnel Department , Head Office , Hyderabad deposed 3612
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
settlements . Hence, no sympathy need be shown to him and the petition may be dismissed.
11. It may be seen that the Petitioner was residing at Nimboliaddaand even is he was at Nalgonda District there isnowrittenproof that he was at Nalgonda District for few months. Afterall he was working at Narayanaguda which is hardly 2 KM from his place of residence . Some one on hisbehalf either his wife or his brother have gone to the bank and give leave application in person. No doubt there is a technical flaw of not conducting an enquiry. Yet, it may be seen that he had been habitual absentee . So I am ofthe opinionthat some relief can be given to him but he cannot be reinstated as a clerk. He originally joined as a sub -staff and he shall be appointed within 30 days from the publication ofthis Award as sub - staff as a fresh candidate . However, his services from 1-3-74 till 14-11-92 shall be taken into account for terminal benefits . However, as he has treated as voluntarily retired and even he has received payments, the same will have to be deducted at the time of his final settlement and he is not entitled for any back wages or any other relief.
Awardpassed accordingly , Transmit.
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 31st Day of March, 2004 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner:
Witnesses examined for the Respondent :
WW1: Sri R. Devdas MW1 : Sri B. Prasada Rao
MW2: Sri G. Ramalinga Swamy Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. W1: Acknowledgement of certificate ofposting.
Ex. W2: Acknowledgement of certificate ofposting for Ir. dt . 16-12-92 .
Ex. W3 : Acknowledgement of certificate ofposting for Ir . dt. 15-4-93 .
Ex. W4: Acknowledgement of certificate ofposting for Ir . dt. 14-7-93 .
Ex. W5: Acknowledgement of certificate ofposting for Ir. dt. 13-8-93 .
Ex. W6: Copy ofOrder No. 666/20/NV/ 1424 dt . 10-9-93 .
Ex. W7: Copyofrepresentation dt. 31-12-97 . Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. M1 Copy of affidavit in WP No. 11591/98 .
Copy of charge sheet dt . 29-9-89/ 18-10-89 .
Ex. M2
Ex. M3 : Copy of Ir . ofdisciplinary action dt . 7-3-90.
Ex.M4 Copy of charge sheet dt . 29-2-92 .
Ex. M5 : Copy of charge sheet dt . 23-7-92 .
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Ex.M6 Copy of charge sheet dt. 23-10-92.
Ex.M7 : Copy of disciplinary authority's letter dt. 22-12-92 .
Ex. M8 Copy of notice under voluntary cessation of employment by employeesdt. 30-7-93 .
Ex.M9 : Copy ofOrder No. 666/20/NV/ 1424 dt. 10-9-93 Ex.M10 : Copy ofIr No. 397/ cc/3/172 dt. 6-9-91 .
Ex.M11 : Copy of Ir No. 397/cc/3/ 183 dt . 10-9-91.
Ex.M12 : Copy of Ir No. 397/ cc/3 / 184 dt. 14-9-91 .
Leave letter ofWW1 dt . 4-12-91 referringhis 'lung' operation. Ex M13 :
Copy of Ir No. 397/20/294 dt. 13-12-91 .
Ex. M14:
Ex.M15 : Copy of Ir No. 666/20/NV/2398/ 1 dt. 24-1-92 .
Fx. M16 : Medical certificate of WW1 by Dr. R. Bala Subrahmanyam dt. 10-2-92.
Copy of Ir No. 397/cc/20/372 dt. 12-2-92 .
Ex. M17:
Ex. M18 : Copy of Ir No. 397 /cc/3/53 dt. 21-7-92 .
Ex. M19 : Copy of Ir No. 397/cc/3/141 dt. 21-6-93 .
Ex. M20 : Copy of Ir No. 397/ cc/3 / 157 dt. 8-7-93 .
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
का.आ. 1541.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011/218/2002- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June, 2004 S.O. 1541. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court Lucknow as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
[No. L- 12011 /218/2002 - IR (B - II ) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
PRESENT :
Shrikant Shukla, PresidingOfficer
I.D. No. 83/2003
Ref. No. L- 12011/218/2002 - IR (B -II) dated 29-8-2003 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
BETWEEN:
The Vice President, Allahabad Bank Staff Association c/o Allahabad Bank, Jaahari Bajar Branch, Agra (U.P. )
AND TheAssistant General Manager Allahabad Bank, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L - 12011/218/2002-IR (B-II) dated 29-8-2003 referred the following dispute for adjudication .
Whether the demand of Allahabad Bank Staff Association for payment of over allowance to the employees of the Branches of Allahabad Bank located at Agra namely S /Sh. Satish Chandra, In charge Cashier (2) Nand Kumar, Bill Collector , (3 ) P.N. Tondon, Clerk, (4) R.L. Jain, In charge Cashier, (5 ) Nirodsh Kumar Kulshershtha, Clerk, (6) Munna Lal, Bill Collector, (7) Rajiv Arora, Clerk (8) Saheb Singh, Head Cashier for performing duty on 12-3-2000 and 26-3-2000 is legal andjustified ? If yes, what reliefthey are entitled for ?"
The copy of order was endorsed to the Vice President, Allahabad Bank Staff Association c/o Allahabad Bank, Jaahari Bajar Branch, Agra (U.P. ) and the Assistant General Manager , Allahabad Bank , Swarup Nagar, Kanpur. It was specifid in the order that the party, which raises the dispute , shall file the statement of claim together with the documents and list of witnesses within 15 days of the receipt of that order . The Vice President, Allahabad Bank Staff Association did not file the statement of claim as advised in the said order . A notice was issued to the Vice President, Allahabad Bank Staff Association on 30-10-2003 for filing of statement of claim on 3-12-2003, but the Vice President, Allahabad Bank Staff Association did not file the statement ofclaim. Thereafter, another notice by registered post was issued on 12-1-2004 but the registered cover did not return. It is therefore, believed that the notice is served on the Vice President , Allahabad Bank Staff Association. The Vice President, Allahabad Bank Staff Association even after service of registered notice did not file the statement of claim. The Court ordered for the issuance of notice to the Assistant General Manager , Allahabad Bank, Swarup Nagar, Kanpur by registered post on 25-3-2004 and a notice was accordingly sent by registeredpost on 26-3-2004. The registered cover however , did not receive bank. Therefore, it is believed that the opposite party is also sufficiently served.
The Vice President , Allahabad Bank Staff Association was required to prove that its employees performed over time duty on 12-3-2000 and 26-3-2000 [Copy illegible ] . As such, nou -payment of over time cannot be adjudicated. Accordingly, no claim award is passed.
Lucknow Dated 28-5-2004
SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer
3613 नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
का.आ. 1542.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरियंटल बैंक ऑफ कॉमर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/29/2001 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004 S.O. 1542. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112/ 2001) ofthe Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on8-6-2004 .
[No. L- 12012/29/2001 - IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT:
Shrikant Shukla, PresidingOfficer LD . No. 112/2001
Ref. No. L - 12012/ 29/2001 - IR (B - II) dated 20-7-2001 BETWEEN:
Smt. Kanchan C/o B. P. Saxena 426VV-2, Basant Vihar, Kanpur (U.P. ) 208021 AND Oriental Bank of Commerce TheAsstt. General Manager , Regional Office C-43 /28/ 1 , Naval Kishore Road, Hazratganj , Lucknow AWARD
i The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L- 12012/29/2001 - IR (B- II) dated 20-7-2001 has referred the following issue for adjudication to PresidingOfficer, CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Lucknow.
"Whether the action of the Management of Assistant General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce , Lucknow in terminating the services of Smt . Kanchan w.e.f. 8-7-95 as Part Time Safai Karmchari is legal and justified ? If not what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? " 3614
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
alleged in para 17 of the statement of claim that Bank did not give the applicant opportunity for reemployment twice, and therefore Bank has further committed breach of Section 25 H of the I.D. Act , 1947. The applicant has also alleged thatshe is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages .
The management while filing the Written Statement has satisfied that the worker Smt. Kanchan was never appointed by the opposite party and she has never worked as Part Time Safai Karmchari at the Mall Road branch , Kanpur or any other branch of the bank at any time whatsoever . It is submitted that as the opposite party Bank is Public Sector Unit the employment against arising vacancy, are as per Government Guidelines and therefore no person can be employed except through the established procedure in the case of Part Time Sweeper. The management has denied that Smt . Kanchan has ever performed the duty of part time sweeper and as such the question of payment of salary does not arise . It is submitted that Smt . Kanchan have been engaged sometine casually in the exigencies of work temporarily . The management has alleged that there is no breach of any provision of Section 25 F or 25 H of the I.D. Act , 1947. It is also state that Smt . Kanchan never went under recruitment procedure in the Bank. The Branch Manager was not authorised to employ anybody in the Bank. Sofar as the meeting with Asstt . General Manager of the Bank is concerned , it is stated that Smt . Kanchan neither met the AGM at Lucknow nor she was assured that she would be appointed as Safai Karmchari at Mall Road, Kanpur branch . About the allegation of falling ofvacany of part time Safai Karmchari atMall Road branch , the management has submitted that the indent for the vacancy of part time Safai Karmchari was placed on 30-8-99 , consequently the list sponsored by the Employment Exchange of candidates did not contain the name of the applicant. However, a second list was received for the post was in process . Smt . Kanchan had managed the same how even as she was not eligible on the ground, ofher age as per indent placed to the Employment Exchange and her candidature was not considered . The registration of name of the applicant with the Employment' Exchange itself proved that she was not eniployed in the bank and if she was employed , there is no need of registration of her name with the employment exchange. In the circumstances the breach of Section 25H of the 1.D. Act, 1947 is not attracted . It is specifically denied that Smt . Kanchan worked in the Bank continously from May , 93 to 8-7-1995 and her name does not appear on the roll of the bank so there is no question of termination of services . Lastly it is alleged that Smt . Kanchan can not be reinstated with full backwages as no legal ground of her reinstatment exist in the claim statement and the applicant is not entitled forany relief.
The Presiding Officer framed the following issues for final disposal of the issue referred :
Smt. Kanchan has alleged that she has been working as part time Safai Karmachari at Mall Road , Kanpur branch ofOriental Bank of Commerce (here - in - after referred to as the Bank) since . 1977. There is another branch of the Bank in Ranjit Nagar , Kanpur where one Birju was working as part time Safai Karmehari and subsequently he was posted as Peon and transferred to Farukhabad branch and as such the vacancy of Part Time Safai Karmchari fell vacant in May, 1993 and she was appointed in place of Birju as Part Time Safai Karmchari in May , 1993. Though she was required to perform all the duties of sweeping , cleaning and adjusting the premises of Ranjit Nagar, Kanpur branch ofthe bank, which duties was performed by Birju who was paidhalf of the prescribed salary but she was paid only Rs . 20 per day's which was subsequently raised to Rs . 30 per day excluding sundays and holidays . She worked continuously From May 1993 till 8-7-95 when her services were abruptly terminated by the bank without assigning any reases, payment of notice and retrenchment compensation The bank appointed another Safai Karmchari AB Valmiki in her place on part time basis. The bank initially paid 1/3rd of the prescribed salary of a full time subordinate staff and now bank has raised salary to half of the prescribed salary of full time subordinate staff. While apporating Ajit Balmiki the bank did not give any opportunity to the applicant . After termination of the services she repeatedly approached the Manager Ranjit Nagar Kanpur branch of the Bank , and she was assured that she will soon be eraployed by the Bank. She also met the Asstt. General Manager of the bank at Lucknow personally and she was assured by him to wait and was also assured that she will be appointed as Safai Karınchari at Mall Road Branch. Kanpur . On the basis of solemn assurance the applicant kept quiet awaiting the vacancy of Part Time Safai Karmchari at Mall Road Branch of the Bank . Ultimately, the vacancy of Part Time Safai Karınchari came-up at Mail Road branch, Kanpur of the Bank in March 1998. On occurance of the vacancy , the Bank did not call the applicant for interview . The Employment Exchange did sent a list of candidatesto the Asstt . General Manager, Lucknow of the Bank . On coming to know of this fact the applicant also stood registered with the Employment Exchange got her name sent to the Asstt . General Manager . Despite this the Bank did not call the applicant for interview held in Nov. 1999 and denied opportunity to the applicant . Thus the Bank committed breach of Section 25 H of the I. D. Act , 1917. The worker was left no choice then to raised . an industrial dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( C) . Kanpur . The worker has further alleged in para 17 of statement of claim that she worked fromMay, 1993 continuously till 3-7-95 in clear vacancy where her services wen, terminate 1 i. c. the applicant worked for more than 240 days in a calcudar year proceeding the date of termination of ner services . It is also alleged that the Bank neither advised the reason for termination , nor paid notice pay and rewenchment compensation, the Bank committed breach of Soon 25 F of the 1. D. Act. Therefore she is entitled to statment with full back wages . It is also
1. Whether Smt . Kanchan was Safai Karmchari in Oriental Bank of Commerce as alleged in the claim statement . Paper No. 2 ?
3615 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
3. Voucher dated 1-10-94 amounting to Rs .480 .
2. Whether Smt. Kanchan's services were terminated w.e.f. 8-7-95 ? Ifyes whether it is legal andjustified.
4. Voucher dated 1-11-94 amounting to Rs. 480.
3. Whether Smt. Kanchan is entitled to any relief ?
5. Voucher dated 7-2-95 amounting to Rs . 300.
Following dates were fixed for evidence :
6. Voucher dated 10-3-95 amounting to Rs. 304.50 .
1. 7-5-2002
7. Voucher dated 4-4-95 amounting to Rs . 720 .
2. 17-6-2003
8. Voucher dated 1-1-95 amounting to Rs . 600 .
3. 8-8-2003
4. 27-8-2003
5. 24-9-2003
Out of said vouchers , voucher dated 10-8-95 is paid for stationary as per the bill. Voucher dated 7-2-95 is document for giving advance to Smt . Kanchan. If above documents are considered to be genuine following facts are made out ;
Smt . Kanchan has been paid for 24 days cleaning@ Rs . 20 per day on 2-8-94 . She was also paid Rs . 540 for cleaning ofoffice for 27 days vide voucher date 3-9-94 . Smt. Kanchan was again paid Rs . 480 for cleaning @ 20 per day as 1-10-94. She was again paid Rs . 480 for cleaning office for 24days on 1-11-94 . Thus , Smt. Kanchan has been paid for 99 days in the year 1994 for cleaning purposes .
But none on the above dates appeared for proving her case nor any of his witness examined . Therefore the court was left with no other alternative then to record management evidence proceed the ex-parte against the worker. It is pertinent to mention here that on 17-6-2003 it was very clearly ordered that on 8-8-2003 is the date fixed for workman evidence . All evidence of the workman be examined on the date fixed. In case his representative continued to be sick the workman was to make alternative arrangement well in advance .
In the year 1995 there are two vouchers only dated 4-4-95 and 1-5-95 , which show the payment for 24 days in March and April 1995.
It is noteworthy that on the next date fixed the workman or her representative did not turned up . Therefore on 8-8-2003 only following order was passed :
From the above vouchers it is made out that Smt . Kanchan was paid for only büť 150 days .
"Case called out . Present Shri Vinay Shankar for the O.P. workman or his representative has not turned up till close of the day.
Case to proceed exparty against the workman.
Fixed 27-8-2003 for management evidence.
From the above evidence I come to the conclusion that Smt. Kanchan has not completed 240 days and has worked only for about 160 days of working before her dis- engagement therefore the provision of section 25F & 25H ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 are not attracted.
Sd/- P.O.
From the discussion I come to the conclusion that Smt. Kamchan's dis - engagement from 8-7-95 is not illegal or unjustified. The issue is answered in favour of the management and in the circumstances workman is not entitled for any relief.
Even after passing order of ex-parte on 8-8-2003 the workman did not turned up . No explanation was sent by post therefore 25-8-03 was fixed for management evidence . Management examined Sri M.S. Rawat and closed the evidence.
