This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD. No. DL (N ) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री सं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 29]

आबाढ़ 26 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 11 जुलाई 17 , 2004 , शनिवारचा 20

No. 29]

20-ASADHA 26, 1926 NEW DELHI, JULY 11-JULY 17 , 2004, SATURDAYMARIA

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संखक दी जाती है जिससे कि यह असल करत के रूप में रखा जा SeparatePaging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate cons

भाग II- खण्ड 3 - उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II Section 3-Sub - section (il)

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( राकोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries ofthe Government of India

(Other than theMinistry ofDefence)

कार्मिक ,लोक शिकायत तथापेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग)

से उ‌द्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के आंशिक अन्वेषण के लिए है विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की संस्तियों और विस्तार संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2004

[सं. 228/49/2004- ए.ची.डी.-( ) ]

*भाष्कर खुल्ये, निदेशक

MINISTRYOF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

S.O. 1663. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 ofDelhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act . No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government ofKarnataka, vide Notification No. HD 89 PCR 2004 dated 19-5-2004 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka to conduct part -investigation of offences punishable in RC. 22 (S)/2003-Patna under Sections 420,467,468 and 471 का. अ. 1663.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्राज्य दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचंन्द्र संख्या एचडी 89 पीसीआर 2004 दिनांक 19 मई , 2004 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री आरिफ रजा, पूर्व ए. सी. , आई ए एफ जिसने श्री एस. के. मित्रा, विंग कमांडर, कमांड वर्क आफिसर, मुख्यालय प्रशिक्षण कमान ,. आईएएफ, बंगलौर द्वारा 15-10-1996 को जारी किए सए प्रतीत होने वाले मैकेनिकल इंजीनियरिंग की डिग्री से संबंधित फर्जी प्रमाण-पत्र के आधार पर रेलवे में अनुभाग अभियंता की नौकरी प्राप्त की थी और किसी अन्य लोक सेवक अथवा व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध उनके कपटपूर्ण कार्यों केलिए मामला आरसी 22 ( एस )/2003 - पटना में भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम संख्या 45 ) की धारा 420,467, 468 और 471 के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपरार्थों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों

2052. GI/2004

(3841) 3842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) against Shri Arif Raza , Ex A. C. of IAF, who had secured the job of Section Engineer, in Railways , on the strength of a forged certificate of Degree in Mechanical Engineering , Purportedly issued by Shri S. K. Mitra , Wing Commander, Command Work Officer, HQ Training Command , IAF, Bangalore on 15-10-1996 , for his fraudulent acts , and any other public servant or person in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts ,

[No. 228/49/2004-AVD - II] BHASKAR KHULBE , Director

नई दिल्ली, १ जुलाई , 2004

investigation of offences punishable under Section 120-B readwith 409, 420 and 465 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 , (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) ofPrevention of Corruption Act , 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988 ) against ( 1 ) M/ s . TTG Industries Limited, Chennai (2) Shri V. Ravi Srinivasan , Director , M/s . TTG Industries , Chennai (3 ) Shri T. K. Sashidharan , Director, M/s . TTG Industries , Chennai (4) Shri K. Manoharan , Promoter, M/ s . TTG Industries , Chennai and unknown officials of Central Bank of India , Chennai Main Branch, Chennai and others , for defrauding Central Bank of India, Chennai Main Branch in the matter of obtaining various credit facilities in the name ofM/ s. TTG Industries , Chennai , and any other public servant or persons in relation to or in connection with the said offences , and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/4 1/2004-AVD - II] BHASKAR KHULBE , Director

नईदिल्ली, 9 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1664.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या एचडी 127 पीसीआर 2004 दिनांक 7 मई , 2004 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से ( 1 ) मैसर्स टीटीजी इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, चेन्नई ( 2 ) श्री वी. रवि श्रीनिवासन , निदेशक, मैसर्स टीटीजी इंडस्ट्रीज़ लिमिटेड, चेन्नई ( 3) श्री टी. के. शशिधरन , निदेशक, मैसर्स टीटीजी इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, चेन्नई ( 4 ) श्री के. मनोहरन, प्रोमोटर, मैसर्स टीटीजी इंडस्ट्रीज़ लिमिटेड, चेन्नई और सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , चेन्नई मेन ब्रांच , चेन्नई के अज्ञात पदाधिकारियों एवं अन्यों तथा किसी अन्य लोक सेवक अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध मैसर्स टीटीजी इंडस्ट्रीज़ लिमिटेड, चेन्नई के नाम में विभिन्न साख सुविधाएँ प्राप्त करने के मामले में सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, चेन्नई मेन ब्रांच को धोखा देने के कारण भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम संख्या 45 ) की धारा 120- बी सपठित धारा 409 , 420 और 465 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम संख्या 49 ) की धारा 13 ( 2) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं. 228/41/2004 - ए.बी.डी.- II ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

का.आ. 1665.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या एचडी 96 पीसीआर 2004 दिनांक 19 मई , 2004 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से श्री के. जगन्नाथन, तत्कालीन सहायक महाप्रबंधक, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर, बंगलौर मेन ब्रांच बंगलौर, श्री अचन्ता सुब्रामणियम , तत्कालीन उप महाप्रबंधक, एसबीएम, बंगलौर जोन, बंगलौर, श्री टी.एस. सेतुरतनम , अध्यक्ष , मैसर्स इम्प्रेसिव टच वुड क्राफ्टस लिमिटेड, बंगलौर, श्री एस . रामजी , पूर्णकालिक निदेशक, मैसर्स इम्प्रेसिव टच वुड क्राफ्टस लिमिटेड, बंगलौर और मैसर्स इम्प्रेसिव टच वुड क्राफ्टस लिमिटेड, बंगलौर एवं किन्हीं अन्य लोक सेवकों अथवा व्यक्तियों के विरुद्ध वर्ष 1996-2000 के दौरान मैसर्स इम्प्रेसिव टच वुड क्राफ्टस लिमिटेड, बंगलौर को साख सुविधाएँ मंजूर करने के मामले में स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसूर को 626.04 लाख रुपए का धोखा देने के लिए भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 120 - बी सपठित धारा 420 और तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 की धारा 13 ( 2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( डी ) के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्यपर करती है ।

[सं. 228/46/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

S.O. 1664. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act . No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Karnataka, vide Notification No. HD 127 PCR 2004 dated 7-5-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for

S.O. 1665. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of Delhi 3843

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the Central Government with the consent of State Govemment of Karnataka, vide Notification No. HD 99 PCR 2004 dated 19-5-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation of offences punishable under section 120-B readwith 420, of the Indian Penal Code and substantive offences thereof against ( i) M/s . Great Western Industries Ltd.,Whitefield, Bangalore, (ii ) Shri M. Narayanan, Managing Director, (iii) Shri Minoo E Vacha, Director, (iv) Dr. D. Ashok, Director , (v) Shri S. Hataria, Director and others for cheating CanaraBank, HiTech Agriculture Finance Branch, Bangalore, by their fraudulent Acts, and any others persons in relation to or in connection with the said offences , and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/47/2004- AVD- II] BHASKAR KHULBE, Director नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2004 Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act. No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government ofKarnataka, vide Notification No. HD 96 PCR 2004 dated 19-5-2004 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation ofoffences punishable under section 120-B readwith 420 IPC and 13 (2) read with 13 (1 ) (d) ofPrevention ofCorruptionAct , 1988 against Shri K. Jagannathan, the thenAGM, State Bank ofMysore, Bangalore Main Branch, Bangalore , Shri Achantha Subramanyam, the then DGM, SBM, Bangalore Zone, Bangalore , Shri T.S. Sethurathnam, Chairman, M/s. Impressive Touch Wood Crafts Limited, Bangalore , Shri S. Ramji , whole time Director, M/s. Impressive Touch Wood Crafts Limited, Bangalore, and M/ s. Impressive Touch Wood Crafts Limited , Banagalore for defrauding State Bank of Mysore to the tune of Rs . 626,04 lacs in the matter of credit facilites to M/s . Impressive Touch Wood Crafts Limited during the year 1996-2000 and any other public servants or persons inrelation to, or in connection with the said offences , and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/46/2004- AVD- II] BHASKAR KHULBE, Director

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1667.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25) की धारा 6सपठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार के गृह ( एससी- ए ) विभाग , जी.ओ.एम.एस. सं. 93 दिनांक 1-4-2004 द्वारा प्राप्त आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार की सहमति से नकली विशेष आसंजक स्टाम्पों, शेयर अंतरण स्टाम्पों और बीमा स्टाम्पों से संबंधित मामलों में भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 120- बी, 201 , 213 , 217 और 218 तथा भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 ( 1988 का अधिनियम संख्या 49 ) की धारा 13 (2 ) सपठित धारा 13 ( 1 ) (डी) के अधीन दर्ज मामला अपराध सं. 1/2004 और उक्त अपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्यंत्रों तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।

[फा. सं. 228/36/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे, निदेशक

NewDelhi, the 9th July, 2004 का. आ. 1666.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम संख्या 25 ) की धारा 6के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की दिनांक 19 मई, 2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या एच.डी. 99 पी.सी.आर. 2004 द्वारा प्राप्त कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की सहमति से ( 1 ) मैसर्स ग्रेट वैस्टर्न इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, वाइटफील्ड, बैंगलूर, ( ii ) श्री एम. नारायणन, प्रबंध निदेशक, (iii ) श्री मीनू ई. वाचा, निदेशक, ( iv ) डॉ. डी. अशोक, निदेशक, (v) श्री एस. हटारिया, निदेशक एवं अन्यों और किसी अन्य व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध, उनके कपटपूर्ण कृत्यों द्वारा केनरा बैंक, हाई- टेक वृषि वित्त शाखा, बैंगलूर को धोखा देने के कारण भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 120-बीके साथ पठित धारा 420 के अधीन दंडनीय अपराधों और उसके सारभूत अपराधों अथवा कथित अपराधों से संसक्त तथा उसी संव्यवहार में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार संपूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[फर. सं. 228/47/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

भाष्कर खुल्बे, निदेशक

NewDelhi, the 9th July, 2004

S.O. 1667.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act . No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of the StateGovernment of Andhra Pradesh vide Home (SC-A) Department G.O. Ms. No. 93 dated 1st April, 2004, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of theDelhi Special Police Establishment to the whole ofthe State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation of the case CrimeNo. 1/2004 registered under sections 120-B, 201 , 213 , 217 and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Section 13 (2) read with 13 ( 1 ) (d) of Prevention S.O. 1666. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1 ) of section 5 read with section 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act . No. 25 of 1946), 3844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

ofCorruption Act , 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) relating to the cases of fake special adhesive stamps , share transfer stamps and insurance stamps and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the said offences and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction of arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/36/2004 AVD- II] BHASKAR KHULBE, Director

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग ) केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2004

(आयकर )

का. आ. 1668.- आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 - ग) के उपखण्ड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार के एतद्वारा " बृहन् मुम्बई क्रीडा अणि ललितकला प्रतिष्ठान, मुम्बई " को वर्ष 2001-02 से 2002-03 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदित करती है , अर्थात्ः-

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

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

( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध मे लागूनहीं होगी, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक किऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारित के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

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

(v ) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 156/2004/फा. सं. 196/2/2004- आई.टी.ए. - 1 ] आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )] MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi , the 15th June , 2004

(INCOMETAX)

S.O. 1668. In exercise of the powers conferredby the clause (23 ) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961) , the Central Government hereby notifies the "Brihanmumbai Kreeda Ani Lalitkala Pratishthan, Mumbai" for the purpose of the said Sub-clause for the assessment years 2001-02 to 2002-03 subject to the following conditions, namely:-

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

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

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

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

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

[Notification No. 156/2004/F. No. 196/2/2004 ITA- I] I. P. S. BINDRA, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2004 (आयकर )

का. आ. 1669.- आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " स्पोर्ट्स अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया, नई दिल्ली " को वर्ष 1993-1994 से 1994-1995 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उप खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अनुमोदित करती है, अर्थात्ः-

( i) कर- निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा 3845 भारत का रात्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

objectives of the assessee and separate books of account are maintained in respect of such business;

अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;

(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return ofincome before the income-tax authority in accordancewith the provisions ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961;

(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and theassetswillbe given to a charitable organisation withsimilar objectives.