Lucknow Dated 24-5-2004
Heard Learned representative of the management as none appeared for the workman.
SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
का.आ. 1543.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विशाखापतनम डॉक लेबर बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल. - 34025/1/2004- आई.आर. ( बी- II )] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव Sri Rawat the Branch Manager of Ranjit Nagar, Branch Kanpur was examined. He has stated that he never appointed Smt. Kanchan and she is also stated on oath that Branch Manager was no authority to appoint any worker . Mr. Rawat has stated that Sint . Kanchan used to be called sometimes for cleaning the bathroom and for that purposes she used to be paid Rs . 10 to Rs . 20 per day. Mr. Rawat has stated that Smt . Kanchan was not engaged on regular basis instead when the bank used to open on Monday or other days after closure of the bank that the cleaning of the bathroom was required . On the personal request of Smt. Kanchan she was paid the amount in lum- sum and for such payment the vouchers be prepared .
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004 vouchers : Thebankhas produced the photo copies offollowing
1. Voucher dated 2-8-94 amounting to Rs .480.
2. Voucher dated 3-9-94 amounting to Rs . 540 .
S.O. 1543. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 12/2002 ) of the Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour 1883G1/04-21 3616
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
Court Hyderabad as shown in the annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofVisakhapatnam Dock Labour Board and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004 .
[No. L-34025 /1/2004- IR (B - II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
SHRI E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. , LL.B. Presiding Officer Dated the 19th day ofApril , 2004
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L. C.LD. No. 112/2002 (Old L.D. No. 1/2000 from Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Visakhapatnam)
BETWEEN :
Sri Mokka Maheswara Rao , R/ o 9/302 , Narasimhanagar , Gopalapatnam, (P.O.)
....Petitioner Visakhapatnam -530027
AND
1. The Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, Transport Bhavan, ( Ports Wing) , 1, SansadMarg, New Delhi - 110001.
2. The Deputy Chairman, M/s. Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board , Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam -530035 .
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Atchanna and Mr. Atchanna died in harness while in service . After being duly enquired into the bonafide the workman was given employment as he was the proper personto get the employment. That he was dismissed from service on 4-5-99 alleging that committee has found that he was misrepresented. He filed WP No. 12600/94 against the same on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. which directed the Respondents to continue him in service and also further directed to conduct fresh enquiry. Accordingly, a fresh enquiry was conducted in utter derogation of principles ofnatural justice and again discharged him from service w.e.f. 28-5-99 vide orders dated 30-4-99 . No wages have been paid from 1st May, 1999 to 28th May, 1999 though the workman had worked. Appeal was preferred which was also dismissed. Hence , the dismissal order the appllate order may be set aside directing him to reinstate withall attendant benefits and back wages from 1-5-99 .
4. Acounter was filed challenging the jurisdiction o this Court under Sec: 2A(2) . All the other matters hav been agreed. That the Petitioner approached the Court an asper the directions of the Hon'ble High Court an enquir was conducted with following the principles of natura justice. The Board after considering the enquiry report th explanatiori of the petitioner passed the resolution vid resolution No. 7/99 and Chairman of the Board remove the workman vide orders dated 28-5-99 . The workman file an appeal which was also dismissed. That he filed a Wr Petition as the Writ Petition was dismissed, the approached the Hon'ble High Court which was als dismissed. The allegations that wages were not paid froi 1-5-99 to 28-5-99 are wrong . Hence, the Petition may b dismissed.
Respondents
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : Sri K. Balakrishna , Advocate Forthe Respondent : Sri D. V. Subhba Rao , Advocate
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec. 2A ( 2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others and transferredto this Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H11026/ 1 / 2001 - IR ( C- II) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No. 1/2000 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 12/2002 .
2. The brief averments as stated in the petition are: That the workman joined in service w.e.f. 10-1-93 bearing token No.6701 as labour on compassionate grounds . Beforehe could join in the said service , some unauthorized person took his position as though he was Son of Late 5. Arguments were heard on validity of domesti enquiry and his Court by a detailed order dated 8th July 2002 that the domestic enquiry is validly conducted Arguments were heard under Sec . 11A and the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner cited several decisions . In 1999 (5) ALT page 450 wherein his Lordship held , "Even if findings on misconduct are justified Labour Court has power to hold dismissal as unjustified and award appropriate and lesser punishment in the circumstances of aparticular case" . He also cited from the same Judgement of the observation of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'bleHigh Court of A.P. that the , "Labour Court is duty bound to re-appreciate the evidence in case where the workman filed a memo conceding the validity ofdomestic enquiry" . He also cited several other judgements which with respect to him, I am of the opinion that they are not germane to the point of issue . He prayed for reinstatement withbackwages .
6. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that once the enquiry has been held valid and thePetitionerhas impersonated himself, he does not deseve any sympathy and if such be the case everyone having 3617 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
impersonated or obtained fake certificate would claim for protection under Sec. 11A. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
7. Itmay be seen that a number ofjudgements cited by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Court is duty bound to re - appreciate the evidence even the case whether the workman files a memo concedings as to the validity of the domestic enquiry . Which otherwise means that as in this case the enquiry is held valid yet, I have to re-appreciate the evidence that has been lead in the enquiry. In this case Sri R. Seshagiri Rao , Assistant Engineer , was appointed as enquiry officer through an order No. P1 /95/ 987 dated 2-11-95 to enquire into the charges of impersonation levelled against 16 casual workers.
3 years was mentioned whereas Maheswara Rao's name was not found. So from gratuity nomination and PF nomination, Atchanna was not having a son by name MaheswaraRao. So it may be further seen that the evidence ofthe defence witness that M. Atchanna had two wives andthat Petitioner's mother was mentally upset and gone somewhere , her whereabouts are not known , appears to be abuild up story not to put her in the witness box as she would be the most appropriate person to disclose about thebirth ofthe Petitioner. It may be noted that no doubt, PW1 appears as a defence witness in the enquiry proceedings andnot as prosecution witness but in the end he says that he does not know the Petitioner personally but he knows Maheswara Rao when his relatives shown him as son of Atchanna . PW2 in the enquiry also speaks that Maheswara Rao is the son of Atchanna . That the most surprising aspect is the evidence of PW1 who is the father ofMaheswara Rao , who claims that his son obtained job claiming himself to be son of Atchanna. But in the end all is washed off when he says that he does not know the presentPetitioner Maheswara Rao personally. Now what happened, his son is alleged to have obtained job falsely by claiming himselfto be son of Atchanna. But one thing issure, that although the prosecution witness tried to prove thatthe Petitioner is son of Atchanna, but it is not clearly established. It was in other way round as if they were the defence witnesses . Whatever it is , the PF and Gratuity nomination does not speak about Maheswara Rao and legalheir certificate from M.R.O. was obtained in 1998 and the voters ' list is dated 1-1-95 . That is after his obtaining thejob in 1993. If the voters ' list was earlier, it would have had sufficient value . But, now I am afraid no value canbe attached to it and he is an impresonator and whether PW1's son is an impresonator having obtained the job by falsely claiming himselfto be son of Atchanna is a different issue.But, suffice it to say that the Petitioner apparently is not the son of Atchanna. Hence , I am of the opinion that he is not entitled for any relief. In the result, an Award is passed holding that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Award passed accordingly. Transmit.
8.The case ofthe Petitioner herein Sri M. Maheswara Rao , casual worker No. 6701 is one among the 16 and has been taken up for the enquiry, He was served with a show cause notice dated 2-1-95 on the report of verification committee charged against him was that he enlisted in the name of Sri M. Maheswara Rao is a causal worker No. 6701 as an impersonator to which he gave a reply denying the charge.He has taken the assistance of Sri D. Suryanarayana, Tally Clerk No. 10051 in the first instance and later Sri N. Nageswara Rao , Jr. Assistant and Vice President of VDLB & DW union. The enquiry was posted right from 1996 to 1998. Two witnesses were examined, one is Sri Moogi Nookaraju , Tally Clerk No. 10080 as PW1 and Sri Mokka Appalanaidu , Mazdoor No. 1761 as PW2 whereas the Petitioner examined Sri Mokka Apparao, his brother who is also working in the steel plant . He relied on the certificate filed by the charged worker that Sri M. Atchanna had a son, whose date ofbirth was 10-6-1973, the son would be 6 or7 years of age at the time of submission of PF and Gratuity nomination during 1979-80 but the name of the Petitioner does not appear, but a name Srinivas appears . So he concluded that he do not have a son by name of the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the findings are wrong. He also relied on legal heir certificate dated 20-4-1998 and on voters list of 1995 which according to the Respondent are purposely created for this purpose. Let us further go into the enquiry and re- appreciate the evidence .
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 19th day ofApril, 2004.
E. ISMAIL , PresidingOfficer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the
Petitioner NIL Respondent NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
9. Itmay be seen that the Petitioner was served with ashow cause notice dated 2-1-95 that he has impersonated. The Petitioner was assisted by Sri D. Suryanarayana, defence representative , later Sri N. Nageswara Rao, Jr. Assistant and Vice President ofVDLB & DW union . It may be seen that M.R.O. certificate which was obtained in 1998 . Mokka Atchanna died in 1982 leaving behind the wife, one Masheswara Rao, the son and Mamidi Ratnam, the daughter. So it may be seen that the said legal heir certificate is obtained in 1998 and the voters list is as on 1-1-95 by then he was already issued with a notice on 2-1-95 . Late Mokka Atchanna had submitted PF and Gratuity nomination documents during 1979-80 in which the name ofMaheshwara Rao is not there . Aname of Srinivas aged 3618
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
16-7-2002 between the management of Vijaya Bank and their workman in to this Tribunal as I.D. No. 260/2002 and notices were issued to the parties .
SCHEDULE
का. आ. 1544.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 260/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Whether the management ofVijaya Bank is justified in imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage with cumulative effect for a period of one year upon Smt . C. Priyamvada ? If not, what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? "
[सं. एल-12011/93/2002- आई आर ( बी.- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004
2. The case is already referred in I.D. No. 294/2002 which is pending in this Tribunal . Hence, this reference is closed as superfluous . Transmit .
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 3rd day of April, 2004.
E. ISMAIL , PresidingOfficer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for: Witnesses examined for the Petitioner: Respondent
S.O. 1544 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 260/ 2002) 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 Vijaya Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-04.
NIL
NIL
[No. L - 12011 /93 /2002 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
ANNEXURE
Documents marked for the Respondent NIL
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
Present:
Shri E. ISMAIL PresidingOfficer
Dated: 3rd day of April , 2004 Industrial Dispute No. 260/2002
BETWEEN
का. आ. 1545.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 268/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12025/11/2004- आई आर ( बी.- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव
....Petitioner
New Delhi , the 9th June, 2004 The Regional Secretary, Vijaya Bank , Workers Organisation. 3rd floor, Swarnalok Complex, Eluru Road, P. O. Vijayawada .
AND
The Assistant General Manager , Vijaya Bank, Regional office, 1st floor, Ist Lane, Masjid Street , Vijayawada.
....Respondent
Appearances :
For the Petitioner : NIL
S.O. 1545. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 268/ 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 Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-04 .
For the Respondent : M/s. E.Ajay Reddy , B. Venkat Reddy & K. Ravi Kumar , Advocates
[No. L- 12025/ 11/2004-IR(B -II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE
ORDER
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
This is a case referred by the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour by order No. L - 12011 /93 /20021R( B . II) dt.
3619
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Present:
Shri E. ISMAIL, B.Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 12th day of April , 2004
Industrial Dispute L.C.L.D. No. 268/2001
BETWEEN
Sri P. Rajeswara Rao ,
charge. Thereafter he was issued with a chargesheet and enquirywas conducted by Sri N.S. Ramakrishna styling himself as an Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority. Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted by him on various dated. The Petitioner pleaded guilty of the allegations made against him and enquiry was concluded and Petitioner submitted a written brief dated 24-4-1999. the Enquiry Officer gave a report dated 10-5-99 and directed the Petitioner to appear for personnel hearing fixed on 15-10-99 to submit explanation . He was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service and an appeal was preferred which was also dismissed.
9thLane , Ramnagar,
Petitioner
S/o . P. Peddaiah, R/o . 37-1-413( 13 ) , Ongole.
AND
1. The Assistant General Manager ,
RegionalOfficer,
United Bank of India ,
NatrajComplex,
Governorpet, Vijayawada.
1. The Assistant General Manager ,
The UnitedBank of India ,
3. The Management has failed to note that the irregularities were committed at the behest of Sri Krishna Mohan, Accountant . Thereafter, initiating the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner is erroneous andmisconceived. That the enquiry is not fairly conducted. Even the chargesheet cannot be sub -delegated nominating Sri N.S. Ramakrishna as Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authotity. Therefore the nomination of Enquiry Officer is also bad . Even otherwise the Accountant Sri Krishna Mohan was let off with minor penalty . Therefore, the punishment given to the Petitioner is highly disproportionate and he also should have been let offwith minorpenalty .
....Respondents
Central Office, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg. Mumbai -400021.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner : M/s . G. Vidya Sagar ,
K. Udaya Sree , P. Sudheer Raol &A. Laxman , Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s . C. R. Sridharan, G.Narender Reddy & S. Ramesh, Advocates
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3- 8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
4.Acounterwas filed challenging the jurisdiction of this court under Sec. 2 A(2 ) and further stated that the Petitioner was working as Head cashier in the Kandukur branch of the Respondent bank and has committed certain serious acts of misconduct and that is a misappropriation ofsums prejudicial to the respects of the Respondent bank involving serious loss in terms of money and otherwise . In view of the gravity of the misconduct reported against the . Petitioner , vide proceedings dated 8-7-98 , he was placed under suspension with a memo dated 24-7-98 . That actually the balances in 35 accounts in 10 ledgers were jotted down for lesser amounts in the balancing books as of April , 1998. This practice of deliberatelyjotting the lesser balances was in existence from September , 1997 involving Rs . 3,15,000/-. The Petitioner in his explanation expressed his regrets assured against recurrence of such acts in future . That Sri N.S. Ramakrishna, deputy Manager was appointed asEnquiry Officer. He conducted the enquiry as per principles of natural justice . Petitioner was duly assisted by a defence assistance of his choice Sri B. Subramaniyam, Organizing Secretary of Union Bank Employees ' Union and unconditionally admitted all the charges levelled against him vide memoraandum dated 24-7-1998 and the charges against him. In view of the categorical admission ofthe Petitioner the enquiry was closed. Hence, the enquiry isvalidly conducted. Hence, he is not entitled for any relief.
5.Arguments were heard on the validity ofdomestic enquiry and it was held by a detailed order dated 6-8-2003 that the enquiry is validly conducted. Arguments were advanced under Sec. 11 (A) .
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Accountant has been let off by a minor punishment . Taking into consideration his long service and 2. The brief averments ofthe petition are : That the Petitioner joined the Union Bank of India on 4-12-84 as clerk cum cashier . He was promoted as Head Cashier in 1993. He was working at Kandukur branch . While so, the petitioner came into contact with one Sri J. Krishna Mohan, Accountant of the bank . During that period he was having certain financial problems from September, 1997 to April, 1998 due to Chronic ill -health of his wife and father . Krishna Mohan helped him to over come financial crisis at the behest of Krishna Mohan certain errors crept in. He could not bring the said errors , irregularities to the notice of higher officials . He was asked to give a statement before the Chief Manager , thereafter he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards the amount due from him to the bank . Vide proceedings dated 8-7-98 he was placed under suspension. He was issued with a chargesheet dated 24-7-98 . It was alleged that he colluded with Sri Krishna Mohan, to defraud the bank and he gave a detailed explanation denying the [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
3620
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2003
ill-health of his wife and father and the fact that he himself voluntarils confessed and paid the amount , a lenient view should have been taken. Therefore , this Court may reduce the punishment by stopping some increments which serve the ends ofjustice .
1
का. आ. 1546.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बरोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/181/2001- आई आर ( बी.- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 9th June, 2004
S.O. 1546. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 8/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
[No. L- 12012/ 181 /2001 - IR(B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
7. it is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Responder that it would not fit in the things if it is what the Petitioner stated in the appeal is reproduced here : " ...... as ill - luck could have it I was forced to commit some irregularities in the bank with active instigation and selfish end of Sri . Krishna Mohan who worked as Accountant in the Branch of the Bank at Kandukur .... I repented myself and I could not digest the irregularities committed by me . I brought the entire unpleasant things personally to the notice of Branch Manager , and I confessed myself voluntarily before the Branch Manager , I paid the entire amounts which I have taken , voluntarily I did not suppress anything in this regard. I have given a statement to the Branch Manager confessing my misdeeds . Butthe Enquiry Officer & Disciplinary Authority did not show any mercy on me and failed to consider the humanitarism though I begged and confessed many times.. " So he submits that in view of his voluntary confession and as it is a financial institution granting him any relief would be uncalled for mercy.
ANNEXURE
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW
Present:
SHRIKANT SHUKLA , PresidingOfficer
L.D. No. 8/2002
Ref. No. 1-12012/ 181/ 01 / IR (B- II) dated 29-1-2002 BETWEEN
Sri Rama Shanker Mishra
L, 17, Amreshpuri ,
RaeBareli
8 it may be seen that justice should be tempered with meres .Butto what extent ? I can understand if there is some such lapse once or twice . Here we find that 35 accoun's in 10 ledgers were jotted down for lesser amounts from September , 1997 to April, 1998. Can it be said that it was a lamentary Capse which can be viewed with sympaths and mercy. It went on for about 8 months and no doubt a good thing is he confessed and paid the amounts out is that sufficient ? If one were to commit a heinous crive like ınurder and confesses it , does it absolve him from wishment ? I am afraid ne . So here also this is a lapsenot once or twice but 35 times involving Rs . 3 , 15,000/ -.So I am afraid it is not a fit case to show any mercy . Hence, thole that no interfernce is called for in tite order of the Petitioner's dis : nissal and the Petitioner is not entitled to ant relict.
AND
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Liented te Kom . K. Phani Gowri . Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 12th day of April , 2004 .
Regional Manager, Bank ofBaroda; Regional Office, Lodhwari Kothi Katchari Road, Raebareli
E. ISMAIL. Presiding Officer
ORDER
Appendix of evidence
Witacssor examined for :
thePeritioner:
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
The Government of India Ministry of Labour vide their order no . L - 12012 / 181 / 2001 /[ IR (B - II)] dated 29-1-2002 referred the following issue for adjudication to Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow;
NIL
NU
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGE- MENT, BANK OF BARODA, RAEBARELI INTERMINAT- ING THE SERVICES OF SRI RAMA SHANKER MISRA W.E.F. 9-9-98 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF THE CONCERNED WORKMANIS ENTITLED TO ??"
Dorurnents marked for the Respondent NIL 3621 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Sri Rama Shankar Misra filed his statement of claim on4-10-2002 after availing 10 opportunities and thereafter he started absenting. The opposite party filed written statement on 4-6-2003 . The worker appeared on 15th Sept. , 2003 and moved an application for adjournment seeking timeto file rejoinder and evidence, Court permitted Sri Rama Shankar Misra to file the rejoinder within a week but the worker did not file rejoinder nor filed any evidence in support of his case.
On11-12-2003 following three issues were framed in absence of the parties;
1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management were without observing principle of natural justice?
2.Whether the worker has been convicted has alleged inpara 34 ofthe written statement ? If so its effect.
No. UPL/ 14/ STF/ 1114/ 1668 dated 14-6-88 which consisted for four charges and few time barred allegations of the nature of Civil Liabilities . These allegations were not . maintainable at all under the Limitation Act of the India . By aorder passed in the Writ Petition the bank was directed not to suspend the workman until the charge sheet was served. The management was highly prejudiced due to filing the Contempt of Court by the workman for Non- Implementation ofthe decision given by Hon'ble High Court Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. As the disciplinary authority the Regional Manager Mr. N. B. Parikh appeared before the Hon'ble High Court . Due to this he get frustrated during proceedings, he threatened the workman for removal from the bank by hook or crook. The workman joins the bank on 4thNov. , 1991 after suspension in terms of letter No. UPR/ 2/STF /C-551/ 1679 dated 4th Nov. 1991. Again the workman was charge sheeted vide No. UPR/5 / STF/ 2705 dated 24th Nov. , 1994. Sri Misra has alleged that the enquiries ofboth the charge sheet were neither fair nor proper and no place was given of natural justice in favour of the workman .
3. Whether the dismissal order is without notice ifso itseffect.
The next date was fixed 3-3-04 but the parties remained absent. Therefore there is no other option to proceed with the adjudication of the case . It is noteworthy here that the opposite party Bank ofBaroda has filed in the evidence shape of affidavit of Sri K.N. Pandey who was Asstt. General Manager of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Lucknow.
Two enquiries completed as stage show drama. During both the enquiries the Branch Manager Sri T. K. Bhattacharya was also chargesheeted in almost same grounds . On demand of copy of the charge , evidence produced by the then Branch Manager, workman was denied by the enquiry officer . Sri Misra was ultimately dismissed from the bank service under Dismissal without notice vide letter No. UPR/09 /DISA/VIG/85 dated 9th Sept. 1998. The bank manipulated charge withdrawal of Rs . 51,000/- from the account ofMr. Vinod Kumar Srivastava in which the bank authorities utilized the liason and status with the CBI authorities . The case is pending with the Hon'bleHigh Court , Allahabad, Lucknow bench. Sri Misra preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the bank not to victimise the workman and requested lawful favour but after the expirty of more than 23 month , bank management performed another drama in terms ofpersonal hearing. They were asked to produce despatch register to Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) for false call letters to workman for hearing which they could not produce . The procedure adopted for dismissal without notice to the workman is a waste papers buff managed in hub and bub . Inthe circumstances workman has requested to get aside both the enquiries which are neither fair nor proper but merely stage show drama and the punishment imposed and has further prayed for salary of suspension period .
The management has denied the worker's allegations. The management has alleged that according to section 10(b) (i) of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 inter alia provides that no banking company shall employ or continue the employment of any person who is or who has been convictedby a criminal court of an offence involving mortal turpitude. Sri Misra was chargesheeted by the Central Bureau of Investigation in a fraud committed by him of Rs . 51000 and he was convicted by the court and a sentence of 3 years of rigorous imprisonment and penalty of Rs . 55000 under Section 420 of IPC and another sentence of three The case of the workman is that he was appointed in the Bank of Baroda at Birhana Road Branch, Kanpur on 20-2-73 as Cash-Clerk - cum Godown Keeper after being recruited through examination by NIBM. He alleges that he did his job up to the satisfaction of the management till he was transferred to Malikmau branch Raebareli in March 1978. Sri Misrajoined Malikmau branch Raebareli in March, 1978 and worked there till March, 1985 and during his stay atthis branch he never gave any chance of complaint . Sri Misrawas deputed to Dariyapur branch Raebareli and by virtue of seniority he was posted as Head Cashier Category Cthrough a letter for the time; the branch was under Municipal Area. So long, he was at Dariyapur branch, drew special allowance for Head Cashier Category C. Sri Misra stayed at Dariyapur branch approximately 28 months and worked there for full working hours each day. Worker has alleged that he was entitled to deputation allowance and he claimed for the above allowance from the bank authorities which made the foundation of a complaint, so called misconduct against the workman. Getting annoyed the then BranchManager started to weave a net to fish the workman in its revenge. Sri Misra was further threaten for a severe punishment. The Regional Manager of the bank, the disciplinary authority himself warned the workman to level him in to the soils while he visited the branch on its inaugural function. On 31-7-87 due to prejudice Shri Misra was suspended vide letter No. UPL/ 13 / STF/ 114/ 1910 dated. 30th July, 1987, Sri Misra filed a Writ Petition, which proved to be for serve regarding prejudice of the management. The bank had no way but to serve fabricated charge sheet 3622
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000 under Anti Corruption Act, 1977 has been imposed . Since Sri Misrawas convicted by a court of an office involving moral turpitude and according , in terms of Section 10(b)( i ) ofthe Banking Regulations Act, 1949 the bank cannot employ or continuehim in the bank. It is admitted that the chargesheet dated 14-6-88 was issued to the concerned workman for the serious misconducts committed by him during the course ofhis employment inter alia the charges against the concernedworkman were that he availed L.F.C. facility twice on two different blocks and unauthorisedly kept with him the advance taken by him from the suspense account for a long period ; he availed overdraft of Rs . 4000 against FDR and allowed the balance to accrue to Rs . 16000 and he got purchased a cheque of Rs . 4000 drawn by his family member and returned B.P. was adjusted after two months ; he influenced and pressurised the Branch Manager in financial transactions in extending certain facilities to firms of his family members including loan and purchasing instruments ofRs . 15000 , Rs . 12000 and Rs . 15000 respectively . The service of second charge sheet is also admitted and the bank has stated that second charge dated 24-11-94 was issued to him for the misconducts committed by him while he was posted at Dariyapur Branch as Head Cashier on temporary basis , and the charges inter alia were to the effect that he got purchased from the Branch Manager a cheque ofRs. 40000 in the name of his brother after crediting of the amount in his brother's account . The amount was withdrawn by him . The schedule of repayment prepared was not dispatched on the same date and the amount was redeposited after 14 months without charging interest . Further he pressurised the Branch Manager , Dariyapur to sanction and disburse a loan of Rs . 10000/- each to two different borrowers and the amount of these loans was utilized by him for adjusting the entry of Rs . 40000. In relation to the first charge sheet dated 14-6-88 which was duly served on the workman , Mr. N. K. Krishna Subrahmanyam , the then Sr. Manager at Regional Office , Lucknow was appointed as enquiry officer . However, enquiry officer was changed and Mr. M. Z. Hashmi the then Sr. Manager , Zonal Office , Lucknow was appointed as enquiry officer . The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry into the charges levelled against the workman in consonance with the principles of natural justice , giving full opportunity of hearing and defence and in the enquiry report submitted by him , he found all the charges except one of Dariyapur Branch, as proved . In relation to the second charge sheet dated 24-11-94 the bank has submitted that which was also duly served upon the concerned workman and Mr. Krishan Kumar , the then Sr. Manager (Credit) Regional Office , Raebareli was appointed enquiry officer and he too , after conducting the enquiry in consonance with law submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty for charges No. 1 , 4 & 5 charge No. 2 was notfound by him to be proved and charge No.3 was partly proved . It is further submitted that both the enquiries against the concerned workman were conducted in consonance with law. Proccedings of each date of
enquirywere duly recorded, witnesses were examined and cross examined . The copy of enquiry reports/ findings of enquiry officers were made available to the concerned workman for his representation, if any thereon . But the concerned workman chose not to make any representation against the findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority thereafter proposed the punishment of dismissal without notice and at the same time confirmed the period of suspension and gave personal hearing to him on 5-9-98 . After considering the submission of the concerned workman during the said personal hearing by the disciplinary authority , the entire facts of the case and the records of the enquiry , the proposed punishment was confirmed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 9-9-98. Sri Misra against the said order preferred an appeal dated 22-10-98 . The Appellate Authority workman personally at length on came to the conclusion that there was no requirement to interfere with the orders of disciplinary authority and consequence dismissed the appeal by its order dated 13-9-2000 . The concerned workman was given due opportunity of hearing in consonance of principles of natural justice , as also the provisions of bipartite settlement and action of the management of the bank in dismissing the concerned workman from services is in consonance with law and does not call for any judicial scrutiny by this Tribunal . The punishment imposed by the management of bank is proportionate to the misconducts committed by him . Tribunal does not sit in appeal over the findings of the enquiry officer. The proceedings of the enquiry can be challenged only on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice causing prejudices to the concerned workman. The findings of the enquiry officer can be challenged on the ground or perversity to an extent that no prudent man could have arrived at a conclusion arrived at by the enquiry officer. Noticeably the concerned workman has not taken any of these two grounds in the statement of claim filed by him nor he pin pointed specific violation of the principles of natural justice to his prejudice in the conduct of enquiry proceedings . The management has disputed the claim of the workman that his service record was not satisfactory. The management has submitted that even prior to 1978 his service record was not satisfactory and there was numerous case of cash shortages , it is also submitted that the entire service record of the petitioner is full of blemishes . While he was posted at Birhana Road Branch,. Kanpur there was allegations of the being involved in misappropriation of mutilated notes ofRs. 315. He was also reported to have been involved in financial irregularities of different stages letters dated 25-2-77, 22-3-77 and 11-6-77 were written in this regard. It is categorically stated by the management of bank that since Dariyapur Branch situated within the municipal limits of Raebareli hence the question of payment of halting allowance or any conveyance allowance does not arise . The allegation of the concerned workman to the effect that itwas his claim for payment of deputation allowance which has annoyed the management of the bank and that 3623 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/ आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
the copy of charge sheet evidence in case of Mr. T.Κ. Bhattacharya. were not given. The management has stated that the demand of the workman was not fair and proper. Therefore. in his judgement. The enquiry officer did not accept it. In no circumstances it could be held that the action of the enquiry officer is violative of principle of natural justice . The concerned workman has failed to indicate the prejudice caused to him for no supply ofany documents . Dismissal of Sri Misra vide order dated 9-09-1998 is not dispute . It is also submitted by the bank that suspension period has been treated as period not spent onduty and decision taken in this regard in terms oforder passed by the competent authority while passing the final order. In the last management has requested that the workman is not entitled to any relief from this tribunal . The management has filed affidavit in support of his case as well as workman has not filed any parties could not heard asthey absented from the court.
IssueNo. 1 framed by this court on 11-12-2003 was whether the enquiry conducted by the management were without observing principle of natural justice ?
The burden of the above issue was on the workman to prove that the enquiry conducted without observing of natural justice . But the worker has not discharged his burden. The affidavit filed by the management that the enquiry conducted by the management were fully observing theprinciple ofnatural justice .
Issue No. 2 has framed on 11-12-2003 was whether theworker has been convicted as alleged in para 34 ofthe written statement ? If so its effect ? Management has proved by affidavit that the workman has been convicted the result will be the worker shall not be entitled to continue in the service.
Issue No. was framed on 11-12-2003 on the question whether the dismissal order is without notice if so its effect. The worker has not come forward to show whether any prejudice is caused to him by the order since he was served with the enquiry report . The management has proved that copies ofenquiry/findings of the enquiry officer was made available to the workman . But the concerned workman chose not to make any representation against the findings ofthe enquiry officer. Therefore the dismissal order without notice has no effect on the punishment imposed upon him .
On careful consideration of the evidence on record I come to the conclusion that the action of the management ofBank ofBaroda. , Raebareli in terminating the services of Sri R.S. Misra with effect from 9-9-98 is legal andjustified. The issue is accordingly answered in affirmative in favour of the management. The workman is not entitled to any relief.