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

[Notification No. 197/2004/F. No. 196/9/1996- ITA-1 ] I. P. S. BINDRA, Under Secy.

कार्यालय आयुक्त केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क जालंधर

(मुख्यालय चंडीगढ़)

सं. 1/2004-एन.टी. ( सीक ) (iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आयके संबंध मे लागूनहींहोगी, जो किकारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक किऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;

जालंधर, 30 जून , 2004

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

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

[ अधिसूचना सं. 197/2004/फा. सं. 196/9/1996-आई.टी.ए.- I ]

का. आ. 1670. भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33 / 94- सीमा ( एन.टी. ) दिनांक 01-07-94 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये मैं एतद्वारा सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 की संख्या 52 ) की धारा 9 के अन्तर्गत पंजाब राज्य के गांव चक गुजराम , पोस्ट ऑफिस- पिपलनवाला , जालंधर रोड, होशियारपुर को 100 प्रतिशत निर्यातोन्मुख उपक्रम के उद्देश्य के लिए भांडागार स्टेशन घोषित करता हूं।

आई. पी. एस. बिन्द्रा, अवर सचिव

[फा. सं. VIII ( मुख्या ) 20/27/डी.बी.के. /2004 ] NewDelhi, the 8th July, 2004

जी. एस. नारंग, आयुक्त (INCOMETAX)

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE : JALANDHAR (HQRS AT CHANDIGARH)

ΝΟ. 1/2004- Ν.Τ. (CUS) S.O. 1669. In exercise of the powers conferredby the clause (23 ) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the "Sports Authortiy of India, New Delhi " for the purpose of the said sub-clause for the assessment years 1993-1994 to 1994-1995 subject to the following conditions, namely:-

Jalandhar, the 30thJune, 2004 (1) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

S.O. 1670,-In exercise of the powers conferredby theNotification No. 33 /94-Cus (NT) , dated 01-07-1994 of theGovernment of India, Ministry of Finance , Department ofRevenue ,New Delhi, Village Chak Gujran, Post Office Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur in the State of Punjab is hereby declared to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 (No. 52 of 1962) for the purposeofsetting up ofa Hundred Percent Export OrientedUnit (100%FOU).

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

[C. No. VIII (HQ) 20/27/DBK/2004] G.S. NARANG, Commissioner (iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any incomebeingprofits and gains ofbusiness, unless thebusiness is incidental to the attainment ofthe 3846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

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

( बैंकिंग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

2. 1-4-2004 से 31-12-2004 की अवधि के दौरान परिपक्वता अथवा मृत्यु के कारण उत्पन्न ऐसी पॉलिसियों के सभी दावों के लिए, जिनके लिए प्रीमियम अदा कर दिया गया है और 01-4-2004 से 31-12-2004 कीअवधि के दौरान ( 1-4-2004 को अथवा उसके बाद जारी पॉलिसियों के संबंध में बीमा के प्रथम पॉलिसी वर्ष सहित ) स्वीकार की गई हैं , ऊपर उल्लिखित दर से अंतरिम बोनस भी देय होगा ।

3. बोनस की राशि में शामिल 50 पैसे अथवा उससे अधिक भाग को अगले उच्च रुपये में परिवर्तित कर दिया जाए और 50 पैसे से कम भाग को छोड़ दिया जाए ।

का. आ. 1671.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर एतद्वारा यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 का उपबंध आईसीआईसीआई बैंक लि. पर उस सीमा तक लागू नहीं होगा जहां तक उसका संबंध अप्रैल, 2004 में जारी 155 मिलियन इक्विटी शेयरों के सरकारी निर्गम से है ।

4. इसे वित्त सलाह ( डाक ) की डायरी सं. 964 दिनांक 21-5-2004 के तहत प्राप्त उनकी सहमति से जारी किया गया है । [फा. सं. 15/5/2004- बीओए ] डी. पी . भारद्वाज, अवर सचिव

[सं. 5-1/2004- एल आई ]

वी, पति, अपर महाप्रबंधक (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION & IT

(Department of Posts)

(DIRECTORATE OF PLI)

New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2004 S.O. 1671. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government, on the recommendation of Reserve Bank of India, hereby declares that the provision of Section 13 of the said Act shall not apply to the ICICI Bank Ltd. so far as the public issue of 155 million equity shares issued in April , 2004 is concerned.

[F. No. 15/ 5 /2004-BOA] D. P. BHARDWAJ , Under Secy.

S.O. 1672. In exercise of the powers conferred vide Rule 10 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and on the basis of actuarial valuation of the assets and liabilities ofthe Rural Post Office Life Insurance Fund as on 31-03- 2000the Director General , Post is pleased to declare a Simple Reversionary Bonus on the Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies on there becoming claims, due to death or maturity atthe following rates for the year ending 31-03-2000.

संचार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय (डाक विभाग ) (डाक जीवन बीमा निदेशालय )

Type of Insurance Policy Rate ofBonus नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

(i) Whole Life Assurance Rs. 60 per thousand of sum assured

Rs . 50 per thousand of sum assured

(ii) Endowment Assurance &Anticipated Endowment Assurance

का. आ. 1672.- डाकघर बीमा निधि नियमावली के नियम 10 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और 31-3-2000 को ग्रामीण डाकघर जीवन बीमा निधि की परिसम्पत्तियों और देयताओं के बीमांकक मूल्यांकन के आधार पर महानिदेशक, डाक मृत्यु अथवा परिपक्वता के कारण दावा बनी ग्रामीण डाक जीवन बीमा पॉलिसियों पर 31-3-2000 को समाप्त वर्ष के लिए निम्नलिखित दरों पर साधारण प्रतिवर्ती बोनस की घोषणा करते हैं ।

बीमा पॉलिसी का प्रकार

बोनस की दर

( i ) आजीवन बीमा

बीमा राशिके प्रति हजार पर

2. Interim Bonus @mentioned above will also be payable for all claims arising due to Maturity or Death duringtheperiod from 01-04-2004 to 31-12-2004 for policies forwhichpremium has been paid and entered upon during the period 01-04-2004 to 31-12-2004 (including first policy year of assurance in respect of policies issued on or after 01-4-2004)

60-रु.

( ii ) बंदोबस्ती बीमा तथा

प्रत्याशित बंदोबस्ती बीमा

बीमा राशिके प्रति हजार पर 50 रु.

3. The amount of bonus involving a fraction of 50 paise on more shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and fraction below 50 paise shall be ignored.

3847 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

(1)

4. This issues with the concurrence of Finance Advice(Postal)vide their diary No. 964 dated 21-05-2004.

[F. No. 5-1/2004- LI]

V. PATI, Addi . GeneralManager

परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग मुम्बई, 30 जून , 2004

3. उप महाप्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर) या वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर) , या प्रबंधक(पी एवं आई आर) ककराचार परमाणु बिजलीघर, गाँव: मोतीचर, मांडवी तालुका, जिला सूरत गुजरात ।

परिसर ( कार्यालयीन तथा आवासीय ) , जो काकरापार परमाणु बिजलीघर गाँव मोतीचर मनिचर तथा रखवाड़ में मांडवी गाँव ऊँचानाला , व्याय तालुका जिला सूरत, गुजरात स्थित न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व का है या को उक्त के प्रबंधाधीन है ।

का. आ. 1673.-सार्वजनिक परिसरों (अनधिकृत दखलकार की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( अधिनियम सं. 1971 का 40 ) के खंड 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा भारत सरकार, परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग की 4 सितंबर, 1996 की अधिसूचना का.आ. सं. 1/11 ( 33 )/94- पीएसयू 1/1332 में, आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा टेबल के कॉलम ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों, जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों के श्रेणी के समक्ष अधिकारी हैं, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारियों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है, जो उक्त टेबल की कॉलम संख्या 3 में निर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक क्षेत्रों के संबंध में उनके क्षेत्राधिकार में आने वाली स्थानीय सीमाओं में उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके तहत सम्पदा अधिकारियों की प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा लागू ड्यूटियों का निष्पादन करेंगे ।

परिसर ( कार्यालयीन तथा आवासीय ) , जो राजस्थान परमाणु बिजलीघर 1 एवं 2, तथा राजस्थात परमाणु बिजलीघर 3 एवं4, रावतभाटा खेस्ली (अणुशक्ति), विक्रमनगर, भाभा नगर, तहसील बेगून, जिला चित्तौड़गढ़, राजस्थान , स्थितन्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व का है या जो ठक्त के प्रबंधाधीन है । टेबल

उप महाप्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर ) आर ए पी एस 1 से 4 या वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर ), आर ए पी एस 1 से 4 , या प्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर) आर ए पी एस 1 से 4, राजस्थान परमाणु बिजलीघर -1 से4, पी.ओ. अणुशक्ति वाया: कोटा, राजस्थान- 3233031

सार्वजनिक परिसर तथा स्थानीय सीमा या क्षेत्राधिकार की श्रेणी

क्रम अधिकारी का पद संख्या

(3)

(2)

(1)

परिसर (अधिकारी तथा आवासीय) , जो कुडनकुलम परमाणु विद्युत परियोजना, पी.ओ. कुडनकुलम तालुका- राधापुरम, जिला-तिरु- नावेली, एवं नागरकोयल, तमिलनाडु स्थित न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व का है याजो ठक्त के प्रबंधाधीन है ।

उप महाप्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर) या वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर) या प्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर) कुडनकुलम परमाणु विद्युत परियोजना, पी.ओ. कुडनकुलम, तालका सथा पुरम , जिला-तिरूनावेली, तमिलनाडु-627 106 ।

परिसर (कार्यालयीन तथा आवासीय ) , जो नरोरा परमाणु बिजलीघर स्टेशन , पी.ओ. नरोरा वाया देबई, बुलंदशहर जिला, उत्तर प्रदेश -202397 स्थित म्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व का है या जो उक्त के प्रबंधाधीन है ।

1. उप महाप्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर ) या वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर ) या प्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर ) , नरोरा परमाणु बिजलीघर, डाकघर : नरोरा वाया देबई, बुलंदशहर, उत्तर प्रदेश-202397 ।

परिसर ( अधिकारी तथा आवासीय ) , जो रावतभाटा के राजस्थान परमाणु बिजली परि- योजना 5 एवं 6 खैरली (अणुशक्ति) , भाभा नगर, स्थित तहसील नागून, जिला चित्तौड़गढ़ राजस्थान स्थित न्यूक्लियरपावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्वका है याजो उक्त के प्रबंधाधीन है । परिसर ( अधिकारी तथा आवासीय ), जो तारापुर परमाणु बिजली परियोजना यूनिटें 3 एवं 4,जिला थाने महाराष्ट्र स्थित न्यूक्लियर पावर कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के स्वामित्व का है या जो उक्त के प्रबंधाधीन है ।

उप महाप्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर) आर ए पी एस 5 एवं 6 या वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर) , आर ए पी एस 5 एवं 6 , या प्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर) आर ए.पी.एस 5 एवं 6, राजस्थान परमाणु बिजली परियोजना 5 एवं 6 डाक घरे: अणुशक्ति वाया: कोय, राजस्थान-3233031

[सं० 1/11 (33 )/94- पावर/ 510] उमा महादेवन, उप सचिव 2. उप महाप्रबंधक या वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( पी एवं आई आर ) या प्रबंधक (पी एवं आई आर), तारापुर परमाणु बिजली परियोजना 3 एवं 4, पी. ओ. टीएपीपी जिला थाने , महाराष्ट्र- 4015041 3848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY Mumbai , the 30th June, 2004

S.O. 1673. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 (Act No. 40 of 1971 ) and in partial modification of the notification ofthe Govt. of India in the Department ofAtomic Energy, S.O. No. 1/11 (33 )/94-PSU- I/ 1332 dated the 4th September, 1996, the Central Government herebyappoints the following Officers mentioned in column 2of the Table, below being Officers equivalent to the rank ofGazetted Officers of the Government of India, to be Estate Officers for the purposes of the said Act who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the Estate Officers by or under the said Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect ofthe public premises specified in column 3 ofthe said Table .

Table

Sl. No.