31-05-2004
Lucknow
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer का. आ. 1547.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के institution of departmental enquiry was as a result of such annoyance arising out of such claim made by him, is sheer imagination on his part . It is submitted the environment in the bank is such that the employees are free to raise any demand and raising of any demand can never annoy any management. The employees have a strong union. However, any request/demand of the concerned workman could not be acceded to since it was not provided for under the rules. The nature of misconducts/allegations/charges were of serious nature involving financial irregularities leading to severe apprehension in the minds ofthe management about integrity and honesty of the concerned workman. It has been categorically denied by the management, of any prejudice of any motivated plans. However, it is not disputed that the concerned workman was suspended by letter dated 30-7-87 . The filing of Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court has not been disputed . The passing of order dated 11-5-95 is also not disputed by the management, wherein it was provided that charge sheet be served to the concerned workman within three weeks fron . he date of service of certified copy of the said order and if the chargesheet was not served within the stipulated period then the suspension order would stand stayed. Sri Misra obtained the certified copy on 16-5-88 and served the same on 2-6-88 , within 13 days of the receipt of the said certified copy of the order of High Court chargesheet dated 14-6-88 was sent to the workman by registered post on 15-6-88 . Thus the charge sheet was served upon the workman well within time of three weeks provided by the Hon'ble Court inthe interim order . However mischievously the workman didplace the incorrect facts before the Hon'ble High Court and filed a contempt petition in which the notices were issued. The correct position was duly informed to the Hon'ble High Court . The management has admitted that it took some time in issuance of the charge sheet to the workman because of the prolong investigation which were being carried out by the internal agencies (bank) as also the external agencies CBI, Lucknow for the gross financial irregularities committed by the workman while discharging hisduties as Head Cashier Category Cat DariyapurBranch. The management has categorically denied that any threat was ever extent to the workman for his removal from services by the bank . The management has also categorically denied that it was stage show drama . Because all the charges were not covered in the earlier charge sheet does not in any manner exonerate the concerned workman of the 2nd charges against him. Issuance of a second charge sheet does not violate the principles of natural justice in any manner . However it is submitted that both the enquiries were conducted strictly adhereing to the principles of natural justice whereby the concerned workman was given free and fair opportunity to defend himself. He was made available documents sought by him and opposited produce his defence evidence . In number of adjournment were sought by the concerned workman on the pretext or the other and adjournments were granted by the enquiry officer. Management denied that the enquiries were not fair and proper. With regard to the allegation of the workman that
1883 G1/04-22 3624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 256/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[ सं० एल -12011 /52/ 2002 - आई आर ( बी.- II ) ]
सी० गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2003
S.O. 1547. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 256/ 2002 ) 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 Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
[No. L - 12011 /52/2002 - IR(B - II ) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc . , LL.B. , : PresidingOfficer Dated the 22nd day of March , 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 256/2002 BETWEEN :
Petitioner The General Secretary , Sydicate Bank Staff Association, Anand Plaza , Il floor, Near Anand Rao Circle , Bangalore- 560 009 .
AND
The Dy . General Manager, Syndicate Bank. Zonal Office , Somajiguda. Hyderabad - 500082 .
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)]
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank , Hyderabad in dismissing the services of Sri M. V. Raja Rao , Clerk , Chaitanyapui , Hyderabad is legal andjustified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? " This reference was registered as Industrial Dispute No. 256/2002 and notices were issued to the parties .
2. The brief averments as mentioned in the claim statement are: that the Petitioner joined on 20-9-76 as a clerk cum typist and put in a clean record of service. He was illegally dismissed on 30-1-2001 . That while the Petitioner was working as clerk -cum-typist on 27-6-2000. On 28-7-2000, M/s. Sri Laxmi Tyres Agency , customer , has deposited a sum of Rs . 90 , 100 to the current Account No. 860, but by mistake in the cash slip prepared by M/s . Sri Laxmi Tyres Agency, it was mentioned Rs . 83,100. It is further alleged that there was excess cash of Rs . 7,000. That the Petitioner denied the said allegation. However , the Senior Branch Manager forced the Petitioner to refund the amount sent to kept cordial relation between the bank and the customers . The Petitioner submits that in order to keep the respect of the bank he was forced to refund the amount even though he received only R. 83,100. Further he was transferred from the regional office (Rural) to Chaitanyapuri branch on 24-6-2000 and normally the practice was to credit the salary of the employees in the respective accounts on the last but one day of the month . When he was transferred and joined the duty at Chaitanyapuri branch on 27-6-2000, he has discounted the cheques towards his salary on 8-7-2000 for which the Respondent bank is solely responsible for noncrediting the salary in his account . Therefore , the Petitioner was allowedto sustain with his family members , has drawn the amount payable by the Respondent bank .
3. The delinquent employee stood as a surety to the co -employee by name Mr. G. Balaiah, together with Sri Ratnam Raju , clerk and Smt . Shashikala. That the Hon'ble court ordered attachment of salary to all the three. Curiously thebank has taken action against him.
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner M/s . A. K. Jayaprakash Rao , K. Srinivas Rao , P. Sudha , T. Bal Reddy, M.Govind , N. Sanjay & K. Ajay Kumar, Advocates For the Respondent M/ s . A. Krishnan Raju , G. Dinesh Kumar , G. V. N. Babu , N. Premananda Rao & T. P. Das , Advocates .
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 1201 1 /52/2002 - IR(B - II ) dated 18-6-2002 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the 1.D. Act. 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the employers in relation to the Management of Syndicate Bank and their workman .
4. Further, in the enquiry one Senior Branch Manager was examined as Management witness Sri M. B. Rajanarasimham, Enquiry Officer, Sri C. Subramanyam both are of the same rank. The Enquiry Officer should be higher in the rank than the witness . Therefore the entire proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice . That he has also represented to the bank that he is experienced in cash duties as he was working in administration since 20 years and therefore , he may be exempted from performing the cash duties . That the delinquent employee had submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 10-9-98 and again on 24-8-2000 but the same was rejected. Hence , he may be taken back into service.
3. A counter was filed . It is a inatter of record that the Petitioner has joined the services of the bank on 20-9-76 as a clerk. That he was issued with a charge sheet with three charges . He did not account for excess of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Rs. 7000 while working as a cashier. He discounted a cheque without maintaining sufficient balance which resulted in the dishonour of the cheque . He stood as a guarnteer to loan and as his salary was attached he had tarnished the image of thebank in the eyes of the public. That the enquiry isvalidly conducted. That Management witness was cross examined by the defence representative which is a matter ofrecord. That the party has correctly mentioned the notes. Onlyinthe calculation they have committed a mistake, that whether the denominations are correctly noted and it has been checked by the Petitioner. That Rs . 7000 excess amount should have been found with him on 28-7-2000 but it was not there . That when he was asked on 28-7-2000 he reimbursed the amount on 1-8-2000 when he was confronted with the documents . Hence, the claim may be dismissed.
4. Arguments were heard on the validity of domestic enquiry and this Court by it's detailed order on 9-6-2003 held that the domestic enquiry is validly conducted. Hence, arguments were advanced on the quantum of punishment under Sec . 11A .
5. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that merely by wrong mentioning of the denomination by the customer does not mean that he has received the entire Rs . 90,100 when the total he is mentioning as Rs . 83,100 , he received only Rs. 83 , 100 only but much weight was given by the bank to the customer . He submits that what is there except the word of the customer. Secondly the other two allegations even if alleged to be proved are not so serious as to warrant dismissal . I fully agree with him that the other two charges of standing as a surety and discounting a cheque are not such a serious offence as to warrant dismissal . Hence, I do not want to refer the entire agruments of the Learned Counsel on the other two aspects . The only aspect which appears to be grave is whether he has received Rs . 90, 100 and credited only Rs . 83,100 If so , whether any lenience is required.
3625
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
person who gave the complaint against him is the officer immediately superior to him , the enquiry should not have been conducted by the Enquiry Officer who was Sub- ordinate to the complainant himself, and particularly when the superior officer is also a witness in the case . Further he relied on 2000 Supreme Court cases (L& S ) page 830 by a fullBench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it was held that, " where a bank employee was dismissed from service on account of his admitted misconduct of. withdrawl of money unauthorisedly from customer's account -Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement . The award of the Tribunal was modified by inserting an additional condition, that the employee would not get any increment for ten years with cumulative effect " Не therefore prays that he may be reinstated.
7. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that here the witness and the Enquiry Officer are of the same rank and the Enquiry Officer is not Subr ordinate to the Petitioner . Therefore , no bias is caused to the Petitioner in the enquiry .
8. It may be seen that in view of the Supreme Court Judgement cited above where he was reinstated into service and increments for 10 years with cumulative effect , as this is a question of Rs . 7000 and there is some doubt atleast one per cent that the party may also be responsible and ashe has put in service from 20-9-76 and was dismissed on 30-1-2001 , that means he has put in 24 years 3 months service . I think seeing the circumstances of the case the ends ofjustice will be met if the bank is directed while confirming the orders of dismissal the bank is directed to pay 12 months gross wages last drawn by him to be multiplied by the salary for the month of December, 2000. Hence, the reference is ordered as follows : The action of the Management of Syndicate Bank , Hyderabad in dismissing the services of Shri M. V. Raja Rao , Clerk, Chaitanyapuri , Hyderabad is directed to be paid 12 months wages multiplied by his last drawn salary in December , 2000 as he has worked for 24 and odd years within 30 days fromthe publication ofthis award failing which he will be entitled to simple interest at 6 % p.a. until he receive the amount.
Award passed accordingly . Transmit.
Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 22nd day of March , 2004 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the
6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued that in the enquiry the equivalent officer to that of Enquiry Officer is examined as a witness which is not correct. As per the Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. reported in 1990 (II) LLJ page 23 in M.L.L. Kumar Vs. TheDivisional Manager , A.P.S.R.T.C. , Cuddapah and Another, that to avoid bias , superior officer must be appointed as Enquiry Officer as Management witness . That the delinquent officer forced to pay Rs . 7000 on 31-7-2000 and the said amount was received without any demur and the charge sheet was issued on 18-9-2000 for the amount so received. That during the cross examination ofMW1 a question was put to MWI , it was brought to light that the representative of M/ s Laxmi Tyres Agencies was preparing cash slips and used to commit mistakes in denominations very often but MW1 gave elusive reply but he is not responsible for handling cash vouchers but didnot deny the question put by the delinquent employee. That Ex. M2 was confronted that there was alteration of denomination of Rs . 50 prepared by M/ s . Laxmi Tyres Agency and MW 1 has admitted the same . That his evidence is not challenged. The Judgement on which he relied states that when the person who have the complaint and the Petitioner:
Witnesses examined for theRespondent:
NIL
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 3626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] नई दिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004
Md. Akhtar Hussain from the services of the Bank w.e.f. 17-11-1995 ? IfNot, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by him is as follows :-
का.आ. 1548- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंण्डिया , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , धनबाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल०-12012/384/96- आई ० आर० ( बी- II ) ] सी० गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004
S. O. 1548. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. ( 100/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-6-2004.
[No. L- 12012/384/96 - IR (B -II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- NO. 2 AT DHANDBAD
PRESENT:
Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer
In the matter of an Industrial dispute under Section 10(1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947
REFERECE NO 100/1997
Parties:
Employers in relation to the management ofBank of India, Ramgarh Cantt . Branch and their workman.
APPEARANCES :
The concerned workman submitted that the management with malafide intention to dismiss him and to terrorise other employees suspended him from service with effect from 12-7-94 without assigning any reason . he alleged that tojustify the said illegal action of suspension management issued a false and frivolous charge sheet to on 17-11-1994 to which he submitted his reply denying all the charges brought against him. He alleged further that the management without accepting his reply decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and accordingly appointed enquiry officer who in violation of the mandatory principles ofnatural justice and in violation of the settled lawofthe land conducted the said domestic enquiry against him. He submitted that for the alleged allegation as levelled in the charge-sheet no criminal case was lodged by the management which ipsofacto proved that the allegation levelled in the charge - sheet were primafacie illegal and had no existence . He alleged that in the said invalid and irregular domestic enquiry the management witnesses were not allowed to adduce their evidence freely. Even the Enquiry officer did not consider necessary to examine the complainant and even did not consider necessary to varify the original documents , the copies of which were placed before him Even no opinion ofthe handwriting expert was obtained in respect of the same handwriting and signature appearing on certain documents . he alleged that on the basis ofillegal and arbitrary findings ofthe enquiry officer management dismissed him from his service with effect from 17-11-95 illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice. He disclosed that after the order of dismissal he submitted several representations and made appeals to the higher authority to reconsider the order of illegal dismissal from service but to no effect and for which he raised industrial dispute before the ALC ( C ) Hazaribagh for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Onbehalfofthe workman: Mir. D. Mukherjee , Advocate
Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate
State : Jharkhand
Industry: Coal
Accordingly he submitted prayer to pass award in his favour with a direction to the management to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
Dated , Dhanbad, the 17th May, 2004
AWARD
TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under section 10( 1) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L. 12012/384/96/IR ( B - II) , dated, 5-9-1997.
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Ramgarh, Cantt . Branch, in dismsissing Sh.
3. Mangement on the contrary after filing written statement -cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his written statement . They submitted that the concerned workmanwas posted at Ramgarh Cantonment Branch of Bank of India as special assistant carrying on the duties of cash cum accounts clerk in the year 1994. They submitted that one coustomer of the Bank viz . Md. Ataul Haque having savings Bank A/c. No. 6696 lodged a complaint to the Manager of the Bank in the month of June , 1994 to the 3627 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
Md. Shariff to S.B. A/c . No. 197 ofMd. Tahir Husain son of theAccount holder on the authority of a purported letter bearing purported signature of the account holder Md . Shariff. It was observed that the authority letter was neither signed by the account holder nor he was authorised for thattransfer entry. The account holder denied having signed the said authority letter and the signature appearing on the said letter when compared with the specimen signature it was observed that the signature appearing in the purported authority letter did not tally with the specimen signature . Thus the concerned workman allowed the transfer entries from the above Account No. 3611 ofaccount holder named Md. Shariff. They submitted that various other irregularities committing by the concerned workman were also detected whichhe was costed at Hunterganj Branch and Ramgarh Cantonment Branch. Accordingly after detecting serious cases of fraud, dishonesty and gross negligence ofduties hewas issued a chargesheetdt . 17-11-94 for committing misconduct under clause 19.5 (J) offirst bipartite settlement dt. 19-11-66.
effect that, a sum of 15000/-had been withdrawn from his S.B. A/c No. 6696 by exercising fraud upon him and he requested for getting the matter examined. On examination it revealed that the concerned workman issued a cheque book containing leaves bearing No. 93781 to 93790 in the captioned account of Md. Ataul Haque without obtaining the requisition slip from him against his account. He used the first leaf ofthe cheque book viz . 93781 and handed over the same to one of his relatives viz. Mustaq Ahmed for doing the needful in that regard. It was observed that the said leaf bearing Cheque No. 93781 was purported tohave been issued to Sri Mustaq Ahmed who collected the aforesaid amount by depositing the same in his own S.B. A/c No. 5829 with Central Bank of India on 6-4-94. The said cheque was canclled by the concerned workman when the amount was collected by the Central Bank of India. The signature of the drawer on the said cheque considerably differed when compared with Ataul Haque's specimen signature appearing in the Bank's record .After proper varification of the matters relating to the issue involved, the competent authority considered the conduct ofthe concerned workman is highly predjudicial to the interest ofthe Bank and accordingly he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 20-6-1994 .
Theydisclosed that concerned workman in response to the said chargesheet issued to him submitted his reply but as it was not satisfactory competent authority appointed Sri . N. Padhi as Enquiry Officer conduct departmental enquiry against him. They submitted that full opportunitywas given to the concerned workman to defend his case. They further submitted that the enquiry officer conducted domestic enquiry, fairly, properly and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty tothe charges brought against him . They further submitted that not only relevant paper relating to the domestic enquiry proceedings but also enquiry report were handed over to the concerned workman to make his submission if any on the proposed penalty and on the findings of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary authority after hearing the concerned workman as well as his representations and after examining all relevant papers came to the condition that it was a fit case for dismissal and accordingly he was dismissed from service vide order ofdismissal dt . 17-11-95.
They alleged that the concerned workman committed another case of fraud by adopting similar procedure referred to above in respect of the S.B. А/с . No. 7463 of another customer Md. Taheseem (minor) S/o. Md. Atual Haque. He issued a Cheque Book containing leaves bearing Nos. from 948851 to 948875 in the captioned account of Md. Taheseem without obtaining requisition slip from the account holder. He handed over the cheque bearing No. 948851 for Rs . 10,000/-to Mustaq Ahmed who collected the said amount through his S.B. A/c. No. 5829 with the Central Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantonment Branch . In the same fashion the concerned issued two other cheques leaves from the aforsaid cheque book and withdrew Rs . 10,000/- and Rs . 650/- though Cheque Nos . 948855 dt . 11-1-93 and 948856 dt . 10-3-93 respectively and directly obtained the proceeds of the cheques in two occasions by signing on the reverse of the cheque leaves . The account holder had neither applied for the said cheque book nor had issued the above mentioned cheques on any occasion.