Designation of the Officer

Categories of the Public premises& local limits or jurisdiction

1. Dy. Gen. Manager (P& IR) or Sr. Manager (P& IR) or Manager (P& IR), Narora Atomic Power Station, P.O. Narora, Via: Debai , Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh-202397.

Premises (Office and residential) belonging to orunder themanagement of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at Narora Atomic Power Station, P.O. Narora, Via: Debai ,Bulandshahr Dist. , UttarPradesh.

2. Dy. Gen. Manager (P& IR) or Sr. Manager (P&IR) or Manager (P& IR), Tarapur Atomic Power Project 3& 4,P.O. TAPP, Dist. Thane, Maharashtra -401504.

Premises (Office and Residential) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at Tarapur Atomic Power Project Units3 & 4 in Thane Dist. , Maharashtra.

3. Dy.Gen. Manager (P & IR) or Sr. Manager (P& IR) or Manager (P& IR) , Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, Village-Moticher, Mandvi Taluka, Dist . Surat, Gujarat.

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to orunder the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at Kakrapar Atomic Power Station, in Village : Moticher Manicher and Ratward in the Mandvi Taluka and Village Unchamala, Vyara Taluka, Dist. Surat , Gujarat .

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

4. Dy. Gen. Manager (P& IR), RAPS 1 to 4 or Sr. Manager (P &IR) , RAPS 1 to 4 or Manager (P& IR), RAPS 1 to 4, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station 1to 4, P.O.: Anushakti , Via Kota, Rajasthan- 323303.

Premises (Office and Residential) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at Rajasthan Atomic Power Station 1 & 2 and in Rajasthan Atomic Power Station 3 & 4, in Rawatbhatta, Kherli (Anushakti ), VikramNagar, Bhabha Nagar in Tehsil Begun, Dist. Chittorgarh, (Rajasthan).

5. Dy. Gen. Manager (P& IR) or Sr. Manager (P& IR) , or Manager (P& IR), Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project, P.O .:Kudankulam, Taluk :Radhapuram, District: Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu- 627106.

Premises ( Office and Residential) belonging to or under the management of the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at Kudankulam NuclearPower Project, P.O.: Kudankulam, Taluk: Radhapuram, District: Tirunelveli and Nagercoil, TamilNadu.

6. Dy. Gen. Manager (P& IR), RAPS 5 & 6 or Sr. Manager (P& IR), RAPS 5 & 6 or Manager (P& IR) , RAPS 5 & 6, Rajasthan Atomic PowerProject 5& 6, P.O.: Anushakti , Via : Kota, Rajasthan-323303 .

Premises (Office and Residential ) belonging to or under the management of. the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. at Rajasthan Atomic Power Project 5 & 6 in Rawatbhatta, Kherli (Anushakti), Bhabha Nagar in Tehsil Begun, Dist . Chittorgarh, (Rajasthan).

[No. 1/11 (33 )/94-Power/510]

UMA MAHADEVAN, Dy. Secy.

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 30 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1674.-सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार विद्युत मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1258, दिनांक 27 मार्च, 2002 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में सारणी के नीचे क्रम संख्या 1 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के लिए निम्नलिखित प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा अर्थात्- 3849 [भाग - खण्ड 3( ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ 26, 1926

सरकारी स्थान की श्रेणी और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

क्रम अधिकारी का नाम एवं संख्या पदनाम

उक्त अधिसूचना में सारणी के नीचे क्रम संख्या 3 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के लिए निम्मलिखित प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा

अर्थात्:-

" 1.

सरकारी स्थान की श्रेणी और क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

क्रम अधिकाड़ी का नाम एवं संख्या पदनाम

श्री सी.एस. भण्डारी, सहायक अधिकारी (मानव संसाधन) , अंता गैस पावरप्रोजेक्ट

नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, पो.आ. अंता, जिला (बारां) , राजस्थान के स्वामित्व वाली/पट्टे व किराये की सभी भूमि, कवार्टर, संपदा एवं परिसंपत्तियां एवंअन्य आवास ।" ।

" 3. श्री वी. सुधाकर राव , उप प्रबंधक (मा.सं.-संपदा), राणागुंडम सुपर थर्मल पावर प्रोजेक्ट

[पत्र.सं. 8 /6/1992- धर्मल-1 ] अरविन्दजाधव, संयुक्त सचिव

नेशनल वर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, रामागुंडम सुपर थर्मल पावर प्रोजेक्ट, ज्योतिनगर, पो.आ. जिला करीमनगर, आंध्र प्रदेश के स्वामित्त्ववाली/ पट्टे व किराये की सभी भूमि, क्वार्टर, संपदा एवं परिसंपतियां एवं अन्य आकास ।" ।

[फा.सं. 8/6/1992- धर्मल-1 ] पाद टिप्पणी: मूल अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1258 , दिनांक 27 मार्च, 2002 को भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उप-खंड ( ii ) में दिनांक 13 अप्रैल , 2002 को प्रकाशित किया गया था ।

MINISTRY OF POWER

अरविन्द जाधव, संयुक्त सचिव NewDelhi, the 30th June, 2004

पाद टिप्पणी: मूल अधिसूचना संख्या बा.आ. 128, दिनांक 16 नवंबर, 2000 को भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उप- खंड ( ii ) में दिनांक 27 जनवरी , 2001 को प्रकाशित किया गया था ।

New Delhi, the 30th June, 2004 S.O. 1674.-In exercise ofthe powers conferredby Section 3 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government herebymakes the following amendments in the notification oftheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Power number S.O. 1258, dated the 27th March, 2002, namely:-

In the saidnotification , below the Table, for serial number 1 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely:-

S.O. 1675. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Costal Goverment herebymakes the following amendments in the notification oftheGovernment of India in the Ministry of Power mander S.O. 128, dated the 16th November , 2000, namely:-

Sl. Name anddesignation No. of officer

Categories of the public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

In the said notification, below the Table, for serial number 3. and the entrios relating thereto , the following shall be substituted , mamely:-

SL. No. Name and designation ofefficer

Categories of the public premises and local limits of jurisdiction " 1. Shri C.S. Bhandari, AssistantOfficer (Human Resources), AntaGas Power Project

All lands, quarters, estate properties and other accommodations owned/ leased and rented by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited.P.O. Anta Distt. (Baran) , Rajasthan."

[F. No. 8/6/ 1992-Th.I]

Shri V. Sudhakar Rao, Dy. Manager (HR- Estate), Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project

ARVIND JADHAV, Jt . Secy.

Footnote:Theprincipal notification nuruber S.O. 1258 , dated the 27th March, 2002 was published in the Gazette of India,. Part II , Section 3 , Sub-section ( ii) dated the 13th April , 2002.

All lands, quantors, estate properties and other accommodations owned/ leased and rented by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project , Jyothinagar, Karimnagar, Distt . Andhra Pradesh. " . P.O. नई दिल्ली, 30 जून, 2004

[F. No. 8/6/1992-Th.I ]

ARVIND JADHAV, Jt. Secy.

का.आ. 1675.- सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3. द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार विद्युत मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं.का.आ. 128 , दिनांक16 नवम्बर, 2000 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:

Footnote: The principal notification number S.O. 128, dated the 16th November , 2000 was published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 27th January, 2001 .

2052 G1/2004-2 3850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

नईदिल्ली, 30 जून, 2004

का.आ. 1676.- सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम, 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार विद्युत मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार कीअधिसूचना सं. का. आ . 128, दिनांक16 मार्च, 2000 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में सारणी के नीचे क्रम संख्या 4 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के लिए निम्नलिखित प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा अर्थात्:-

क्रम अधिकारी का नाम एवं सरकारी स्थान की श्रेणी और संख्या पदनाम क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड, द्वारा पट्टे पर ली गई अथवा उनसे संबंधित/स्वामित्व वाले और उनके तालचेर थर्मल पावर स्टेशन के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण वाले सभी परिसर । " । " 4. श्री अमित कुमार अस्थाना , अधिकारी ( मानव संसाधन ) , नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन, तालचेर थर्मल पावर स्टेशन

[फा.सं. 8/6/ 1992 - थर्मल- I ] अरविन्द जाधव, संयुक्त सचिव पादटिप्पणी: मूल अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 128 , दिनांक 16 नवम्बर, 2000 को भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उप- खंड ( ii ) में दिनांक 27 जनवरी, 2001 को प्रकाशित किया गया था।

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2004

//S.O. 1676.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Power number S.O. 128 , dated the 16th November, 2000 namely :-

In the said notification , below the Table , for serial number 4 and the entries relating thereto , the following shall be substituted, namely : -

SI . No. Name and designation of officer Categories of the public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

4. Shri Amit Kumar Asthana, Officer (HumanResources ) National Thermal Power Corporation , Talcher Thermal Power Station . All Premises owned/ belonging to or taken on lease by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited, and under the administrative control of its Talcher Thermal Power Station." .

[F. No. 8/6/ 1992-Th.I ] ARVIND JADHAV, Jt . Secy.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Footnote : The principal notification number S.O. 128 , dated the 16th November, 2000 was published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 27th January, 2001 .

खाद्य प्रसंस्करण उद्योग मंत्रालय आदेश

नईदिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2004

का.आ. 1677.-माँस खाद्य उत्पाद आदेश, 1973 के खंड 3 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा मांस खाद्य उत्पाद परामर्शदात्री समिति का पुनर्गठन करती है जिनमें निम्नलिखित व्यक्तिशामिल हैं , अर्थात्ः-

अध्यक्ष:

लाइसेसिंग प्राधिकारी और संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार, खाद्य प्रसंस्करण उद्योग मंत्रालय ( श्री ए. एन.पी. सिन्हा)

सदस्य:

(क) पशुपालन आयुक्त, भारत सरकार अर्थवा उनका नामिती । (ख) स्वास्थ्य सेवा महानिदेशक, भारत सरकार अथवा उनका नामिती।

(ग) निदेशक, भारतीय पशुचिकित्सा अनुसंधान संस्थान , इज्जतनगर, उत्तर प्रदेश अथवा उनका नामिती । (घ ) कार्यपालक निदेशक, खाद्य और पोषण बोर्ड , महिला एवं बाल विकास विभाग, भारत सरकार अथवा उनका नामिती । (ड. ) निदेशक, केंद्रीय खाद्य प्रौद्योगिकी अनुसंधान संस्थान, मैसूर अथवा उनका नामिती ।

(च) पशुपालन निदेशक, उत्तर प्रदेश ।

(छ) पशुपालन निदेशक, तमिलनाडू ।

(ज) मैसर्स एलानासंस लि. , मुम्बई, महाराष्ट्र ।

(झ) मैसर्स वेंकटेश्वर हेचरीज प्रा. लि. , नई दिल्ली । (ण) उप कृषि विपणन सलाहाकर, खाद्य प्रसंस्करण उद्योग मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार- सदस्य सचिव ।

2. सलाहकार समिति का कार्यालय इस आदेश के भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए होगा ।

3. इस समिति का सदस्य उस अवधि के लिए पद पर रहेगा जिसके लिए समिति का गठन किया गया है ।

बशर्ते कि सदस्य समिति के अध्यक्ष को लिखित में सूचना देकर अपने पद से त्यागपत्र दे सकता है ।

4. समिति की बैठक के लिए गणपूर्ति पांच होगी , परंतु समिति अपनी सदस्यता में किसी रिक्ति के बावजूद भी कार्य कर सकती है । 5. समिति जैसा वह उपयुक्त समझे अपनी कार्रवाई विनियमित कर सकती है परंतु किसी मामले पर समिति के वोट समान रूप से विभाजित होने की स्थिति में अध्यक्ष अथवा समिति की बैठक की अध्यक्षता करने वाला व्यक्ति निर्णायक मत का उपयोग करेगा । 3851 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6. इस समिति का कार्य मांस खाद्य उत्पाद उद्योग से संबंध रखने वाले किसी मामले में केंद्र सरकार की सहायता करना और सलाह देना होगा ।

4. The quorum for a meeting of the committee shall be five, but the Committee may act notwithstanding any vacancy in its membership.

[फा. सं. 11 ( 13 )/9/ 2004- एम एंड एम पी हैडैस्क]

जे. पी. शुक्ल, निदेशक

MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES

5. The Committee may regulate its proceedings in such manner as it thinks fit, but on any matter on which the votes ofthe Committee are equally divided, the Chairman or the person presiding at a meeting of the Committee shall have a casting vote .

ORDER

/ New Delhi, the 7th July, 2004

6. The functions of the Committee shall be to aid and advise the Central Government in dealing with any matter pertaining to Meat Food Products Industry.

[F. No. 11 ( 13 )/9/2004- M&MP Desk]

J. P. SHUKLA, Director S.O. 1677. In pursuance of sub -clause (1 ) ofclause. 3 of the Meat Food Products Order , 1973 , the Central Government hereby reconstitute the Meat Food Products Advisory Committee consisting of the following persons, namely:-

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय Chairman :

(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

Licensing Authority & Joint Secretary, Government of India , Ministry of Food Processing Industries (Shri A.N.P. Sinha)

नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई , 2004

Members:

(a) Animal Husbandry Commissioner, Government of India or his nominee .

का.आ. 1678.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गयेमानक(कौं ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

(b) Director General of Health Services , Government of India or his nominee.

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

मानक की संख्या और वर्ष क्र. संशोधित भारतीय सं.

(d) Executive Director , Food & Nutrition Board, Deptt. of Women and Child Development, Government of India or his nominée.

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

30-06-2003

1. आईएस 33: 1992

(e) Director, Central Food Technological Research Institute , Mysore or his nominee.

संशोधन सं . 1 जनू, 2003

(f) Director ofAnimal Husbandry, Uttar Pradesh

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं. 1

(g) Director of Animal Husbandry, Tamil Nadu

जनू, 2003

2. आईएस 101 : (भाग 2/खंड 4 )

30-06-2003 (h) M/s . Allanasons Ltd. , Mumbai , Maharashtra

संशोधन सं. 1

जनू, 2003

3. आईएस 101 : (भाग 6/खंड 1 )

(i) M/s . Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt . Ltd. , New Delhi

03-09-2003

4. आईएस 254: 1973 संशोधन सं. 1 मई, 2003

10-09-2003

5. आईएस 265 : 1993

( Deputy Agricultural Marketing Adviser , Ministry of Food Processing Industries , Government of India-Member Secretary

संशोधन सं . 5 अगस्त 2003

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं. 2

2. The tenure of the Advisory Committee shall be for a period of two years from the date of publication of thisOrder in the Gazatte of India .

जून 2003

6. आईएस 354 : (भाग 4): 1986

31-03-2003

7. आईएस 336 : 1973 संशोधन सं. 1 मार्च 2003

3. A Member of the Committee shall hold office for the period for which the Committee has been constituted:

31-05-2003

8. आईएस 376 : 1986 संशोधन सं . 1 मई2003

Provided that a Member may resign his office by notice in writing given to the Chairman of the Committee.

3852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

03-09-2003 9. आईएस 411 : 1991 संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

20-10-2003 10. आईएस 428 : 2000 संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

30-06-2003 11. आईएस 854 : 1991 संशोधन सं . 1 जून 2003

30-06-2003 12. आईएस 862 : 1990 संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

13. आईएस 864 : 1990

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं . 1 जून 2003

30-06-2003 14. आईएस 1244 : 1990 संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

15. आईएस 1245 : 1990

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं . 1 जून 2003

16. आईएस 1246 : 1978

31-07-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई 2003

17. आईएस 1460 : 2000

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं . 2 मई 2003

18. आईएस 1571 : 2001

31-08-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 अगस्त 2003

19. आईएस 1622 : 1981

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं. 4 मई2003

20. आईएस 1664 : 2002

15-03-2004

संशोधन सं. 1 अगस्त 2003

21. आईएस 1763 : 1961

30-04-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 2अप्रैल 2003

31-07-2003 22. आईएस 1774 : 1986 संशोधन सं . 2 2 जुलाई 2003

23. आईएस 1814 : 1990

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं . 1 जून 2003

24. आईएस 1989

23-03-2004 (भाग 1 ) : 1986

संशोधन सं. 4 जून 2003

26-08-2003 25. आईएस 2202 (भाग 1 ) : 1999

संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

26. आईएस 2483 : 1986

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 मई 2003

01-09-2003 27. आईएस 2548 (भाग 2) : 1996

संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] (1) (2)

(3)

(4) 28. आईएस 2681 : 1993

01-09-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 अप्रैल 2003

29. आईएस 2796 : 2000

28-02-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 फरवरी 2003

30-04-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 अप्रैल 2003

30. आईएस 3025 (भाग 27) : 1986

31-03-2003

संशोधन सं . 2 मार्च 2003

31. आईएस 3025 (भाग 43) : 1992

30-04-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 अप्रैल 2003

32. आईएस 3025 (भाग 45) : 1993

31-03-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 मार्च 2003

33. आईएस 3025 (भाग46): 1994

30-04-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 अप्रैल 2003

34. आईएस -3025 (भाग 47) : 1994

03-07-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 फरवरी 2003

35. आईएस 3104 (भाग 1 ) : 1982

36. आईएस 3401 : 1992

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मई2003

37. आईएस 3736 : 1995

16-02-2004

संशोधन सं. 3 सितम्बर 2003

31-05-2003 38. आईएस 4576 : 1999 संशोधन सं. 1 मई 2003

39. आईएस 5195: 1969

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मई2003

40. आईएस 5277 : 1978

13-01-2004

संशोधन सं. 5 अक्तूबर 2003

41. आईएस 5641 : 1993

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

42. आईएस 5756 : 1970

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मई 2003

43. आईएस 6092 (भाग 1 ): 1985

44. आईएस 6673 : 1972

31-03-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 मार्च 2003

45. आईएस 7133 : 1985

31-07-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

46. आईएस 7394 : 1984

30-06-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003 3852 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30-04-2003

66. आईएस 10358: 1991

31-05-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 अप्रैल 2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मई 2003

47. आईएस 7408 (भाग 1 ) : 2000

30-04-2003

31-05-2003 67. आईएस 10387: 1990 संशोधन सं. 1 अप्रैल2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मई 2003

48. आईएस 7408 (भाग 2): 2000

30-06-2003

31-05-2003 68. आईएस 10466: 1983 संशोधन सं. 1 অপু2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मई2003

49. आईएस 7408 (भाग 3 ): 2000

31-07-2003

69. आईएस 10840: 1994

30-04-2003

50. आईएस 7497: 1985

संशोधन सं. 4 जुलाई 2003 *

संशोधन सं. 2 अप्रैल 2003

31-07-2008

31-08-2003

51. आईएस 7792: 1975

संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

70. आईएस 11239 (भाग 14): 1992

संशोधन सं. 1 अगस्त 2003

30-06-2003

71. आईएस 11584 : 1986

31-07-2003

संशोधन सं. 4 জপু2003

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई 2003

52. आईएस 7803 (भाग 1 ) : 1975

31-07-2003

72. आईएस 11805: 1989

31-07-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई 2003

53. आईएस 7803 (भाग 2 ): 1975

30-06-2003

73. आईएस 12007 : 1987

23-03-2004

54. आईएस 7884 : 1992

संशोधन सं. 1 जनू2003

संशोधन सं. 5 मार्च 2003

31-07-2003

74. आईएस 12395: 1988

30-06-2003

55. आईएस 7959: 1987

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जूम 2003

31-07-2003

75. आईएस 12512: 1989

30-04-2003

56. आईएस 8134: 1996

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई2003

संशोधन सं. 1 अप्रैल 2003

31-07-2005

76. आईएस 12724: 1989

31-03-2003

57. आईएस 8135 : 1996

संशोधन सं . 2 जुलाई 2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मार्च 2003

31-07-2003

77. आईएस 12734: 2002

31-07-2003

58. आईएस 8688: 1988

संशोधन सं . 1 जुलाई 2003

संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

31-05-2009

78. आईएस 12765: 1989

31-07-2003

59. आईएस 9428: 1993

संशोधन सं. 3 मई 2003

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई 2003

30-06-2003

79. आईएस 12787: 1989

30-06-2003

60. आईएस 9738: 1990

संशोधन सं . 1 जून 2003

31-07-2008

80. आईएस 12883: 1989

30-06-2003

61. आईएस 9754 : 1981

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई 2003

संशोधन सं. 2 जून 2003

31-07-2003

81. आईएस 12887: 1989

30-06-2003

62. आईएस 9907 : 1981

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई2003

संशोधन सं. 3 जनू2003

31-07-2003

82. आईएस 12906 : 1990

30-04-2003

63. आईएस 10228: 1982

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई2003

संशोधन सं. 1 अप्रैल 2003

31-07-2005

83. आईएस 12923 : 1990

31-08-2003

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई2003

संशोधन सं. 1 मार्च 2003

64. आईएस 10321 (भाग 2): 1982

84. आईएस 12994: 1990

30-04-2003

65. आईएस 10357: 1990

संशोधन सं. 2 जुलाई2003

31-07-2005 संशोधन सं . 1 अप्रैल 2003 3854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

31-05-2003 85. आईएस 13057 : 1991 संशोधन सं. 1 मई2003

30-06-2003 86. आईएस 13123: 2000 संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

30-09-2003 87. आईएस 13264: 1991 संशोधन सं. 1 सितम्बर 2003

31-07-2003 88. आईएस 13286 : 1992 संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

30-06-2003 89. आईएस 13289: 1993 संशोधन सं. 1 जून 2003

30-06-2003 90. आईएस 13560 : 1992 संशोधन सं. 1 जून2003

31-05-2003 91. आईएस 13607: 1992 संशोधन सं. 1 मई2003

31-07-2003 92. आईएस 13952: 1994 संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

31-07-2003 93. आईएस 14129: 1994

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ) हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. के.प्र. वि. - 1/13 : 5 ]

एस. के. चौधरी , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION (Department of Consumer Affairs) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS NewDelhi , the 2nd July, 2004

S.O. 1678.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule (1) ofRule7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

Sl . No. and year of No. the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1) (2)

(4)

(3)

1. IS33: 1992

संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई2003

19-06-2003

संशोधन सं . 3 मार्च 2003

94. आईएस 14151 (भाग 1 ) : 1999

31-07-2003 95. आईएस 14294: 1995 संशोधन सं, 1 जुलाई 2003

31-07-2003 96. आईएस 14400 : 1996 संशोधन सं. 1 जुलाई 2003

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 2 June 2003

2. IS 101 (Part 2/ Sec4)

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

3. IS 101 (Part 6/ Sec1)

4. IS 254 : 1973

03-09-2003

Amendment No. 1 May 2003

5. IS265 : 1993

31-03-2003 97. आईएस 14421 : 1997 संशोधन सं. 1 मार्च 2003

Amendment No. 5 10-09-2003 August 2003

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 2 June 2003

6. IS 354 (Part 4): 1986

31-03-2003 7. IS336: 1973

31-07-2003 98. आईएस 14636 1998 संशोधन सं . 1 जुलाई 2003

Amendment No. 1 March 2003

8, IS 376 : 1986

31-08-2003 99. आईएस 14647 1999 संशोधन सं. 1 अगस्त 2003

31-05-2003

Amendment No. 1 May2003

9. IS411 : 1991

05-03-2004 100. आईएस 14928 : 2001 संशोधन सं. 1 अगस्त 2004

03-09-2003

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

10. IS428 : 2000

20-10-2003

June 2003 Amendment No. 1

30-06-2003 11. IS 854: 1991

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

12. IS862 : 1990

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी,

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 1 June 2003 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3855

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

13. IS 864: 1990

Amendment No. I 30-06-2003 June 2003

14. IS 1244: 1990 Amendment No. 1 30-06-2003 June 2003

15. IS 1245 : 1990 Amendment No. I 30-06-2003 June 2003

31-07-2003 16. IS 1246:1978 Amendment No. 2 July 2003

17. IS 1460 : 2000 Amendment No. 2 31-05-2003 May2003

31-08-2003 18. IS 1571 : 2001 Amendment No. 2 August 2003

31-05-2003 19. IS 1622: 1981 Amendment No. 4 May2003

20. IS 1664 :2002

15-03-2004

Amendment No. 1 August 2003

30-04-2003 21. IS 1763 : 1961 Amendment No. 2 April2003

31-07-2003 22. IS 1774: 1986 Amendment No. 2 July2003

30-06-2003 23. IS 1814: 1990 Amendment No. 1 June 2003

23-03-2004

Amendment No. 4 June 2003

24. IS 1989 (Part1) : 1986

26-08-2003 25. IS 2202 (Part 1) : 1999

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

31-05-2003 26. IS 2483 : 1986 Amenedment No. 2 May2003

01-09-2003 27. IS 2548 (Part 2): 1996

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

01-09-2003 28. IS 2681 :1993 Amendment No. 2 April2003

29. IS 2796:2000

28-02-2003

Amendment No. 2 Feb 2003

30-04-2003 30. IS 3025 (Part 27) : 1986

Amendment No. 1 April2003

31-03-2003 31. IS 3025 (Part 43) : 1992

Amendment No. 1 March 2003

30-04-2003 32. IS 3025 (Part 45) : 1993

Amendment No. 1 April2003

31-03-2003

Amendment No. 2 March 2003

33. IS 3025 (Part 46): 1994

30-04-2003 34. IS 3025 (part 47) : 1994

Amendment No. 2 April2003

03-07-2003 35. IS3104 (Part 1) : 1982

Amendment No. 1 Feb. 2003

(3)

(4) (2)

(1).