They submitted that the Disciplinary Authority did neither committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision violating the principles of natural justice in dismissing the concerned workman from his service and forwhich he is not entitled to get any relief.
4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Ramgarh Cantt Branch, in dismissing Sh . Md. Akhtar Hussain from the services of the Bank w.e.f. 17-11-95 ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"
FINDING WITH REASONS They submitted that while the concerned workman was posted at Hunterganj Branch, he permitted withdrawal ofRs . 10,000/-from S.B. A/c. No. 3611 of Md . Shariff to a Third party by means of withdrawal slip without accompanied by the pass book violating the Rules of the Bank on 25-6-87. He repeated the same thing by permitting withdrawal of Rs . 12,000/-by a third party with the help of withdrawal slip without any supporting pass book on 16-10-87 from S.B. A/c . No. 3611 of Md. Shariff.
Inthe instant case before taking up hearing on merit it was taken into consideration as preliminary issue if They alleged that on 8-8-87 he prepared a set of transfer voucher of Rs . 3000/-from S.B. A/c . No. 3611 of 3628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
domestic enquiry held against the concerned workmanby the management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice . From order No. 39 dt . 28-11-02 it transpires that the said preliminary issue was disposed of to the effect that domestic enquiry held against the concerned workınan by the management was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . Now the paint for consideration is if the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/ s . 11A of the I.D. Act over punishment imposed on him by the management . Ittranspires froin the record that management have brought three fold charges against the concerned workman for committing misconduct under clause 19.5(j ) of first Bipartite settlement dt . 19-11-66 . During hearing the chargesheet issued to the concerned workman by the management was marked as Ext . M - 2 . The charges brought against the concerned workman is as follows :-
"During your tenure at Bank's Hunterganj Branch you permitted withdrawals to a third party in S/B A/c. No. 3611 of Md . Shariff in contravention of the Banking norms and unauthorisedly allowed transfer entries from the above account of the account holder.
( a) On 25-6-87 you permitted a withdrawal ofRs. 10,000/- from S /B A/ c . No. 3611 of Md. Shariff to a third party by means of a withdrawal slip , without accompaniedby the pass book, violating the rules of the bank.
(b) On 16-10-87 you permitted a withdrawal of Rs . 12,000/-from the sanie S/B A/ c . No. 3611 of Md . Shariff to a third party by means of a withdrawal slip without any supporting pass book , violating the rules of the Bank .
( c) On 8-8-1987 you prepared a set of transfer voucher ofRs . 3,000 /- from S/B A/ c . No. 3611 ofMd. Shariff to S /B A/ C No. 197 of Md . Tahir Hussain , son of the account holder . The above transfer transactions were allowedby you on the strength of a letter of authority purportedly signed by the account holder Md. Shariff. Subsequently it was reported that the same authority letter was neither signed by the accoount holder nor were you authorised for that transfer entry transfer entry transaction. The account holder had subsequently denied having signed the said authority letter and signature there on the said authority letter bear certain variations when compared with specimen signature of the account holder. Thus unauthorisedly allowed transfer entries from the above account No. 3611 of (he account holder.
il . During your tenure at Banks Ramgarh Cantt. Branch on 16-2-1994 you deposited a cheque bearing No. 046539 dated 16-2-1994 of United Bank of India , Ramgarh, Cantt. Branch for Rs. 16,616.70 in the S /B Joint Account of
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] your wife and children (S/B A/ c . No. 7798) . The cheque was sent for collection through clearing house . However, onthe same day i.e. on 16-2-1994 you posted a withdrawal slip for Rs . 15,000/- in the same account and allowed withdrawal from the same Joint Account without the permission of the Manager. As per normal rules and practice , bank does not allow any withdrawal against clearing cheque on the same day without the specific permission of the Manager. Thus you exceeded your authority and extended undue accommodation to you wife in the matter ofeffecting withdrawal from her account against the clearing cheque on same day it is deposited and sent for collection and violated the norms and practices ofBank .
III . During your tenure at Bank's Ramgarh Cantt. Branch, you have entered into fradulent transactions and have withdrawn money unauthorisedly from the Customer's accoount on different occasions dishonestly, inthe following manner :--
(i) S/B A/c No. 6698 of Md . Atual Haque :
You issued a cheque book containing leaves bearingNos. from 93781 to 93790 in the captioned account of Md. Ataul Haque without obtaining the requisition slip from the account holder Shri Haque. Thereafter, you used the first leaf of the cheque Book i.e. Cheque No. 93781 and handed over the same to one of your relatives Mustaq Ahmad who in turn collected the above fradulent amount of Rs . 15,000/- through his S/B Account No. 5829 with Central Bank of India on 6-4-1994. The above cheque was cancelled by you , when it came for collection from Central Bank of India . The signature of the drawer on the said cheque considerably differs when compared with Ataul Haques specimen signature appearing on Bank's records . Thus you involved yourself in fradulent transaction and defrauded Bank's account holder ShriAtaul Haque .
(ii) S/B A/ c. No. 7463 of Md. Tahseem (Minor) S/ o . Md. Ataul Haque :
You issued a cheque Book containing leaves hearing Nos. from 948851 to 948875 in the captioned account of Md . Tahseem without obtaining the requisition slip from the account holder. You handed over a cheque No. 948851 for Rs . 10,000/- fradulently drawn on the above account to your relative Mustaq Ahmad who in turnn collected the cheque through his S/B A/ c . No. 5829 with Central Bank of India , Ramgarh Cantt Branch and the date of withdrawal was 24-8-1992 . Similarly you have used two other cheques leaves from the above cheque Book fradulently issued , and you have withdrawn Rs. 10,000/- through cheque No. 948855 dated 11-1-98 and Rs. 650/-through Cheque No. 948856 dt. 10-3-93 and directly obtained the proceeds of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
the cheques in two occasions by signing on the reverse of the cheque leaves . The account holder had neither applied for the cheque Book nor had issued the above stated three cheques as referred above, on any occassion. Thus you have entered into fradulent transactions in connivance with outsiders i.e. your relatives and withdrawn money from the Bank's customer's accounts dishonestly inutter disregard to the norms of the Bank. " Ittranspires from the record that in course ofhearing of the domestic enquiry proceeding the delinquent workman not only participated but also full opportunity was given to him to defend his case . It further transpires that after completion of hearing of the domestic enquiry proceeding enquiry officer submitted his report to the competent authority which during hearing was marked as Ext. M- 19. Considering the enquiry report it transpires that management have not been able to substantiate charges Nos. 1 (a) , 1 (b) and charge No. 2 while charge No. 1 (c) and Charge No. 3 have well been established against the concernedworkman i.e. the delinquent .
The finding of the Enquiry officer in respect ofcharge No. 1 (c) and Charge No. 3 are as follows :-
Charge No. 1 (c) Unauthorisedly allowing and preparing a set of transfer vouchers-Proved.
ChargeNo. 3
Entered into fradulent transactions and have withdrawn money unauthorisedly from the customer's account dishonestly-Proved.
Ittranspires that the Enquiry Officer relied on the evidence of MW- Mr. R.R. Tiwari who was Manager, Hunterganj Branch and also documents marked as Ext. ME- 16, ME - 17 ( i ) and ( ii ) , ME 18( 1 ), 18 ( II ) , ME - 30 , (ΜΕ - 19), ME -20 , ME -22 to arrive into his finding about establishment of charge 1 (c) against the concerned workman.
ME-30 is a complaint 'received by the Management Md. Shariff who was an account holder at Hunterganj Branch ofBank of India.
ME - 16 is an account opening card of S.B. A/c No. 3611 of Md . Shariff and the account was introduced by Md . Taheer Hussain A/c . No. 197 .
ME - 17 (1 ) is a withdrawal slip of S.B. A/c. No. 3611 of Huntergang branch.
ME - 17 ( II) is an application submitted by Md. ShariffA/c . No. 3611 stating therein to make payment of Rs . 10,000/- to his son Md. Taheer Hussain .
ME - 18 ( I ) is a withdrawal slip of Hunterganj branch S/B A/c . No. 3611 drawn by Md. Shariff.
ME - 18 ( II ) is an application submitted by Md. Shariff to make payment without pass book and the application was also signed by Md . Jaheer .
3629
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
ME- 19 , M -20 and M-22 are transfer set of plain voucher in which S/B A/ c . No. 3611 of Md. Shariff was debited and S/B Account No. 197 of Md . Jaheer Hussain was credited. The voucher was passed by the concerned workman on the strength of an application alleged to be given by Md. Shariff and verifiedby Md. Akhtar Hussain. It was observed that signature of Md. Shariff appearing in the said applicationdid not tally with the specimen signature appeaing on account opening card.
It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman while posted at Hunterganj branch permitted withdrawal of Rs . 10,000/- from S.B. A/ c. No. 3611 ofMd. Shariff and a third party by means of withdrawal slip without accompanied by Pass book on 25-6-87 . He repeated the same thing and in the same fashion he permitted withdrawal of Rs . 12000/- by a third party from the same account on 16-10-87. Again on 8-8-87 he prepared a set of transfer voucher of Rs . 3000/- from S. B. A/ c . No. 3611 of Md. Shariff to S.B. A/ c . No. 197 ofMd . Jahir Hussain son of the account holder on the authority of purported letter bearing purported signature of the account holder i.e. Md. Shariff
During heaving in course of domestic proceeding all papers relating to the transactions were produced by the management before the Enquiry Officer. It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman exceeding hisjurisdiction indulged such illegal transaction participating himself actively. They further alleged that neither the authority letter was signed by the account holder nor he was authorised for that transfer order .
MW- 3 during his giving statement before the Enquiry officer disclosed that the concerned workman in the capacity of special Assistant allowed payment ofRs . 10,000- to third partyMd. Jaheer Hussain without pass book . Again onthebasis oftransfer set ofplain voucher another amount was credited in S.B. A/c . No. 197 after debiting from A/c. No. 3611 ofMd . Shariff. The said transsaction was made at the intervention of the concerned workman on the basis of alleged application submitted by Md. Shariff. This witness disclosed that during enquiry it revealed that the signature appearing in the said application in the name of Md. Shariff did not tally with the specimen signature appearing on account opening card. He further disclosed that third party payments without can only be made with the prior approval of the Manager . Concerned workman being special Assistant was not empowered to pass such payment . It is seen that the concerned workman through his representative cross-examined MW- 3 but from the cross- examination I have failed to find out any material point rebutting the claim of MW -3 in this regard . Even during evidence of the defence the concerned workman have failed toproduce any incriminating material relying on which there is scope to draw conclusion that he acted properly in passing the payment order on the basis of withdrawal slip [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 3630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12 , 1926
and voucher without verifying the Pass Book of the account holder .
different when it was compared with Ataul Haque's specimen signature appearing on Bank's record . Again the concerned workman issued another cheque book containing leaves bearing Nos . from 948851 to 948875 in the captioned account (S.B. A/c . No. 7463) of Md . Tahseen without obtaining any requisition slip. Thereafter he handed over cheque No. 948851 for Rs . 10,000/- to one of his relative Mustaq Ahmed who in turn collected the cheque through his S.B. A/c . No. 5829 with Central Bank of India , Ramgarh Cantonment Branch and the date of withdrawal was 24-8-92. Similarly by using two other cheques leaves bearing No. 948855 dt . 11-1-93 and cheque No. 948856 dt. 10-3-93 the concerned workman withdrew Rs . 10,000/- and Rs . 650/- respectively putting his signature on the reverse . It has been alleged by the management that neither the account holder applied for the cheque book nor they issued those three cheques for withdrawal of amount . They alleged that the concerned workman entering into fradulent transaction with outsider withdrew the said amount from customers accounts dishonestly in utter disregard to the norms of the Bank .
The concerned workman in course of hearing agitated the signature of Md. Sharif appearing in the application was not examined by the hand writing expert and for evidence of MW - 3 in this regard cannot be accepted. He further disclosed that there was scope to examine Md . Sharif with a view to verify his signature appearing in the application. The enquiry officer in his finding observed that as a prudent banker comparison of signature with old records is very much necessary in every day to day transaction and accordingly he did not disbelieved the finding ofMW -3 in the matter of difference in signature of Md. Sharif appearing on the applications and on account opening card . As Banker an officer very often requires to verify the signature of the customer before passing any cheque or withdrawal slip meant for payment. Opinion of hand writing expert has not yet been accepted as scientific proof. Therefore , as the management have failed to send the admitted and disputed signature of Md. Sharif to hand writing Expert there is no reason to believe that opinion of MW -3 who is an experienced banker and who is very much habituated to verify the signature of the customers every day should be disbelieved . In the circumstances I do not find any reason to disbelieve the opinion ofMW - 3 being an experienced banker in the matter of difference of signature of Md. Sharif appearing in the application . The presenting officer during examination of MW - 3 clearly explained why the presence of the writer of the application was not required . The explanation given by the presenting officer appears to be cogent and for which I hold that management did not commit any illegality on calling the writer to verify his signature.
According to the management concerned workman took the plea that at the request of the account holder he issued the two cheque book mentioned above without any malafide intention to defraud them. He further disclosed that out of our withdrawals two payments were received by the account holder in cash and two payments were made to Mustaq Ahmed by the account holder in connection with business transaction. The concerned workman also took the plea that Branch Manager D.B. Mondal forced the concerned workman to sign on the back side of two cheques viz. 948855 and 948856 amounting to Rs. 10,000 and Rs . 650/- respectively to estalbish that he was the recipient of the said payments .
I have carefully considered all the materials on record including findings of the Enquiry Officer and I hold that the concerned workman with ulterior motive passed the withdrawal slip and voucher for payment without verifying the pass book and also without obtaining prior approval of theBank Manager . I , therefore , hold that the charge No. 1 (1) has been established against the concerned workman .
Now let consider how far the management have been able to establish charge No. 3 brought against the concerned workman.
Considering all enquiry papers , evidence of MW - 1 andMW - 2 and defence taken by the concerned workman I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman without any requisition slip or application issued two cheque books containing leaves bearing Nos . 93781 to 93790 of S.B. A/ c . No. 6696 stands in the name of Ataul Haque and containing leaves bearing 948851 to 948875 of S.B. A/c . No. 7463 stands in the name of Md. Tahseem (minor) MW -2 during his evidence disclosed that Ataul Haque S.B. A/c . No. 6696 lodged complaint in writing (ME-8) and ME 14 ( i ) that he never requested any person to issue of cheque book his favour and in favour of his minor sonwho had been represented by him as natural guardian as he was impossession of charge book bearing leaves Nos. 946676 to 946700. He further alleged that cheque book issued already without requisition slip were never handed over to him. He also denied the fact of withdrawal of any amount by four cheques as mentioned above under his signatures .Accordingly, he claimed the amount in question which were withdrawn fradulantly from the said two accounts and requested the Bank to stop payment though the alleged cheques already used . On receipt of the said It is the specific allegation of the management that without requisition slip the concemed workman issued a cheque book containing leaves bearing No. 93781 to 93790 in the captioned account (S.B. A/ c . No. 6696 ) of Ataul Haque and thereafter he used the first leaf of that cheque book viz . 93781 and handed over the same to one of his relation Mustaq Ahmed who in turn collected Rs . 15,000/- through his S.B. A/c . No. 5829 on 6-4-94 with Central Bank of India by exercising fraud. Concerned workman cancelled that cheque when it came for collection from Central Bank ofIndia. It has been disclosed further by the management that signature of the drawer of the said cheque was quite 3631
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
dismissed the concerned workman from his service for committing misconduct under clause 19.5 (j ) of the first bipartite settlement date 19-11-66 .
complaint stop payment order was issued. During verification it further transpired that signature appearing in the cheques did not tally with the recorded signature of the account holder i.e. Ataul Haque .