31-05-2003 36. IS3401 :1992 Amendment No. 1 May2003

16-02-2004 37. IS 3736 : 1995 Amendment No. 3 Septmober2003

31-05-2003 38. IS4576: 1999 Amendment No. 1 May2003

31-05-2003 39. IS 5195 :4969 Amendment No. 1 May2003

13-01-2004 40. 185277: 1978 Amendment No. 5 October2003

30-06-2003 41. IS 5641 : 1993 Amendment No. 1 June 2003

30-06-2003 42. IS 5756: 1970 Amendment No. 1 June2003

31-05-2003 43. IS 6092 (Part 1 ) : 1985

Amendment No. 1 May2003

31-03-2003 44. IS6673 : 1972 Amendment No. 2 March 2003

31-07-2003 45. IS7133 : 1985 Amendment No. 1 July2003

30-06-2003 46. IS7394: 1984 Amendment No. 1 June 2003

31-05-2003 47. IS7408 (Part 1 ): 2000

Amendment No. 1 May2003

31-05-2003 48. IS 7408 (Part 2 ): 2000

Amendment No. 1 May2003

1 31-05-2003 49. IS7408 (Part 3): 2000

Amendment No. May2003

30-04-2003 50. IS 7497: 1985 Amendment No. 2 April2003

51. IS 7792 : 1975

31-08-2003

Amendment No. 1 August 2003

2 31-07-2003 52. IS 7803 (Part 1 ): 1975

Amendments No. July2003

31-07-2003 53. IS7803 (Part 2) : 1975

Amendment No. 2 July2003

5 23-03-2004 54 IS7884: 1992

March 2003 Amendment No.

I 30-06-2003 55. IS 7959: 1987 Amendment No. June 2003

30-04-2003 56. IS 8134: 1966 Amendment No. 1 April2003

31-03-2003 57. IS 8135 : 1996 Amendment No. 1 March2003

31-07-2003 58. IS 8688: 1988 Amendment No. 1 July2003 3856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 59. IS 9428 : 1993

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 2 July2003

60. IS 9738: 1990

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

61. IS 9754: 1981 Amendment No. 2 30-06-2003 June 2003

62. IS 9907: 1981 Amendment No. 3 30-06-2003 June 2003

63. IS 10228 : 1982

30-04-2003

Amendment No. 1 April2003

31-03-2003 1982 64. IS 10321 (Part 2): Amendment No. 1 March 2003

65. IS 10357: 1990

30-04-2003

Amendment No. 1 April2003

66. IS 13058 : 1991

30-04-2003

Amendment No. 1 April2003

30-04-2003 67. IS 10387: 1990 Amendment No. 1 April2003

30-06-2003 68. IS 10466: 1983 Amendment No. 1 June 2003

69. IS 10840: 1994

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 4 July2003

31-07-2003 70. IS 11239 (Part 14): 1992

July2003 Amendment No. 1

30-06-2003 71. IS11584: 1986 Amendment No. 4 June 2003

72. IS 11805: 1989 Amendment No. 1 31-07-2003 July 2003

73. IS 12007 : 1987 Amendment No. 1 30-06-2003 June 2003

74. IS 12395: 1988 Amendment No. 2 31-07-2003 July2003

75. IS 12512 : 1989 Amendment No. 2 31-07-2003 July2003

76. IS 12724: 1989 Amendment No. 2 31-07-2003 July 2003

31-07-2003 77. IS 12734: 2002 Amendment No. 1 July2003

31-05-2003 78. IS 12765 : 1989 Amendment No. 3 May 2003

79. IS12787: 1989

30-06-2003

Amendment No. 1 June 2003

80. IS 12883 : 1989

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 2 July 2003

81. IS 12887: 1989

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 2 July2003

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

(2)

(3)

(4) 82. IS 12906:1990

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 2 July2003

31-07-2003 83 IS 12923 : 1990 Amendment No. 2 July2003

84. IS 12924: 1990 Amendment No. 2 31-07-2003 July2003

85. IS 13057 : 1991

31-05-2003

Amendment No. 1 May2003

30-06-2003 86. IS 13123 : 2000 Amendment No. 1 June 2003

87. IS 13264: 1991 Amendment No. 1 30-09-2003 September2003

88, IS 13286: 1992 Amendment No. 1 31-07-2003 July2003

89. IS 13289 : 1993 Amendment No. 1 30-06-2003 June 2003

90. IS 13560 : 1992 Amendment No. 1 30-06-2003 June 2003

91. IS 13607 : 1992 Amendment No. 1 31-05-2003 May2003

92. IS 13952: 1994

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 1 July 2003

93. IS 14129 : 1994

July2003 Amendment No. 1 31-07-2003

19-06-2003.

94. IS 14151 (Part I) : 1999

Amendment No. 3 March 2003

95. IS 14294: 1995

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 1 July2003

96. IS 14400: 1996

31-07-2003

Amendment No. 1 July2003

97. IS 14421 : 1997

31-03-2003

Amendment No. 1 March 2003

98. IS 14636: 1998 Amendment No. 1 31-07-2003 July2003

99. IS 14647 : 1999 Amendment No. 1 31-08-2003 August 2003

100. IS 14928: 2001 Amendment No. 1 05-03-2004 August 2003

Copyof these amendments are available for sale with theBureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Office: New Delhi, Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[No.: CMD - I/ 13 : 5] S. K. CHAUDHURI, Dy. Director General (Marks) 3857 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2004

का.आ. 1679.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस धारी का नाम व पता भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भाग अनु. वर्ष

भा मा संख्या

लाइसेंस स्वीकृत करने संख्या

क्र. सं.

कीतिथि वर्ष/माह

(5)

(6) (3)

(4)

(1) (2)

89 1. 9347184 2002/08

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

सेवक इंडस्ट्रीज गांव जोरियन पीछे -चाँदपुर वर्क्स यमुनानगर

14101

94 2002/08

2. 9347285

गहराई से पानी निकालने के हथबरमे

वीआरसी इंटरप्राइजिज प्रा. लि. , ई-7 यूपीएसआईडीसी इंड. एरिया , चिह्नात लखनऊ

14543

3. 9347386 2002/08

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर ( पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

श्रीश्याम एक्वा प्रा. लि. , समीप गोपाल देव चौक नारनौल रोड कुतबपुर रेवाड़ी-123 401

92 4. 9347487 2002/08 फाराडेज इंजीनियरिंग इंड. प्रा. लि. , गाँव बरोतीवाला जिला सोलन

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 03196 01 5-लिटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प काबर्न इस्पात के सिलिंडर

83 5. 9347588 2002/08

पूर्व प्रतिबलित कंक्रीट के लिए 06006 बिना लेपित प्रतिबल मुक्त तार

जनरल इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स 12/2मील पत्थर मथुरा रोड, फरीदाबाद

89 2002/8

6. 9347689

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

प्रगति इंडस्ट्रीज वीपीओ डामला दिल्ली रोड, यमुनानगर

7. 9347790 2002/08

14543

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

गाँव झरमरी तहसील-डेराबस्सी जिला पटियाला गोल्डन ट्यूरिस्टरिसोर्टस एंड डवलपुर लि. ,

2002/08

92 8. 9347891

03196

कृष्णा सिलिंडर्स नसीरपुर हिसार रोड, अम्बाला शहर -134 003

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5- लिटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प काबर्न इस्पात के सिलिंडर

2052 G1 /2004-3 3858

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

(6)

(5)

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

03055 02

2002 2002/08

9. 9347992

डक्टरी थर्मामीटर

भाग 2 बंद पैमाना टाइप

हिक्स थर्मोमीटर ( इंडिया ) लि. , ए-12और 13 सी-26 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, अलीगढ़ 202 001

03055 01

2002/08

10. 9348085

डक्टरी थर्मामीटर

भाग 1 ठोल नली टाइप

हिक्स थर्मोमीटर ( इंडिया ) लि. , ए-12और 13 सी-26 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, अलीगढ़ -202 001

06234

86 2002/08

11. 9348186

सुबाह्य अग्निशामक

एलटस फायर-टेक प्रा. लि. , जथी रोड पीछे- एस.पी. कोल्ड स्टोर, कुंडली जिला: सोनीपत

01417

99 2002/09

12. 9348287

वर्माज्वेलर्स चौकबाजार, सोलन

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

01417

2002/07

13. 9348388

महाशेज्वेलर्स 94 लॉअर बाजार, शिमला

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

95 2002/08

14. 9348489

09798

एम टेक्नो इंजी. ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , गाँव दात्तौर तहसील- साँपला रोहतक

द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस के साथ उपयोग के लिए अल्पदाब रेग्यूलेटर

01489 01

2002/08

91 15. 9348590

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट

आर.डी. सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि. , 128 गाँव चुरवा पोस्ट सेहगो बचरावन जिला रायबरेली

95 2002/08

16. 9348691

कीटनाशक फोरेट जी सम्पुटित 09359

स्वरूप केमीकल्स ( प्रा. ) लि. , गाँव उत्तरधउना तिवारीगंज चिन्हात लखनऊ

79 17. 9348792 2002/08 सुधार्था स्टील उद्योग कुटीर देवोंधाट सोलन-73212

जस्तीकृत इस्पात की श्रृंखलानुमा 02721 बाड़ पर लगाने की जाली

00374

18. 9348893 2002/09

बिजली के छत के पंखे और रेग्यूलेटर

खैतान इलैक्ट्रिकल्स लि. , प्लॉट नं . 14 सेक्टर 6 , फरीदाबाद -121006

93 2002/07

19. 9348994

10243

2, 4-डी ईथाइल ईस्टर ईसी

क्रिस्टल फॉसफेटस लि. , जी.टी. करनाल रोड़, वीपीओं नत्थुपुर जिला : सोनीपत

2002/08

95 20. 9349087

03564

द्रवचालित डोर क्लोजर

पॉवर जिप 13 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया 1 , चंडीगढ़

21. 9349188 2002/08

शिशु दुग्ध के वैकल्पिक आहार 14433 01 भाग 1 दुग्ध प्रोटीन से बने

न्यूट्रिसिया इंडिया प्रा.लि. , डेयरी कॉम्पलैक्स कासगंज रोड़, एटाह 3859 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(6 )

(5)

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

79 22. 9349289 2002/09

बिजली के छत के पंखे और 00374 रेग्यूलेटर

हिन्दुस्तान इंजी. वर्क्स 3124 फेस 2 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया चंडीगढ़

01489 02

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट

2002/08

23. 9349390

अम्बाजी सीमेंट ग्राइंडर्स, 219-बी इंडस्ट्रियल ग्रोथ सेन्टर सम्बा जम्मू

01417

2002/08

24. 9349491

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

लछमन दास ज्वेलर्स 2/209- बी शॉप नं . 1 और 2 , एम.जी. रोड़, सम्मुख अन्जाना सिनेमा आगरा

2000

04985

2002/08

25. 9349592

पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए गैर प्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप

शक्तिग्रामोद्योग संस्थान सी-9 साइट सी सिकन्दरा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया आगरा-282 007

01659

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

26. 9349693 2002/08 सूर्या बोर्डस लि. 29 किमी रोहतक मील पत्थर रोहडनगर , रोहडनगर रेलवे स्टेशन रोड़, बहादुरगढ़

00458

88 2002/09

27: 9349794

पूर्व ढलित कंक्रीट पाइप (प्रबलन सहित और रहित )

आर. आर. कंक्रीट प्रॉडक्ट्स गाँव खेरी तागा पीओ गसोली, तहसीलगानौर, जिला: सोनीपत

12592 01

2002/09

28. 9349895

पूर्व दलित कंक्रीट मेनहोल के ढक्कन

आर. आर. कंक्रीट प्रॉडक्ट्स गाँव खेरी तागा पीओ गसोली, तहसील गानौर, जिला: सोनीपत

06234

2002/08

29. 9349996

सुवाह्य अग्निशामक

चावला फायर प्रोटक्शन इंजीनियर 2095 एम आई ई बहादुरगढ़

79 2002/09

30. 9350072

02721

जस्तीकृत इस्पात की श्रृंखालानुमा ब्राड़ पर लगाने की जाली

डेकोरा इंडस्ट्रीज, 5 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, चम्बाघाट, सोलन

01659

2002/09

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

31. 9350173

एम.डी. प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज, गाँव जोरियन ( पुलिस नाका ) यमुनानगर

14105

32. 9350274 2002/09

गहराई से पानी निकालने के हथबरमे- घटक-स्टैनलेस स्टील

वीआरसी इंटरप्राइसेज प्रा. लि. , ई-7 यूपीएसआईडीसी इंड. एरिया, चिन्हात, लखनऊ

00374

2002/09

79 33. 9350375

बिजली के छत के पंखे और रेग्यूलेटर

ग्रान्डयूर ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , बी-7/2मॉडर्न इंड. एस्टेट, बहादुरगढ़ 3860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] (1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6) 34. 9350476 2002/09

0155401

सीएमआई लि. , प्लॉट नं. 71 और 82 , सेक्टर 6 , फरीदाबाद-121 006

पीवीसी रोधित ( भारी कार्य ) बिजली के केबल भाग-1 1100 वोल्ट तक की कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए

00694

90 2002/09

35. 9350577

1100 वोल्ट तक की कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए पीवीसी रोधित केबल

सीएमआई लि. , प्लॉट नं. 71 और 82 , सेक्टर 6 , फरीदाबाद -121 006

14543

36. 9350678 2002/09

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबन्द प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

वन्दना डिंक्स प्रा . लि. , नं. 227 मजार रोड जी.टी. रोड, सहनेवाल जिला: लुधियाना

2000

14787

37. 9350779 2002/09 स्टडी पॉलिमर्स लि. , 21 , इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया वादी जिला: सोलन

भूमिगत दूरसंचार केबल संस्थापन के लिए अनम्यकृत पीवीसी पाइप और फिटिंग

83 2002/09

38. 9350880

विद्युत् संस्थापन के लिए कंडयूट 09537 03

जिन्दल पॉलीटयूब्स ( प्रा. ) लि. , 1-25 डीएलएफ इंड. एरिया, फेस 1 , फरीदाबाद-121 003

2002/09

89 39. 9350981

सामान्यप्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवूड 00303

श्री नाथ वुड इंडस्ट्रीज, गॉव कामीमाजरा पी ओ शादीपुर खजूरी रोड, यमुनानगर

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

90 40. 9351074 2002/09

01659

श्री नाथ वुड इंडस्ट्रीज, गॉव कामीमाजरा पी ओ शादीपुर खजूरी रोड, यमुनानगर

00458

88 41. 9351175 2002/09 जी. डी. ह्यूम पाइप्स वीपीओ चेतरू जिला कॉगड़ा- 176209

पूर्व ढलित कंक्रीट पाइप ( प्रबलन सहित और रहित )

14543

98 42. 9351276 2002/09 गौरव इंडस्ट्रीज 263- तुलसी नगर स्टेशन रोड, ओरई

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

14543

98 43. 9351377 2002/09 पेंगुइन फूडस एण्ड बेवरेजिज ( प्रा. ) लि. , जी. टी. रोड, गॉव नबीपुर जिला फतेहगढ सहिब

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वॉटर (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

89 44. 9351478 2002/09

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

ऐम डी प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज गॉव जोरियल ( पुलिस नाका ) यमुनानगर

13334 01

45. 9351579 2002/09

मलाई रहित दूध पाउडर

मार्कण्डेश्वर फूडस एण्ड एलाइड प्रॉडक्टस लि. 166-167 किमी स्टोन जी. टी. रोड़ खानपुर कोलियाँ, कुरूक्षेत्र

2002/09

46. 9351680

01417

99 जैन ज्वेलर्स एससीएफ 8 , सेक्टर 22 , चण्डीगढ़

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन 3861 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(6)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(1) (2)

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

47. 9351781 2002-09 हरियाणा पेनल प्रॉडक्टस खजुरी रोड, यमुनानगर

89 2002-09

48. 9351882

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

हरियाणा पेनल प्रॉडक्टस खजूरी रोड, यमुनानगर

03686

9351983. 2002-08-

49.

विद्यार्थियों के लिए प्रयोग टाइप सूक्ष्मदर्शी

चीफ सांइटिफिक इंडस्ट्रीज़ 3704 पन्ना कॉटेज जगाधरी रोड़ , अम्बाला छावनी 133001

67 2002-08

4328

50. 9352076

एक नेत्रिका वाली सूक्ष्मदर्शी विछेदन हेतु

चीफ सांइटिफिक इंडस्ट्रीज़ 3704 पन्ना कॉटेज जगाधरी रोड़ , अम्बाला छावनी 133001

76 2002-08

51. 9351177

08275

सूक्ष्मदर्शी के लिए द्विनेत्रिकाएँ

चीफ सांइटिफिक इंडस्ट्रीज़ 3704 पन्ना कॉटेज जगाधरी रोड़, अम्बाला छावनी 133001

04381

67 52. 9351278 2002-08

रोग निदान हेतु सूक्ष्मदर्शी

चीफ सांइटिफिक इंडस्ट्रीज 3704 पन्ना कॉटेज़ जगाधरी रोड़ , अम्बाला छावनी 133001

09537 03

53. 9352379 2002-09

विद्युत संस्थापनके लिए कंडयूट

कानन पाइप इंडस्ट्रीज , एफ-2 फेस 8 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, एलटॉप काम्पलैक्स मोहाली

89 2002-09

54. 9352480

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

वर्धमान प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि. , 84-85 किमी स्टोन, गॉव बाहु अकबरपुर, हिसार रोड, रोहतक 124001

01610

55. 9352581 2002-09

घरेलू सिलाई मशीन

वर्धमान प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि. , 84-85किमी स्टोन, गॉव बाहु अकबरपुर, हिसार रोड, रोहतक 124001

91.

00281

56. 9352682 2002-09

पेडलॉक के साथ उपयोग के लिए मृदू इस्पात के सरकवां दरवाजों के काबले

अग्रवाल स्टील्स, 139 इंड. एरिया, फेस 1 , पंचकूला

00694

2002-09

57. 9352783

1100 वोल्ट तक की कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए पीवीसी रोधित केबल

गर्ग इंडस्ट्रीज़ जी. टी. रोड़ माक्कर प्लेस गिधरवाहा 152101

01659

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

58. 9352884 2002-09 प्रगति इंडस्ट्रीज बीपीओ डामला दिल्ली रोड़, यमुनानगर 3862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

59. 9352985 2002-09

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

प्रगति हाईटेक प्रॉडक्टस प्रा. लि. , पंसारा सहारनपुर रोड़, यमुनानगर 153001

60. 9353078 2002-09

01417

99 काशी ज्वेलर्स 59/37 बी बिरहाना रोड कानपुर

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

61. 9353179 2002-09

13779

' ए सी स्थैतिक वाटधंटा मीटर वर्ग 1 और 2

कैलाश मीटर्स 56 इंड. एरिया, हरथला मोरादाबाद 244001

62. 9353280 2002-09

01786

85 शिवा स्टील रोलिंग मिल्स इंड, एस्टेट , हाटली मोर कथुआ ( जे एण्ड के )

कंक्रीट प्रबलन के लिए उच्चसामर्थ्य विन्धापित इस्पात के सरिए और तार

63. 9353381 2002-09

02202 01

99 हरिसर इंडस्ट्रियल कारपो. , सी-155 फोकल प्वाइंट फेस 5, लुधियाना

लकड़ी के सपाट दरवाजों के शटर ( ठोस कोर प्रकार ) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड सतहयुक्त पल्ले

64. 9353482 2002-09

01011

बिस्कुट

आर. के . एम. फूड्स गॉव रानीपुर सुजानपुर जुगियाल रोड़ पठानकोट

65. 9353583 2002-09

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

90 श्री नाथ जी प्लाई प्रॉडक्टस गॉव मकराबपुर, जगाधरी

66. 9353684 2002-09

सीमेंट रंग रोगन

05410

92 अनमोल पेंट्स इंडस्ट्रीज वीपीओ शेखे पुराना होशियार पुर रोड़, जालंधर

67. 9353785 2002-09

पशुओं के लिए मिश्रित आहार 02052

79 शक्तिइंडस्ट्रीज जगेरा रोड़ अहमदगढ़, जिला संगरूर

68. 9353886 2002-10

सीमेंट रंग रोगन

05410

92 ब्रिटनिया पेंट्स ( प्रा. ) लि. , डलहौजी रोड़, पठानकोट

2002-08

69.9353987

सामान्य संरचना इस्पात

02062

99 हंस मेटल्स लि. , यूपीएस आई डी सी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, भर्वा सुमेरपुर हमेरपुर

70. 9354080 2002-09

01417

99 तलवार ज्वेलरी हाऊस एससीएफ 13 सेक्टर 22 डी, चंडीगढ़ 160022

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

71. 9354181 2002-10

13428

बोतलबन्द प्राकृतिक

खनिज जल

हिमाचल प्लाईवुड प्रा. लि. , 1-2इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, शम्शीकुल्लू

72. 9354282 2002-09

09537 03

विद्युत संस्थापन के लिए

कंडयूट

सिंघल ट्यूब्स 116-1 उद्योग नगर, कानपुर 3863 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 26 , 1926

(6)

(1) ( 2) (3)

(4)

(5)

08249

94 9354383 2002-09

73.

जिंक सल्फेट हैप्टयहाइड्रेट,

कृषिग्रेड

जेजे केमीकल्स, बी/एस 262, ईस्ट मोहन नगर इंड. एरिया, अमृतसर 143006

11995

74. 9354484 2002-09

आासेप्रोट्यूरॉन , डब्ल्यु पी

केमीकल्स एण्ड इन्सेक्टीसाइड्स , राम नगरं करन्जाह पीओ भानसाह (14-15 किमी) देबरिया रोड, गोरखपुर

09585

95 75. 9354585

लैक्टोमीटर

2002-10 युनाइटेड एसोसिएटस, गांवफिरोजपुर बंगर, तहसील खरखोदा, जिलासोनीपत

89 76. 9354686 2002-10

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

मार्शल प्लाईवुड (प्रा. ) लि. , रायपुर रोड, गांव कामीमाजरा यमुनानगर

89 77. 9354787 2002-10

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

प्रकाश इंटरप्राइजिङ्ग, गांव कामीमाजरा खजूरी रोड,. यमुनानगर 135001

2000 78. 9354888 2002-09

04985

पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिए गैर- प्लास्टिकृत पीवीसी पाइप

अम्बिका पॉली ट्यूब्स, 13/22-ए नुनहई, आगरा-282006

99 79. 9354989 2002-10

03975

केबल रक्षण हेतु मृदु इस्पात के तार फार्मड वायरयुक्त और टेप

मेटल कोटिंग्स ( इंडिया ) , सेक्टर 45 , मीला महाराजपुर, फरीदाबाद 121003

01538

80. 9355082 2002-10

पानी, गैस और मलजल के लिए ढलवां लौहे के दाब पाइपों की फिटिंग

आरकू मैन्यू, कं. 75, समीप इंड. एस्टेट, के वी राइज मिल के पीछे, जालंधर 144004

01417

99 81. 9355183 2002-09 ज्वेलर्स एन. एन. अग्रवाल, 1074/3, सराफा बाजार, अम्बाला शहर

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

2001 82. 9355284 2002-10

03589

पानी मल- जल के लिए इस्पात पाइप

मुकट पाइप्स लि. , पटियाला रोड, राजपुरा 140401

13997

83. 9355385 2002-10

खुले सिरों वाले बड़े ड्रम

बॉमल लॉरी एण्ड कं. लि. , गांव बहोली, पानीपत 132140

94 84. 9355486 2002-09

00398 04

शिरोपरि प्रेषण कार्यों के लिए एल्युमीनियम के चालक

रोहित कंडक्टर्स, 305 , करवत राल्हपुर सी. टी. रोड, दांडी, वाराणसी

02082

2002-10

85. 9355587

अचल भंडारण किस्म के

बिजली के वाटर हीटर

महेश्वरी एप्पलापंसिस (प्रा ) लि. , यूनिट- II गांव खारा पी ओ जमशेर, जिलाः जालंधर 3864

[PART. II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

86. 9355688 2002-10

04984

95 दोआबा फास्टनर्स प्रा. लि. , सी-69, इंडस्ट्रियल फोकल प्वाइंट, जालंधर 144004

पानी की आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्व वाले पॉलिएथाइलीन पाइप

87. 9355789 2002-10

92 पंजाब गैस सिलिंडर्स लि. , गाँव मलिकपुर, पीओ अहमदगढ, जिला संगरूर

अल्पदाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 03196 01 5-लिटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर

88. 9355890 2002-09

01879

धतुवर्ध्य ढलवां लोहे के

पाइपफिटिंग

नाइस इंटरनेशनल, ए-36, इंडस्ट्रियल डव. कॉलोनी, जालंधर

89. 9355991 2002-09

00702

औद्योगिकबिटुमन

कृष्णातारप्रॉडक्टस 110 किमी पत्थर गाँव गौहरी, पीओ छत्ता, जिला मथुरा

90. 9356084 2002-10

04717

जिंक ऑक्साइड स्वयं चिपकने वाला प्लास्टर

स्टेरिमड सर्जिकल्स (इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , ई- II , गवर्न. इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, बहादुरगढ़ ( हरियाणा )

91, 9356185 2002-10

01417

99 सेठ सुन्दरदास एण्ड संस, 18-19, तेज कुमार प्लाजा, 75, हजरतगंज, लखनऊ

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

92. 9356286 2002/10

02202 01

लकड़ी के सपाट दरवाजों के शटर ( ठोस कोर प्रकार ) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड सतहयुक्त पल्ले

विर्गों प्लाईवुड लि. , गांव कुरनवाला, रोड ब्लॉक डेराबस्सी, तहसील राजपुरा , पटियाला

93. 9356385 2002/09

02202 01

99 डोर्स ( इंडिया ) लि. , मगरवाला उन्नाव

लकड़ीके सपाट दरवाजों के शटर ( ठोस कोर प्रकार ) भाग 1 प्लाईवुड सतहयुक्त पल्ले

94. 9356488 2002/10

प्लग और सॉकेट

01293

88 करण इलेक्ट्रिकल्स डी-43, फोकल प्वाइंट, पटियाला 147002

95. 9356589 2002/9

01879

धातुवर्ध्य ढलवां लोहे के पाइप फिटिंग

शर्मा इंडस्ट्रीज , बेकसाइड फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटेंशन , गोदईपुर, जालंधर 4

96. 9356690 2002/10

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

हरिबोल वुड प्राडक्टस ( प्रा ) लि. , 3 किमी भोगपुर मील पत्थर, गांव साडाचाक, पीओ . भागपुर, जिला जालंधर

2002/10

97. 9356791

00398 04

शिरोपरि प्रेषण कार्यों के लिए एल्युमीनियम के चालक

शशि केबल्स लि. ( यूनिट 2 ) ए-3 अमौसी इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, कानपुर रोड, लखनऊ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3865 भारत का राजपत्र : सुल्नई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

(1) (2) . (3)

(4)

(5)

(6) 98. 9356892 2002/11

00369

विद्युत विकीरक

गुप्ता इंडस्ट्रीज 61इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया-2, चंडीगढ़160002

99. 9356993 2002/11

00302 02 30 92 गुप्ता इंडस्ट्रीज 61 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया-2, चंडीगढ़ 160002

घरेलूऔर समान विद्युत साभित्रओं की सुरक्षा भाग 2 विवरणात्मक अपेक्षाएं अनु. 30 विद्युत चिकीरक

100. 9357086 2002/11

14846

2000

जल कल प्रयोजन हेतु स्लूस वाल्स

जुनेजा मेन्युफेक्चरिंग कं, गांव वरियाना कपुरथला रोड, पीओ. बस्ती गुजां जालंधर 144002

101. 9357187 2002/11

00778

जल कल प्रयोजनों के लिए तांबा मिश्रधातु के गेट ग्लोब और चेक वाल्व

विष्णुमेटल्स 26-न्यूइंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट बैकसाइड चारा मंडी जालंधर शहर

102. 9357288 2002/11

02082

बिजली के पानी गर्म करने के भंडारण किस्म के स्थिर हीटर

क्लासिक इंटरप्राइसेज पीछे-पंजाब नेशनल बैंक मेम रोड गंग्याल, जम्मू

2002/11

103. 9357389

14543

98 किमबेली फूडस प्रा. लि. , क्यू-1 फेस 3 न्यू पालम विहार बाजघेरा रोड, गुडगांव

पैकेजबंद मिनरल वाटर (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

2002/11

104. 9357490

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड 00303

89 अमृत इंटरप्राइसेज खजूरी रोड, यमुनानगर

2002/11

105.9357591

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

01659

90 अमृत इंटरप्राइसेज खजूरी रोड, यमुना नगर

106. 9357692 2002/09

05204

रिसर्च माइक्रोस्कोप

69 क्वालिटी साइंटिफिक मैक, वर्क्स 84 एचएसआईडीसी इंड एस्टेट, अम्बाला कैंट

107. 9357793 2002/11

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट 01489 02

91 एशियनसीमेंटस 12 इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट एक्सटें, कथुआजे. एंड के. ,

108. 9357894 2002/11

02494 01

94 मोटोरोला ऑटों इंडिया ( प्रा) लि. , 41/2बहालगढ़ रोड़ सोनीपत

वी- पटटे औद्योगिक प्रयोवन के लिए निरन्व की पटटे भाग 1 सांम्मान्य प्रयोजन

2002/11

109. 9357995

00710

समुद्री उपयोग हेतु प्लाईवुड

वर्गो प्लाईवुड लि. , कुरनवाला बरवाला रोड ब्लॉक डेराबस्सी तह- राजपुरा जिला पटियाला

110. 9358088 2002/11

11995

आईसोप्राटयूरान डब्ल्यूपी

एनपीके केमीकल्स एंड इंसेक्टीसाइडस ( प्रा ) लि. , सी-5 इंड. एरिया, नौतन्वारोड, गोरखपुर 273004

2052GI/2004-4 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

3866

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

14543

2002/10

9358189

111.

पैकेजबन्द मिनरल वाटर (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

एक्वाफ्रेश मिनरल वाटर प्रा. लि. , सुमेर सागर गोरखपुर 273001

2000

14899

2002/11

112. 9358290

स्वचल उपयोग के लिए द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैस ( एलपीजी) धारक

जेबीएम इंडस्ट्रीज लि. , प्लाट नं. 133 सेक्टर 24 , फरीदाबाद

01659

ब्लॉक बोर्ड

113. 9358391 2002/11 एम.आर. प्लाईबोर्डस ई-1 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया यमुनानगर

00303

सामान्य प्रयोजन हेतु प्लाईवुड

2002/11

114. 9358492

एम. आर. प्लाईबोर्डस ई -1 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया यमुनानगर

01489 02

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट

2002/11

115. 9358593

माकेन सीमेंट इंडस्ट्रीज 9-10 इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया कथुआ 184102

03854

2002/11

116. 9358694

घरेलूऔर समान कार्यों के 'लिएस्विच

करण इलैक्ट्रिकल्स डी-43 फोकल प्वाइंट पटियाला 147002

13095

2002/11

117.9358795

सामान्य कार्यों के लिए

बटरफ्लाई वाल्व

स्कोप प्रॉडक्टस प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नं . 63 सेक्टर 59 , फरीदाबाद

01729

2002/11

118. 9358896

जी.एस. चौहान इंड. , बुधेवाल रोड, जंडियाली लुधियाना 141012

अपशिष्ट और सवातन के के लिए रेत के सांचों में ढले लोहे के सिपगट और सॉकेट पाइप, फिटिंग और सहायकांग

01659

ब्लॅक बोर्ड

2002/11

119. 9358997

गांव कामीमाजरा खजूरी रोड, यमुनानगर

01161

2002/11

120. 9359090

संरचनात्मक उपयोग के लिए इस्पात के पाइप

सुरिन्दरा इंजी. , कं. लि. , गांव चलहेरी राजपुरा अम्बाला रोड, ( एनएच -1 ) समीप एसवाईएल केनल राजपुरा

80 2002/11

121. 9359191

बिजली के घरेलू खाद्य द्रवीयरक 04250 और मिक्चर ग्राइंडर

नयना इंजीनियर्स 76 , वसन्त विहार इंड. , एरिया, अम्बाला शहर

01879

2002/11

122. 9359292

धातुवर्ध्य ढलवां लोहे के पाइप फिटिंग

यूनाइटेड सेल्स ( इंडिया ) डी-127 फोकल प्वाइंट एक्सटें . , जालंधर शहर [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3867

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

123. 9359393 2002/11 मार्डन कॉयर प्रोडक्टस 47 इंड. , एरिया, धारूहेडा, जिला रेवाड़ी 122106 124. 9359494 2002/11 एस.जी. कंट्रोल एंड स्विचगियर्स 82उद्योग विहार, फेस 4 , गुडगांव

125. 9359595 2002/11 एस.जी. कंट्रोल एंड स्विचगियर्स 82उद्योग विहार, फेस 4, गुडगांव

2002/11

126.9359696

(5)

(6)

08391

87 कुशनिंग के लिए रबड़ चढ़े नारियल जटा की शीट

01293

88 प्लग एंड साकेट आउटलेट

03854

97 घरेलू और समान कार्यों के लिएस्विच

00366

91 विद्युत इस्तरी

गैलेक्सी होम एप्पलायंसेस प्लाट नं . 30 , इंड. , एरिया फेस 2 चंडीगढ

127.9359797 2002/11 गैलेक्सी होम एप्पलायंसेस प्लाट नं . 30 , इंड. , एरिया फेस 2 चंडीगढ

128. 9359801 2002/11

00302 02 03 92 घरेलूऔर समानविद्युत साधित्रों की सुरक्षा भाग 2 विवरणात्मक अपेक्षाएं अनु. 03विद्युत इस्तरी

01061

97 रोगाणुनाशी प्रवाह

अल्फाडिसइंफेक्टेंट 39 -सी फेस 3 रा इंड. एरिया, गंग्याल जम्मू

129. 9359902 2002/12 तृप्ति कूल्स प्रा.लि. , वीपीओ रेहनान जट्ट्टा तहसील- फगवाड़ा जिला कपूरथला 130 , 9360075 2002/11 हिमाचल वायर इंडस्ट्रीज ( प्रा.लि. , ) जी.टी. रोड़ दमताल जिला कांगड़ा

131. 9360176 2002/11

बटाला 143505 आनन्द फाउन्डर्स एंड इंजीनियर्स आउटसाइट भंडारी गेट م

132. 9360277 2002/11 पंजाब प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज गांव कामी माजरा यमुनानगर

133. 9360378 2002/11 पंजाब प्लाईवुड इंडस्ट्रीज गांव कामी माजरा खजूरी रोड़ यमुनानगर

14543

98 पैकेजबंद मिनरल वाटर (पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

79 जस्तीकृत इस्पात की श्रृखंलानुमा 02721 बाड़ पर लगाने की जाली

03989

अपकेन्द्री ढले ( स्पन ) लोहे के सिपगट और साकेट मृदा, अपशिष्ट और संवातन पाइप फिटिंग और सहायकांग

04990

कंक्रीट शटरिंग कार्यों के लिए प्लाईवुड

00710

समुद्री उपयोग हेतु प्लाईवुड

[सं. केप्रवि-4/13 : 11 ]

एस. के. चौधरी, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 3868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii))

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2004

S.O. 1679. In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

SCHEDULE Sl . Licence

No. No.