Now the point for consideration is if the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief under Sec . 11A of the I.D. Act . Sec . 11A of the I.D. Act speaks as follows :-
:
"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and in the course of the adjudication proceedings the Labour Court, Triburial orNational Tribunal, as the case may be, is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was notjustified, it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any as it thinks fit, or given such other reliefto the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require."
Therefore, before invoking the provision of Sec. 11A ofthe I.D. Act it is to be taken into consideration if the order ofdismissal issued by the competent authority was justified or not.
It is the contention of the management that the signature appearing on those cheques were forged and payment also was not received by him . The concerned workman examined Ataul Haque as defence witness (AW- 3) I have carefully considered his evidence and it transpired clearly that he made serious contradictory statements to save the delinquent . Inspite of making such contradictory statement he could not deny the complaint lodged by him. He also could not claim that the signature appearing in the cheques were of his own. Complainant AtaulHaque admitted that he had with his cheque book in his possession . He knows it very well that without requisition slip no fresh cheque book could be issued from the Bank. It is clear that two separate cheque books were issued by the concerned workman. It is further seen that by two cheques viz . Cheque No. 948855 dt. 11-1-97 and cheque No. 948856dt. 10-3-93 the concerned workman withdraw a sum of Rs . 10,000/-and Rs . 650/- respectively by putting his signature on the reverse side . No evidence is for the coming that Ataul Haque issued the said two cheques in favour of the concerned workman authorising him to withdraw the amount in question . Moreover, signature appearing in the said two cheques in the name of the account holder did not tally with the admitted signature ofthe account holder kept in the Bank.
I have already discussed above in details the offence committed by the concerned workman . It is to be borne into mind that the concerned workman was attached to an organisation where it is expected that the staff will discharge their duties it all integrity as the reputation of the said organisation depends on absolute deligence and faithfulness of the staff. Here in the instant case the role of the concerned workman was absolutely detrimentalto the reputation of the organisation where he was attached to. The offence which he committed was absolutely serious in nature and in no circumstances it would be possible for the Bank to entrust any job of public dealing keeping faith on him. I , therefore , find no reason to reconsider the punishment imposed on him by the management invoking Section 11A of the I.D. Act .
Inthe result, the following Award is rendered:-
"The action of the management ofBank ofIndia, Ramgarh, Cantt . Branch in dismissing Sh . Md. AkhtarHussain from the services of the Bank w.e.f. 17-11-95 is justified. Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief."
It is fact that Ataul Haque submitted withdrawal petition in relation to complaint lodged by him earlierbut during his examination he failed to read the withdrawal letter supposed to have been written by him as he does not know English. Therefore , if this aspect is taken into consideration alongwith other facts which he disclosed during his evidence it will expose clearly that he took an attempt to sheild the concerned workman by making contradictory and false statement . After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances there is sufficient reason to believe that the concerned workman to defraud the account holder not only withdrew two cheque books but also used four leaves of the said two cheque books for withdrawal of the amount in question. Record shows clearly that sufficient opportunity was given to the concemed workman to disprove the allegation in question but failed lamentably. The enquiry officer in his report made adetail discussion relying on the evidence of both sides how he came to conclusion about role of the concemed workman to defraud the account holder and thereby made a stigma in the reputation of the Bank in carrying on their service. I, therefore , hold that management have been able to substantiate the charge No. 3 brought against the concerned workman.
B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 9 जून, 2004 का.आ. 1549-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बरोदा, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , It is seen that competent authority after considering the enquiry report and also all other materials on record
1883 G1/044-23 3632
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 86/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल०-12012/75/ 2003 - आई ० आर० ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 9th June , 2004 S. O. 1549. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 86/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-6- 2004.
[No. L- 12012/ 75/2003 - IR(B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri E. ISMAIL , B.Sc, LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 25th day of March, 2004
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 86/2003 BETWEEN:
... Petitioner Sri Vasa Nageswara Rao , Vempadu (Village) , Vempadi (Panchayat) , Kolla Mandalam, West Godavari (А.Р.) .
AND
The Branch Manager , Bank ofBaroda , Bhimavaram Branch, Bhimavaram, West Godavari (A.P. )
Respondent APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : M/sC. Damodar Reddy & G. Raj Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondent : M/s K. Srinivasa Murthy, C. Vijay
Shekhar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates
AWARD
The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L - 12012 / 75/2003 - IR(B.II) dated 31-7-2003 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ) .
the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Bank ofBaroda, Regional Office (A.P. ), Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri Vasa Nageswara Rao , Ex. Casual Sub - staff (Attender) of Bank of Baroda, Bhimavaram Branch (West Godavari District) w.e.f. 22-3-2001 on the grounds of submitting false documents is legal andjustified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to ?" .
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 86/2003 and notices were issued to the parties.
2. Inspite of several adjournments given from 24- 11-2003 for filing of claim statement and documents for seven adjournments including 25-3-2004 the petitioner has not turned-out with claim statement and documents . Inspite of number of adjournments the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. There is nothing on record to support the case of the Petitioner. Therefore, the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
Accordingly a ' Nil' Award is passed, Transmit.
Dictated to Ku. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 25th day ofMarch, 2004 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence
Witnesses exainined for the Witnesses examined for the
Respondent
Petitioner NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL
Documentsmarked for the Respondent NIL
नईदिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
का.आ. 1550.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विशाखापतनम डॉक लेबर बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल०-34025/2 /2004- आई ० आर० ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 9th June , 2004
S. O. 1550.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 297 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- 3633 [ भाग - खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Visakhapatnam Dock LabourBoard and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on8-6-2004.
[No. L-34025/2/2004-IR(B- II)]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
Pullaiah. Hence, the mother of the Petitioner made a representation on 21-11-85 urging the Management to provide anemployment to their son namely the Potitioner or compassionate grounds. As it was not registored she made another representation dated 26-6-92 the samewas registered vide resolution No. V.D.L.B. 349/92 and the Petitioinerwas appointed w.e.f. 7-10-92 as casual worker bearing No. 6611 in the registesed scheme ofthe D.L.B. , Visakhapatnamworkers and continuod as suck.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL.GOVERNMENT
3. Subsequently, an eamasse investigation was INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR.COURT
HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail, B.Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
tahen up by the Management over the recruitments made in1992 on the issue that some of the workers have been joined in service by personating themselves as the Sons of the D.L.B. , Visakhapatnam workers who were either voluntarily stired or retired on medical grounds and obtained appointments on compassionate grounds.
Dated the 22nd day ofMarch, 2004
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.LD.No.29/2002
(Old I.D. No. 4/2001 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Visakhapatnam)
BETWEEN :
SriKari Polayya,
R/o D.No.40.52.37 ,
Sanjeevanagar Colony, Kailasapuram Road, Visakhapatnam -530024.
4. A committee was appointed to investigate into the appointments headed by Sri Venkat Rao, Former Deputy Chairman, Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam. The committee hurriedly made enquiries and submitted their report, the workman was one among the persons against whom report was submitted. The committee on coercion obtained some individual statements and submitted its reports .The hinnagement on the strength ofthe unilateral report arbitrarily ismed anders disengaging the Petitioner vide orders ofSecactory Douk Labour Board, Visakhapatnam No. E/R/94/23516-6-1994 which wacommunicated vide letterNo. URSAL/PF/94/ 152 dated 17-6-94.
AND
The Deputy Chairman,
TheVisakhapatnam Dock LabourBoard,
Dock LabourBoard,
Visakhapatnam -530035.
APPEARANCES :
Forthe Petitioner : Sri K.Balakrishna, Advocate
Sri D. V. Subba Rao, Advocate
For the Respondent :
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble HighCourt ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa andM/s . CottonCorporation of India and two others and transferred to this Court inview ofthe Government of India, Ministry ofLabour's order No.H- 11026/ 1 /2001 -IR(C -II) dated 18-10- 2001 bearing I.D. No. 4/2001 and remembered in this Court as L. C.I.D. No. 29/2002 .
5. As the services have been arbitrarily terminated the workman poofersoalaWit Position No. 30956/94on the file ofthe Hem Wilo High Court ofAndhen Pradesh which has been pleased to onder in WPMCP No. 13300 of 1994 directing the Maungament cacinto continue in service and plead to spend the operation of the order dated 17-6-94. These him and another enquiry was conducted. Sii A. Raum Ran Accounts Officer bằng đục Ônguining Ay No. P1/95/3246 dated 16-3-95 inter deration of thie principles ofnatural justice. The engi aside the evidence on roceddanden is an impersonator and submitted a ropent el 27-10-97. Theworkman submitted his cagliata 29-11-97 pointing out the infirmitics of the enquiry and the appreciation ofevidence on second. Thicalocandor ofthe Management had also endorsodito lave soccivolicdie same.sa Again he was dismissed from service from 1-4-9 by an authority in competent to issue the same. The same was served on the workman on 4-4-98 . Meanwhile the mother ofthe Petitioner also died on 13-11-97. He also requested vide a letter dated 21-10-99 to get it verified through the Mandal Revenue Officer (M.R.O. ) , Visakhapatnam. the M.R.O. , submitted a report to the Management . The Management further directed the workman to appear before the Director, Center for D.N.A. Finger Printing and Diagnostics, Hyderabad vide letter dated 14-6-2000 . The workman attended the same . There upon the Director observed that without parents the test is not possible .
2. The brief averments as stated in the petition are: That the Petitioner's father was a D.L.B. Visakhapatnam workerbearingNo. 8512 and retired from service on medical grounds on 25-2-69 and subsequently died on 29-3-77.He leftbehind two daughters and the workman. Among the two daughters one died and one was married to Sri M. LaxmanRao, resident ofVisakhapatnam and they are living separately. Therefore , the only one left is the Petitioner K.
1883 G1/04-24 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 3634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
That he made another representation on 12-8-2000 . For reconsideration which was not reconsidered and ultimately rejected on 3-11-2000. Hence he may be directed to be reinstated with all consequential benefits .
7. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner conceded that the enquiry is validly conducted and argued under Sec. 11A. He submits that it is very surprising that when the M.R.O. has conducted an enquiry who is the competent authority also to issue succession certificate how can the enquiry of the M.R.O. be brushed aside. In pursuant of the M.R.O. report the Management directed the workmanto appearbefore the Director for test of DNA Finger Printing and Diagnostics , Hyderabad vide letter dated 14-6-2000. The workman attended the same . There upon the Director observed that without parents the test is not possible . He made another representation on 12-8-2000 which was rejected. Again the Management turned aside and simply say that they are not going to accept the findings oftheM.R.O. and the official enquiry is something different. it iswrong. It is a different thing if it is a criminal case or some other case and if the delinquent employee is acquitted and in the domestic enquiry, he is held guilty but here it is a question of paternity for which the M.R.O. is more competent and in fact once acting upon the letter of the M.R.O. The was sent for DNA test which could not be done for technical reasons . Hence , he may be reinstated with back wages . More so , when he is appointed after his father retired on medical grounds on 25-2-69 and aner number of representations he was appointed on 7-10-92 after a lapse of 21 years and then again their own order out ofjob through so called domestic enquiry. Hence , he may be reinstated.
8. It is argued by the Respondent that during the enquiry it is admitted by the Respondent himself that in his explanation to the show cause notice submitted on 24-11-97 . He has admitted that he has not produced any evidence to prove himself as the son of K. Ramulu and states that it was for the Presenting Officer to produce evidence that he is not the son ofK. Ramulu . Of course , he is a layman. He does not know that nobody would be able to prove except himself that he is not the son of so and so. The Management cannot prove that he is the son of so and so. That when an enquiry is conducted it was for him to lead any evidence to show that he is the son of so and so.He is banking upon the report of the M.R.O. , where he is alleged to have examined neighbours and the maternal uncle, all those persons should have been examined . They have not been examined. So he has failed to prove that he isthe son of Late K. Ramulu . Further, he has admitted that he has produced a false certificate on 5-12-95 for his original school certificate is missing . He has applied for a duplicate which also he is not able to produce. When it was verified with school authoirties , no such certitcate was issued. Hence , he submits that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
6. A counter was filed stating that 225 children of the deceased/medically invalidated workers /employees were appointed as casual workers during the year 1992 on compassionate gronds including the workman. Since there were complaints on the recruitment on 1992 casual appointments the Chairman of the Management appointed acommittee consisting of three members viz. , Sri . J. Venkat Rao, Committee found that 33 workers were impersonated and Petitioner is one such worker . Accordingly, the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court. Finally the writ was disposed off by the Hon'ble High Court with a direction to conduct fresh enquiry according to law. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 17-2-95 was issued to the workman for his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service . He submitted his explanation on 22-8-95 . which was found unsatisfactory. Hence , a detailed enquiry was conducted and principles of natural justice was also followed during the course of enquiry. Enquiry Officer had submitted a report . Since the Board - in -meeting is the authority to take a decision under clause 16(3 ) of the Visakhapatnam Unregistered Dock Workers (Regulations of Employment ) Scheme 1968 the matter has been placed before the Board - in - meeting held on 13-12-97 for taking a decision along with all relevant material papers . The Board after carefully considering the enquiry report and the explanation submitted by the workman resolved to remove the workman from the list of Unregistered Scheine and he was removed w.e.f. 1-4-98 . The allegation that the authority is not vested with powers is not correct . The allegation that the mother has passed away is not known to the Management . That he submitted letter to enquire into the bonafides through M.R.O. Visakhapatnam, M.R.O. , in his reply stated that the workman is the son of Late K. Ramulu. Again a letter was issued dated 14-6-2000 to the workman advising him to produce the necessary certificate to establish the relationship of workman with Sri . K. Ramulu , Ex. Worker, No. 8512 from the Director, Center for D.N.A. Finger Printing and Diagnostic , Hyderabad. In reply to that letter, it was informed to the Management that in the absence of parents of the workman, it is not possible to establish the paternity or biological relationship of the workman . Again on 12-8-2000 the workman submitted a letter requesting the Management to reinstate his services and the same was rejected on 12-8-2000 is not true . That the witness and documents examined during the course of the deparumental enquiry and in the M.R.O. enquiry are different from each other. During the enquiry the charges framed against the workman are clearly proved . The workman has produced a false school certificate to the Board for getting employment which he has agreed during the course of the enquirying. The enquiry of the M.R.O. is not binding on the Management . It is at best a local enquiry without any legal sanctity. Hence , the petition may be
9. It maybe seen that no doubt there is M.R.O. report that the Petitioner is the son of so and so and also legal heir certificate dated 3-8-86 where this Petitioner was declared as legal heir but that is not a detailed enqiry . The letailed enquiry is which is dated 25-2-2000. But it may be seen that during the enquiry they have identified the photograph of Sri K. Polayya and even the sister says that dismissed.
3635
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
decided to refer the matter to M.R.O. subsequent to domestic enquiry that too almost after a gap of three years. They cannot now turn down and see that the report of the M.R.O. reports is of no consequence . In fact they ought to have acted on the report ofthe M.R.O. But now on scrutiny as I see that the report of the M. R. O. suffers from first glaring mistake that the petitioner himself was not present. Hence, I hold that a denovo enquiry by M.R.O. is necessary and the enquiry by M.R.O. is vitiated for the above glaring defact . The Management is directed to refer the matter to theM.R.O. within 30 days from the publication ofthis Award and the M.R.O. shall complete the enquiry within 3 months fromthe date ofreceipt of this Award and the Management shall abide by the report of the M.R.O. to be given on such enquiry. The M.R.O. is directed to that the enquiry should bedone in a legal way and the M.R.O. should see that the Petitioner should be present through out the enquiry when the other witnesses are examined and that he should not rely only on his photographs . The Management shall act onthe report ofthe MR.O. and if the M.R.O. holds that the Petitioner is the son of Late K. Ramulu then the Management shall appoint as casual labour on the wages applicable to casual labour from 1-1-2005 failing which he will be entitled for the wages from 1-1-2005 . He will not be entitled for any backwages . However, his entire services shall be counted for the purpose of the terminal benefits . If the M.R.O. gives a report against the Petitioner then he will not be entitled for any of the above reliefs mentioned.