Name & Address of theParty

Date Operative (Year/ Month)

1 2

1. 9347184 2002/08 Sewak Industries , Vill . Jorian Behind Chandpur Works , Yamunanagar .

2. 9347285 2002/08 VRC Enterprises Pvt.Ltd . E -7, UPSIDC Indl . Area, Chinhant , Lucknow.

3. 9347386 2002/08 Shree Shyam Aqua Pvt . Ltd. , Near Gopal Dev Chowk, Narnaul Road, Qutabpur, Rewari - 123401 .

4. 9347487 2002/08 Faradays Engineering , Indst . Pvt . Ltd. , Vill . Barotiwala , Distt . Solan , 5. 9347588 2002/08 General Engineering Works 12/2 Mile Stone Mathura Road , Faridabad.

6. 9347689 2002/08 Pragati Industries, VPO Damla Delhi Road, Yamunanagar.

7. 9347790 2002/08 Golden Tourist Resorts & Developer Ltd. Vill. Jharmari Teh. Derabassi , Distt. Patiala .

2002/08

8. 9347891

Krishna Cylinders, Nasirpur Hissar Road, Ambala City - 134003 .

9. 9347992 2002/08 Hicks Thermimeters ( India) Ltd. A- 12 & 13 C- 26 , Industrial Estate, Aligarh - 202001 .

10. 9348085 2002/08 Hicks Thermimeters ( India) Ltd. A- 12& 13 C - 26 , Industrial Estate Aligarh - 202001 .

11. 9348186 2002/08 AtlasFire-tech Pvt . Ltd. , Jathi Road behind S.P. Cold Store , Kundli , Distt. Sonepat .

Title ofthe Standard

IS No. Part Year Sec. 5

00303

Plywood for General purposes

14101

Deepwell Handpump Compo- nents

14543

Packageddrinking water

03196 01 92

Welded low carbon steel Cylinder

06006

Uncoated Strees Releived Strand

00303

Plywood for general purposes

14543

Packaged drinking water

03196

Welded low carbon steel cylinder

03055

Clinical thermometers

03055

Clinical thermometers

01 94

06234

Portable fire extinguishers 3869 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: लाई 17, 2004/आपा 26, 1926

01417

99 12. 9348287 2002/09 Verma Jewellers, ChowkBazar, Solan.

Gold&GoldAlloys, Jewellery/Artefacts-Fineness marking

13. 9348388 2002/07

01417

99 Mahashe Jewellers, 94Lower Bazar, Shimla

Gold&GoldAlloys, JewelleryArtefacts-Fineness marking

14. 9348489 2002/08

09798

Low pressue regulators for use:

M. Techno Engg . (India)Pvt . Ltd.Vill. Dattour Teh. Sampla, Rohtak.

15. 9348590 2002/08

01489

01 Я

Portland Pozzolana Cement

R.D. Cement Industries Pvt . Ltd. 128Vill. Chauzwa Post Sehgo, BachrawanDistt. Raebareli.

16. 9348691 2002/08

09359

Pesticide PhorateG, Encapsulate.

Swarup Chemicals (P) Ltd., Vill. Uttardhana Tiwari Ganj, Chinhat, Lucknow.

79 17. 9348792 2002/08

02721

Galvanized Steel, ChainLink, Fen.

Sudhartha Steels, UdyogKutir,Deonghat, Solan-173212.

00374

79 18. 93488932002/09

Elec.Ceiling type fans and Reg.

Khaitan Electricals Ltd. PlotNo. 14, Sector6, Faridabad-121006.

19. 9348994 2002/07

10243

2,4-D, Ethyl EsterEC.

Crystal Phosphates Ltd. G.T. Karnal , RoadVPO Nathupur, Distt. Sonepat.

20. 9349087 2002/08

03564

Hydraulically regulated doorCL.

PowerZip, 13, IndustrialArea 1 , Chandigarh.

21. 9349188. 2002/08

14433

01 97

Infant Milk substitutes.

Nutricia India Pvt. Ltd., DairyComplex Kasganj Road, Etah.

22. 9349289 2002/09

00374

Elec. ceiling type fans and Reg

Hindustan Engg. Works, 3124 Phase II , Industrial Area Chandigarh.

23. 9349390 2002/08

Portland Pozzołana Cement. 01489 02 91 Ambaji CementGrinders, 219 -B, Industrial Growth Centre Samba, Jammu

24. 9349491 2002/08

01417

GoldandGoldAlloys, Jewellery/ artifacts, Fineness marking.

LachhmanDass Jewellers, 2/209-B, Shop No. 1 &2, M.G. Road, Opp .Anjana Cinema, Agra.

25. 9349592 2002/08

04985

2000

Unplasticized PVC pipes.

Shakti Gramodhyog Sansthan, C-9, SiteC, Sikandra Industrial Area, Agra-282007.

3870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

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

8 26. 9349693 2002/08

BlockBoards .

01659

90 Surya Boards Ltd. , 29 Km, Rohtak Mile Stone Rohad Nagar , Rohad Nagar Rly. Station Road, Bahadurgarh .

27. 9349794 2002/09

00458

Precast concrete Pipes .

R.R. Concrete Products , Vill . Kheri Tagga PO Gasoly, Teh. Ganaur, Distt. Sonepat .

28. 9349895 2002/09

12592

01 88

Precast concrete Manhole Cover:

R.R. Concrete Products , Vill . Kheri Tagga PO Gasoly Teh . Ganaur, Distt . Sonepat .

29. 9349996 2002/08

06234

Portable Fire extinguishers.

Chawla Fire Protection Engineer, 2095 Μ.Ι.Ε. Bahadurgarh .

30. 9350072 2002/09

02721

Galvanized Steel Chain Link, Fen.

Decora Industries , 5, Industrial Estate, Chambaghat, Solan .

31. 9350173 2002/09

01659

Block Boards .

EMM DEE Plywood Industries , Vill . Jorian (Police Naka ) , Yamunanagar.

94 32. 9350274 2002/09

14105

DeepwellHandpump Com- ponents.

VRC Enterprises Pvt . Ltd. , E-7, UPSIDC Industrial Area, Chinhat, Lucknow.

33. 9350375 2002/09

00374

Elec. ceiling type fans and regulators.

Grandeur ( India) Pvt . Ltd. , B -7/2, Modern Indi . Estate, Bahadurgarh.

88 34. 9350476 2002/09

01554

PVC insulated (Heavy duty) electric cables .

CMI Ltd. , Plot No. 71 & 82 , Sec . 6 Faridabad- 121006

2002/09

35. 9350577

00694

PVC insulated cables .

CMI Ltd. , Plot No. 17 & 82 , Sec . 6 , Faridabad - 121006.

36, 9350678 2002/09

14543

Packaged drinking water.

VandanaDrinks Pvt . Ltd. , No. 227 , Majara Road, G.T. Road, Sahnewal , Distt . Ludhiana .

2000 37. 9350779 2002/09

14787

PVCpipes(Ducts) and fittings.

Sturdy Polymers Ltd. , 21 , Indl . Area Badli , Distt. Solan .

38. 9350880 2002/09

09537

03 83

Conduit for eletrical installations .

Jindal Polytubes (P) Ltd. , 1-25 , DLF Indl . Area, Phase - I, Faridabad- 121003 .

39. 9350981 2002/09

00303

Plywood for general purposes.

Shree Nath Wood Industries , Vill. Kami Majra PO Shadipur Khajuri Road, Yamunanagar.

3871 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

01659

BlockBoards .

.2002/09

40. 9351074

Shree Nath Wood Industries , Vill. Kami Majra PO Shadipur, Khajuri Road, Yamunanagar .

00458

Precast concrete pipes.

41. 9351175 2002/09

G.D. Hume Pipes , VPO, Chetru, Distt. Kangra- 176209 .

14543

Packaged drinkingwater.

42. 9351276 2002/09 Gaurav Industries, 263 Tulsi Nagar Station Road, Orai.

14543

Packaged drinking water

2002/09

43. 9351377

PenguinFoods & Beverages (P) Ltd. , G.T. Road, Vill . Nabipur, Distt, Fatehgarh Sahib.

00303

44. 9351478 2002/09

Plywood for general purposes

EMM DEE Plywood Industries , Vill.Jorian (Police Naka) , Yamunanagar.

13334

Skimmed milk powder .

2002/09 .

45. 9351579

Markandeshwar Foods & Allied Products Ltd. , 166-167 Km. Stone , G.T. Road, Khanpur Kolian , Kurukshetra .

01417

46, 9351680 2002/09 JainJewellers, SCF 8 , Sec . 22, Chandigarh

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artifacts finess marking.

01659

Block Boards .

2002/09

47. 9351781

Haryana Panel Products , Khajuri Road, Yamunanagar.

00303

Plywood for general purposes .

2002/09

48. 9351882

Haryana Panel Products , Khajuri Road, Yamunanagar .

03686

Student type microscope .

9351983 2002/08

49.

Chief Scientific Industries , 3704, Panna Cottage Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt . - 133001 .

04328

2002/08

50. 9352076

Monocular dissecting microscope.

ChiefScientific Industries , 3704, Panna Cottage, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. - 133001.

08275

2002/08

51, 9352177

Binocular eyepieces for microsc.

Chief Scientific Industries , 3704 Panna Cottage, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. -133001.

04381

2002/08

Pathological microscope

52. 9352278

ChiefScientific Industries , 3704 Panna Cottage , Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt . 133001 .

09537

2002/09

53. 9352379

Conduit for electrical installa.

Cannan Pipe Industries , F-2, Phase VIII. Industrial Area Eltop Complex, Mohali .

3872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

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

i 54. 9352480 2002/09 Vardhman Plywood Industries

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Pvt . Ltd., 84-85 Km . Stone , Vill . Bahu Akbar Pur , Hissar Road, Rohtak - 124001.

55. 9352581 2002/09

01610

Household sewing machines

Vardhman Plywood Ind. Pvt . Ltd. 84-85 Km . Stone Vill . Bahu Akbar Pur , Hissar Road , Rohtak - 124001.

56. 9352682 2002/09

00281

Mild steel sliding door bolts

Aggarwal Steels , 139 , Indl . Area, Phase- 1 , Panchkula .

57. 9352783 2002/09

PVC Insulated cables .

00694

90 Garg Industries , G.T. Road Makkar Place Giddarwaha - 152101.

58. 9352884 2002/09

Block Boards

01659

90 Pragati Industries , VPO Damla Delhi Road. Yamunagar.

59. 9352985 2002.09

00303

Plywood for general purposes

Pragati Hightech Products Pvt. Ltd. , Pansara Saharanpur Road, Yamunanagar, -135001 .

60. 9353078 2002/09

01417

99 Kashi Jewellers , 59/37B , Birhana Road, Kanpur, jewellery/artifacts finess Gold and gold alloys , marking

61. 9353179 2002/09

13779

AC static watthour meters , Class 1 and 2

Kailash Meters , 56 Indl . Area , Harthala , Moradabad- 244001.

62. 9353280 2002/09

01786.

85 Shiva Steel , Rolling Mills Indl. Estate Hatli More , Kathua ( J& K)

Deformed Steel Bar and wires for concrete reinforcement

63. 9353381 2002/09

02202

Wooden flush door shutters

99 Harisar Industrial Corpn. , C-155, Focalpoint , Phase-V, Ludhiana,

64. 9353482 2002/09

Biscuits

01011

92 R.K.M. Foods , Vill . Ranipur Sujanpur Jugial Road , Pathankot.

65. 9353583 2002/09

Block Boards

01669

90 Shree Nath Jee Ply Products , Vill. Mukarabpur, Jagadhri .

66. 9353684 2002/09

Cement Paint

05410

92 Anmol Paint Industries , VPO Shekhe Old , Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar .

67. 9353785 2002/09

02052