Awardpassed accordingly. Transmit .
Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 22nd day ofMarch, 2004 . i
E. ISMAIL, Presiding officer
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Respondent:
NIL
Withesses examined for the
Petitioner:
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner NII Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली , 9 जून , 2004
का.आ. 1551.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल सी आई डी-155/ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं० एल-40025/ 15/2004- आई० आर० ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी K. Polayya, her brother but the enquiry does not reveal that K. Polayya was in person before them, why was not he calledto identify is not known. Further, he has filed certain photos along with the alleged deceased father to show that he is the son of Late K. Ramulu and K. Ramulu died on 13-11-97. This case has got a chequered history in the sense that the Petitioner was appointed on 7-10-92 . That hisfather K. Ramulu retired from service on medical grounds on 25-2-69 and subsequently died on 29-3-77. That he left behind two daughters and the Petitioner and his mother. After the death of her husband his mother made a representation on 21-11-85 urging the Management to employ their son, the Petitioner. Again she made a representation on 26-6-92 and they appointed him. Subsequently, the Management has taken up investigation in 1992 on the issue of some of the workers who have joined by impersonation. Acommittee was appointed to investigate the issue. The committee hurriedly made enquiries and submitted reports. The workman was among them against whom reports were submitted. The committee obtained the requisite information and submitted report and he was dismissed on 17-6-94 . Hence , he filed a writNo. 10956/94 . The Hon'ble High Court of A. P. was pleased to suspend the order and he was reinstated. Thereafter a memorandum was issued that he was impersonated as the son ofLate K. Ramulu, Ex. worker No. 8612. Furtherthere is controversy as to educational qualification of the Petitioner and for the post of casual worker no educational qualifications are required. An enquiry was conducted to which he has submitted and explanation dated 24-11-97. The order was served on him on 4-4-98. He requested to get matter enquired by M. R. O. Visakhapatnam . The Management was pleased to refere the matter to the M.R.O. Visakhapatnam, who submitted the report to the said effect. Hewas asked to under go a DNA Finger Printing Test at Hyderabad and Director said that it cannot be done in the absence ofhis parents. That he has also obtained a original certificate. It may be seen that the succession certificate is obtained on 3-8-96 although his father said to have expired in 1977, What is the reason for such an abnormaldelay of almost 20 years . Further he has not chosen to examine any witness before the Enquiry Officer . The report is dated 21-10-97. Subsequently for reasons best known to the Management they have referred the matter to M.R.O. , who in 2000 opined that the Petitioner is the son of Late K. Ramulu. But there also when I go through the report ofthe M.R.O. I have noted that the Petitioner was not present personally and how I such an enquiry was conducted when he being not present and only his photograph being there. I am unable to understand whatever be the reason . The M. R. O. has given a report subsequent to the enquiry whichwas completed in 1997. So it is not as ifthe M. R. O. conducted the enquiry prior to the Departmental enquiry. Hence, the Management was bound by the report of the M. R. O. But I find it suffers from lack of information the main being the enquiry being conducted in the absence of the Petitioner himself and his photograph was shown that it is a strange thing. Somehow once the Management has 3636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
AWARD
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004
S. O. 1551-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID- 155/2002) of the Cent . Govt . Indus. Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecommunications and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-06-2004.
This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A (2 ) of the I. D. Act, 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Guntur in view of thejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others and transferred to this Court 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. 158/2000 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 155/2002.
[No. L.40025/ 15/2004- IR (DU) ]
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc . LLB . ,
Presiding Officer
Dated the 12th day ofApril , 2004
Industrial Dispute L. C. L. D. No. 155/2002
(Old I. D. No. 158/2000 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Guntur)
Between:
Smt. A. Vijaya Lakshmi
2. Thebrief facts as mentioned in the petition are : That the petitioner was selected under the Telecommunications Department by S.D.O.T. , Gudivada under Letter No. E- 2/83 /84/ 97 dated 22-8-1983 and thereafter the petitioner worked with several officers under the Respondent Management. The applicant worked on full time basis as casual mazdoor in Hindi Section as per the orders Nos . E- 1 /CM/MISC/ 93/95/ 104 dated 28-8-96 issued by the Sub- Divisional Engineer , Administration, Vijayawada. On 1-4-99 the Petitioner was informed that her services were being discontinued from 1-4-99. The applicant was appointed on full time basis in Hindi Section on 28-8- 96from that time she worked coutinuously, She worked for 249 days in the year 1997, 250 days in the year 1998, 62 days in theyear 1999 till her services were discontinued in the month of March. The termination of the Petitioner is void ab initio.Hence, the order of termination dated 1-4-99 may be set aside and she may be reinstated with back wages, continuity of service etc.
W/O Venkata Krishna , C/o N. R. Srinivasan, Advocate , D. No. 6-1-132/54/63 , Karthikeya Apartments , Skandagiri , Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad-500061 .
Petitioner
AND
I. The General Manager, Telecommunications, Labbipet , 7 Star building, Vijayawada-7.
2. TheAsst. General Manager, Office oftheGeneral Manager, Telecommunications , Labbipet , 7 Star building, Vijayawada-7.
3.Acounterwas filed stating that Smt . Vijaya Lakshmi has been sponsored as causal mazdoor on 22-8-1983. She worked as water sprinkler in the leave vacancies ofGroup D staff in various offices purely on casual basis. She was not engaged as casual mazdoor after August, 1994. Subsequently her representation has been considered and engaged as casual mazdoor in Hindi section, as per letter dated 28-8-96 . In the said letter it is clearly mentioned , that he will not be eligible for regular absorption in future since she crossed the age limit of 25 years.Asper the circle office directions, the casual mazdoor who is sponsored on or before 22-6-1988 and are working on MRs as on 31-3-99 are to be continued as MRs . The Petitioner at that time is not on MR. And hence, she was not engaged as casual mazdoor , further with effect from 1-4-99. That the provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable Hence, the petition may be dismissed.
...Respondents
3. The Asst . Director, Official Language, Telecommunications , Muddu Subbaiah Street , Behind Motor Cafe , Governorpet, Vijayawada.
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioner : Sri N. R. Srinivasan, Advocate
4.A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner. That the date of birth of the Petitioner is 2-8-66 and she was sponsored on 22-6-83. The allegation that as per the circul the casual mazdoor was sponsored on or before 22-6-88 andher working on MRs as on 31-3-99 are to be continued asMRs is incorrect and opposed the standing directions oftheManagement . On the other hand there are specific For the Respondent : Sri R. S. Murthy, Advocate भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
directions ofthe Management that the casual labour should not be retrenched without following the provisions ofthe I.D. Act . The I. D. Act is applicable.
5. The Petitioner examined herself as WWI and deposed that she worked from 1983-86 as casual labour. She was postedto Hindi section by letted 28-8-96 issued by the Sub -Divisional Engineer , Administration , Vijayawada. During this period her services were utilized for various works such as water woman and also for office work in the sections . As the administration stated that she is overaged her mother gave a notarized affidavit that her date of birth is 2-8-66 . That the employment card also records her date of birth as 2-8-66 . She worked for more than 240 days as casual mazdoor in the year 1997 and in 1998. Her services were utilized in offices where the 5 day work pattern was in force . Till her termination on 1-4-99 she has worked 62 days . She was not given any notice nor notice pay and terminated orally.
3637 9. It is argued by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner was not engaged after 1994. Shewas engaged from July, 1984 to August, 1994 in the leave vacancy. The said engagement was never on MRs and there is ban, hence , she is not entitled for absorption.
10. It may be seen that from 1997 onwards she has worked for more than 240 days each . In 1997 worked for more than 240 days and in 1998 for more than 240 days and the very admission by the MW1 that the same work was entrusted to contractor goes to show that the work is of perennial nature. Following of Sec . 25F is mandatory. Here this lady is in the hope of getting this job , has been working from 1983 to 1994 and again from 1996, she worked upto to 31-3-99, Even if all other are excluded the services from : August, 1996to March, 1999 cannot be brushed aside and she has worked more than 240 days in each year . Hence, the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement on the last wages drawn within 30 days from the publication of this Award failing which she will be entitled to receive the last pay drawnwages till reinstatement. If there no work in the section she may be absorbed in some other section.
Award passed accordingly..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, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
the Petitioner
6. In the cross examination, she deposed that she is born on 2-8-66 . This date ofbirth is recorded in her school records . She studied upto 6th class in Municipal School at Vijayawada . She has not filed any birth extract from the concerned registrar ofbirths. She worked at Gudiwada in the year 1983 , for a period of two months and came to Vijayawada. She used to do sweeping work at Vijayawada as and when the work is available. She was paid for the days she worked . She was engaged intermittently depending upon the work and also in leave vacancies. She worked like that and in 1996 her services were utilized in the Hindi section as a casual mazdoor on the ground that there is a vacancy. She worked exclusively for Hindi section. She was paid Rs . 104/- per day.
Witnesses. examined for for theRespondent
MW1 : Sri M. Panakala Rao
WW1 : Smt. A. Vijaya
Lakshmi
7. The Management examined Sri Panakala Rao, Sub- Divisional Engineer ( Administration) as MWI who deposed that the Petitioner worked in leave vacancies of regular Group ' D ' staff intermittently due to absenteeism andnon filling ofpost due to ban orders . For the purpose of propagation and use of Hindi among the staff has appointed a Hindi officer. On the representation of the Petitioner dated 9-8-96 she was issued an order dated 28-8-96 and the engagement continued upto 31-3-99 . Thereafter the work was entrusted to a contractor. In the cross examination he deposed that the appointment orders did not speak of anything.
8. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was engaged for more than 240days in 1997 and 1998. Actually those circulars are not applicable land the Petitioner has been working even prior to the cut off date , should have been continued in service and regularized. Hence , he submits that the Petition may be allowed. He also relied the following Judgements . He relied on 1997 (3 ) LLJ ( Supp ) 1141 in the case of U. Chinnappa vs. Cotton Corporation of India, wherein it was held that the Petitioner can directly approach the Hon'ble Court .
1883 G1 /04-25
Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex . W 1 : Copy of circular reg . Regularization & TSM DOT No. 269-4/93 - STN- II dt. 12-2-99 Documents marked for the Respondent Ex. Ml : Copy of extract , containing rules reg . Destruction of accountsetc.
Ex.M2 : Copy of P & T / New Delhi Ir. No. 270/6/84- STN. Dt . 30-3-85
Ex. M3 :Copy of circular No. TA/ STA/9-1 /Rlgs/V dt. 5-7-88
Ex. M4 :Copy of office memo No. 269-4/93 -STN- II (Pt. ) dt. 12-2-99
Ex.M5 :Copy of certificate of registration No. 3/90 dt . 23-3-90
नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1552.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 3638
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3, 2004/ ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
no recognized category of mechanic in the workcharge establishment staff of CPWD and offered him the lower category i.e. the post of Khalasi.
अधिकरण , नं. II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-42011 /11/94- आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 9th June , 2004
S.O. 1552- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/ 2000) 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 CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-6-2004.
[No. L.-42011/ 11 /94- IR(DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
That the management also did not take prior permission from this Hon'ble Tribunal as the case for regularisation is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal . A copy issuedby the Director General, Works, CPWD dated 11th April, 2000 is annexed as Annexure-A with the complaint. It has been stated that the reversion to the post of Khalasi is illegal and unjustified . No permission from the Tribunal has been taken where the case of ID Act 82/95 is pending . The management cannot change the status of his service during the pendency of the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Shri Eknath, Workman personally met the Executive Engineer and told that the Post of Mechanic is a skilled category and the post of khalasi is unskilled and the status of his service has been changed. It is against the provisions of Section 33 -A of the ID Act and the workman deserves to be reinstated to his prior post of mechanic.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHL
PRESENT :
Shri R. N. Rai , Presiding Officer ID No. 125/2000 Connected with ID No.82/ 95
In the Matter of :----
Shri Eknath Versus
The respondent has filed written statement. In the written statement, it has been stated that he was engaged a daily wages worker (Muster Roll Khalasi ) w.e.f. 20-10-1984 i.e. as unskilled daily wages labour . His wages were increased w.e.f. 26-10-1984 and he continued to work as daily wages worker (Muster roll Assistant Mechanic) . His wages were further increased w.e.f. 26-7- 1986 and he continued to work as daily wages worker (Muster Roll Mechanic ) . He appeared in the trade test for the post of Mechanic even though he was not possessing the required qualification on 25-08-1993 i.e. the date on which the trade test was conducted . He failed in the trade test as per the result declared by the Supdt . Engineer (Coordination) on dt. 4-10-1993 (Photo copy attached) as Annexure- 1 .
Management of C.P.W.D
Complaint Under Section 33A of the ID Act .
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -47011/ 11/ 94 - IR/DU Dt. 4-8-1995 had referred the following point foradjudication.
The point runs as hereunder :-
Shri Bhagwat Rai Burman was called as Muster Roll Senior Loader Operator. While implementing the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, his pay was fixed not as an operator but as a senior operator for the purpose of allowing equal pay for equal work. The complaint under Section 33 - A has been filed only by Eknath. As such the conditions of service of Shri Bhagwat Rai Burman cannot be considered in this case . Some of the paragraphs of the complaint have been denied and some have been admitted . It has been stated in the written statement that since the complainant workman did not pass the trade test. He did not possess the required qualification. So the status of his service was changed.
"Whether the action of the management of C.P.W.D in not regularising the services of Shri Eknath Mechanic and Bhagwat Rai Barman, Sr. Loader Operator w.e.f. 20-10-1984 and 1-10-1980 respectively ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"
Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.
The workman applicant has filed complaint under Section 33 (a ) of the ID Act as during pendency of ID No. 82/95 , the status of his service was changed. The management has unlawfully terminated the services of the workman w.e.f. 1-9-2000 on the ground that there is
Itwas argued from the side of the workman that in case there is change in the status of service while the pendency of the dispute under the ID Act, permission [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
3639 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3, 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.I. D. 139/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in- relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-6-2004.
[No. L.- 12025/1 /2004 -IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
from the court should be taken and then only the status of service can be changed. In this case, no permission has been obtained and admittedly the status has been changed . As such , the change in status of service inoperative in view of Section 33 (2 ) (b) of the ID Act . As such, Change is ineffective from the date it was passed and the complainant workman deserves to be reinstated to the post from which he has been reverted to a lower post. In this connection my attention was drawn to 2002 AIR SCW 249 AND 98 (2002) Delhi Law Times . 706 (DB) . I have gone through both the judgments of the Hon'ble High Court and the Apex Court and it has been specifically laid down that dismissal or discharge passed is ineffective in case it relates to the same matter and the permission of the tribunal has not been taken .
PRESENT:
Shri E. Ismail , Presiding Officer
It was argued from the side of the management that there was no regular post of Mechanic and he has failed in the trade test so he was reverted to the post of Khalasi . It has been stated in the written statement that he was a Assistant Mechanic.
Dated the 10th day of March, 2004 Industrial Dispute No. L. C. I. D 139/2002 (Old L. D. No.288/98 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Guntur)
BETWEEN :
Sri Karumanchi Prakasa Rao ,
S/o Devapalam,
Mamillapalli Post,
In ID No. 82/95, this point has been discussed in detail . I need not refer to the law cited in ID No. 82/95 as both are related . The respondent has no power to change the status of service during the pendency of ID No. 82/95 and the workman deserves to be reinstated to the post from which he was reverted from the date of reversion .
Ponnur Mandal, Guntur District.
Petitioner
AND
The Branch Manager,
StateBank ofIndia,
Mamillapalli,
Ponnur Mandal,
The action of the respondent management is illegal and arbitrary and the order passed on 1-09-2000 regarding the change of status of service of the complainant workman is illegal , unfair and arbitrary. The management should reinstate the workman at his previous post from the date of reversion to the lower post i.e. 1-09-2000 and pay him full back wages .
Guntur District.
...Respondent The award is given accordingly.
APPEARANCES :
Dated- 8-06-2004
Forthe Petitioner
R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer
:M/ s. V. Viswanathan & K. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy. Advocates .
नईदिल्ली, 10 जून, 2004
For the Respondent : M/s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates.
AWARD
का. आ. 1553.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई, डी. 139/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12025 /1/2004- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004
This case 1.D. No. 288/98 is transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Guntur in view of theGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour's order No. H- 11026/ 1/2001 - IR( C- II) dated 18-10-2001 and renumbered in this Court as LCID No. 139/2002 . This is a case taken under Section 2A( 2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
S. O. 1553. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central
2. Inspite of several adjournments given from 2-12-2002 for enquiry of the Petitioner for four adjournments 3640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ ASADHA 12, 1926
including 10-03-2004 the Petitioner has not turned- out . Inspite of number of adjournments the petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim. There is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the petitioner .
Accordingly a Nil' Award is passed , Transmit .
Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this 10th day of March, 2004.
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
NIL Witnesses examined or the Respondent
NIL Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1554.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथ ईस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 61/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-41025/ 1/ 2004- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004
S. O. 1554. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1. D. - 61 / 2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Eastern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-6-04.
[No. L. -41025/1 /2004- IR(B - 1 ) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR- COURT AT HYDERABAD
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] PRESENT: Shri E. Ismail , B.sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Dated the 5thday of May, 2004
Industrial Dispute L. C. L. D. No. 61/2002 (Old I. D. No.43 /2001 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam)
Between:
Sri Pasupureddi Suribabu ,
S/o Late Bheemarao ,
R/ o D. No. 16-211 old
Gopalapatnam,
...Petitioner Gopalapatnam post , Visakhapatnam -530027.
AND
I. The General Manager , South Eastern Railway, GardenReach, Kolkata-700043.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager , S.E. Railway, Dondaparthi Junction, Station Road, Visakhapatnam - 530004.
3. The Divisional Mechanical Engineer, O/OD.R.M. (Mech. ) Visakhapatnam-530004.
...Respondents 4. The assistant Mechanical Engineer, O/o the D.R.M. (Mech) , S.E. Railway, Visakhapatnam-530004.
Appearances :
Forthe Petitioner : Sri K. Balakrishna , Advocate For the Respondent : M/s . Badarinath & Madanmohan , Advocates
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A( 2) of the ID 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 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa andM/s . CottonCorporation of India and two others and transferred to this Court in view of the Goverment of India, Ministry of Labour's order No. H - 11026/1/2001 -IR ( C - II) dated 18-10- 2001 bearing I.D. No. 43/2001 and renumbered in this Court as LCID No. 62/2002 .
2. The brief facts as mentioned in the petition are : That the Petitioner was appointed on the ground of compassion since his father who was fitter grade - II in S.E. Railways, Visakhapatnam division died in the month of November, 1991. He was appointed at the tender age of 18 years as lifting of heavy loads have been entrusted. Soon he suffered from lumbagao and general disability and 3641 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12 , 1926
[ भाग II- खंण्ड 3 (ii) ]
without leave at his credit not a misconduct-If he is able to show acceptable cause for his absence if he has no leave in his credit extraordinary leave without pay shall be granted as per leave rules " . Even if this case is not applicable for the present case for the simple reason that for years together he has been absenting himself, inspite of charge sheet he has not mend himself. The same is the arguments by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that he has been appointed on compassionate grounds , he should have been more careful at a young age and a lot of chances have been given. Yet, he did not mend himselfhence , he was dismissed .
abstained from duty on acceptable reason and on the grounds of unauthorised absence he was removed from service after conducting a so called enquiry without giving full opportunity and without consideration and by his subsequent efforts for reinstatement through the union in which he is a member proved futile. His dismissal from service from 16-2-98 became final . His appeals and revision petitions have been rejected . The matter was finally disposed offby Ex . M3 dated 5-1-2000 . That the Petitioner was appointed on 8-12-92 on compassionate grounds as Shed Khallasi bearing token No. 2748. That he worked continuously for three years. From 1995 he was ill till 1998. That he being a regular employee leave regulations as promulgated by Central Government are equally applicable to him . As such an uncerremonious termination is bad. Hence, his termination order of 16-2-98 may be set aside and he may be taken into service with all consequential benefits.
6. In fact, directly speaking the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy at all . He was appointed w.e.f. 8-12-92 due to his fathers demise in November, 1991. He worked till 23-4-95, from 23-4-95 he was unauthorisedly absent for about 5 months and joined in September, 1995 . he was placed under suspension and even after issue of charge sheet he has worked only for 51 days in 1996, 58 days in 1997 and no attendance till 16-2-98 till he was removed. So it is quite clear that the Petitioner who got a job in railways, seeing unemployment problem in India any graduate or post graduate would have willingly joined . It isnot that he got it as a right and he can either go at his willorpleasure or not . But however, the quality ofmoney is not strained, I am of the opinion that one last chance can begiven to him with the following conditions . The Petitioner shall be appointed as Shed Khallasi at C/VSPS depot in Carriage & Wagon Depaatment at the starting initial pay, withinn 30 days after publication of this Award. He is not entitled for any back wages and his services shall not be counted for anypurpose from 8-12-92 till he is re -appointed. However, his re- appointment is also conditional unless he works for three consecutive years with minimum musters he shall not be regularized and liable for dismissal.
3.Acounter was filed stating that the Petitioner was appointed on 8-12-92 on compassionate grounds after his father's demise while in service in Railways . That he was regular to his duties and from 23-4-95 he absented unauthorisedly without any intimation and joined duty on 20-9-95. He accepted his guilt in his explanation for the said absence . He has mentioned that he was bedridden with Typhoid and unable to move from his house . That he attended enquiry on 25-3-97 and depositions of charged official and prosecution witness were obtained and accordingly, his attendance particulars from January, 1996 to February, 1998 were obtained. During the above period the Petitioner has performed duty for 51 days in 1996, 58 days in 1997 and no attendance till 9-2-98 . He was unauthorisedly absent for 266 days during the above period and continued till his removal was issued. He has not improved his attendance. Hence the petition may be dismissed.
Awardpassed accordingly, transmit.
Dictatedto Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 5th day ofMay, 2004 .
E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer 4. The Petitioner's Counsel conceded that the domestic enquiry is validly.conducted and the Petitioner was asked by the Court in Teligu and the Petitioner said he worked after charge sheet for some time but due to ill- health could not attend daily. Arguments were advanced under Section 11A by both the Counsels.
Appendix ofevidence
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
Witnesses examined
for the Petitioner
NIL
Documents marked for the Petitioner
NIL NIL
Documents marked for the Respondent
NIL
5. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner atlength and submitted number of Judgements for example he has given a Judgments 1996( 1 ) ALT page 40 that absence from duty for more than 5 years misconduct , absence to duty without leave a misconduct but no automatic termination even ifstanding orders framed, without enquiry termination is bad. It may be noted that the above Judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case . Here, a regular enquiry has been conducted and the Petitioner's Counsel himself conceded that the enquiry is validly conducted. Again he relied on 1995 ( 1 ) ALT page 744 wherein it was held that, "mere absence of employee 3642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12, 1926
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 10 जून , 2004
justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?"
का. आ. 1555.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , I मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल०-20030/13/95 - आई.आर. ( सी- I ) ]
एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004
2. The workman stated that he was employed as a Loader. It is alleged by him that his services were terminated by order dated 30-7-1988 w.e.f. 9-2-88. The workman submitted that he was sick from 9-2-88 to 30-7-1991 . The fact ofhis sickness was known to the authorities of the company. On 1-8-99 Dr. Deepak K. Jumani gave him a fitness certificate. He reported to his duties on the basis of certificatebut he was told that his services were terminated without holding an enquiry w.e.f. 9-2-88 . The workman stated that order of dismissal is invalid . He claim that he did not abandon his job. There is no mention in the Statement ofclaim regarding the fact when the workman raised the industrial dispute. Nor did he mention when the proceedings for Conciliation Officer where raised by him.
S.O. 1555.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/97 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2004 .
[No. L -20030/ 13/ 95 -IR (C-I) ]
S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI
PRESENT :
Shri Justice S. C. Pandey, Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . CGIT -04/ 1997
PARTIES : Employers in relation to the managernent of
Air India Ltd.
3. The company stated in the written statement that workman remained absent between 9-2-88 to 30-7-91 . The workman remained absent without intimation . The workman did not received two letters dated 2-5-88 and 30-5-88 sent to his address . It was assumed that workman did notwant to continue . The company did not know that workman was suffering from any disease. The workman did not take advantage of medical services provided by the company. The company denied that workman sought only leave . The workman never informed the company. There, letter dated 30-7-88 was sent to workman informing him that company assumes that he had abandoned job. It was denied that workman learnt on 1-9-91 that his services were treated as termination w.e.f. 9-2-88 . It was denied that the workman was retrenched from service . The company stated that workman raised the dispute in 1991 after delay of three years and filed the Statement of claim after 11 years . Therefore , his claim was liable to be rejected.
AND
4. The following three issues were framed .
Their Workmen
APPEARANCES :
:Mr. Lancy D'Souza
For theManagement
(i) Whethere the action of the management of Air India Ltd. in treating the services of S. B. Sawali Ex-Loader voluntarily abandoned w.e.f. 9-2-88 is legal and justified?
Advocate
For the Workmen
: Mr. M.B. Anchan , Advocate
(ii) If not what relief the said workman is entitled to ?
State
: Maharashtra
Mumbai dated 19th day of May, 2004
AWARD
( iii ) Whether the delay of 11 years in getting the reference made is fatel to the case of the workman. The Issue No. 3 does not arise because the workman raised dispute in the year 1991 before Conciliation Officer . The matter was referred to this tribunal by order dated 10th Jan. , 1997. The workman filed his Statement of claim before this tribunal after obtaining time .
1. This is a reference made by the Central Govt . under clause (d ) of sub - section 1 of and sub - section 2 A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Acts 1947 ( the Act for short ) for adjudicating upon the dispute between Air India Ltd. the company for short and Shri S. B. Sawali (the workman) for short . The terms of dispute are as follows :
"Whether the action of the management of Air India Limited in treating the services of Shri S. B. Sawali , Ex -loader voluntarily abandoned w.c.f. 9-2-1988 is
5. The workman stated that he was sick and under treatment of Deep K. Jumani . He stated that he had informed about his sickness to the superiors ofhis company. The workman stated that he did not receive any notice because he had shifted from his house . The workman [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
3643
भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 3 , 2004/आषाढ़ 12, 1926
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI PRESENT:
Shri Justice S.C. Pandey, Presiding Officer REFRENCE NO. CGIT- 24 OF 2001 PARTIES : Employers' in relation to the management of (1) M/s . Modiluft Ltd. (2) RoyalAirways Ltd.
AND
TheirWorkman
APPEARANCES :
:Shri A. S. Patil,
For theManagement
Advocate
For the Workmen
tried to prove that during his illness his wife had sent a letterbut letter was not addressed to any Officer. It did not bear any signature acknowledging receipt. Nor could the workman prove that he had sent any medical certificate prior to 1991. He admitted that even prior to 1986 he had received warning letters and stoppage of increments. It appears that workman after remaining absent for three years woke up in 1991. The workman could have informed the compay when he was medically checked up . The Certificate of Dr. Jumani shows that he had given the certificate with a view to help the workman. The company sent the letters to the workman on the address given by him. The company has examined Shri R.S. Pathak and filled letters addressed to local as well as permanent address. These letters are dated 2-5-1988 Exhibit M1 , 30-5-1988 Exhibit M2 24-6-1988 , Exhibit M3 and 30-7-1988 Exhibit M4. The workman himself was unable to explain why he did not apply leave when he was sick. Under these circumstances, if the company was not interested in continuing the service of the workman , this tribunal shall not interfere . The workman remained absent for three years without any intimation . His previous record is also not good. No interference is therefore called for withdrawing the order dt . 9-2-88 .
6. The result of the discussion that this tribunal is of the opinion that under the facts and circumstances of the case the company rightly concluded that the workman had abandoned his job the order is justified. No interference is called for. The reference is not accepted.
S.C. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली , 10 जून , 2004
का. आ. 1556.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मोदी लुफ्त लि. रायल एअरवेज लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल०-11012/73/2001 - आई.आर. ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 10th June, 2004 S.O. 1556. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, I Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of Modiluft Ltd. , Royal Airway Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on7-6-2004.
[No. L- 11012/73/2001 -IR( C-I) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.
:Shri Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate
State
:Maharashtra
Mumbai , dated this 20th day of May, 2004
AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its power under clause (d) of Sub - section 1 and Sub section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act (theAct for short ) . The terms of reference are as follows:
"Whether the action of the management ofM/s . Modiluft Ltd. in not providing employment to Shri Nandkishor N. Gawade and other nine workmen (as per list enclosed) with effect from October 1999 upon resumption of operations in the name ofRoyalAirways is legal andjustified? Ifnot, towhat reliefare the said workmen entitled andfrom what date ? "
2. In the list attached to terms of reference out of 9 workmen following workmen made statement to the effect that they are not interested in prosecuting the industrial dispute in this reference.
1. Mr. Nandkishor N. Gawade
2. Shri Jayachandra Anamala
3. Smt . Maria Sandra Briganza E. De Souza 4. Ms. Aalvina Fonseca
5. Shri Ashwin D. Dutt
6. Shri Rajesh K. Sachanandani
3. Only four persons remained who did not make a statement . They are -
1. Shri Mathais Fernandes
2. Shri Sanjay G. Indulkar
3. Miss Natasha Khodaiji
4. Ms. Naaznin F. Godrej 3644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 3 , 2004/ASADHA 12 , 1926
4. Thereafter Shri Jaiprakash Sawant stated that he had no instructions . Thereafter notices were issued for appearance of union . Nobody has appeared for the union.
5. The reference is therefore disposed of by saying that parties are not interested in prosecuting this reference .
S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 10 जून , 2004
का.. 1557.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ब्रिटिश एअरवेज के पबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के पंच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[नं . एल०-11012/10/2001 - आई . आर. ( सी -1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th June , 2004 S.O. 1557. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 10/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , I Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of British Airways and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-6-2004 .
[No. L- 11012/ 10 /2001 - IR ( C -1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1
MUMBAI
PRESENT :
Shri Justice S.C. Pandey , Presiding Officer REFERENCE . NO . CGIT - 10 OF 2001 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of British Airways
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] AND
Their Workman
APPEARANCES :
For the Management : Shri D. D. Naik,
Advocate
Forthe Workmen
: Shri Harish Shivdasani , Advocate
State
:Maharashtra
Mumbai , dated this the 20th May , 2004 AWARD
1. This is a reference made by the Central Govemment in exercise of its power under clause ( d) of Sub - section 1 and Sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ( the Act for short). The terms of reference are as follows:
'क्याब्रिटिश एअरवेज, मुंबई के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा उनके कर्मकारों कोकार्यावधीमें भोजन अवकाश न दिया जाना नियमानुसार, विधिवत एवंन्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो क्या निर्देश आवश्यक है?"
2. Today, both the partiesjointly filed a settlement and prayed that the matter may be disposed of. The terms of settlement is as follows :
"That during the pendency of the proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal the matter was discussed between the parties and after discussions both the parties have agreed that the employees of Customer Service Department Mumbai will avail a meal break of45 minutes each working day in a staggered manner between the 2nd hour (second) and 6th hour (sixth) depending upon exigencies ofwork and operational requirements . "
3. Since the parties have already settled the matter, itis disposed ofby stating that there is no industrial dispute between the parties for passing an award.
S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer
Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064
and l'ublished by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .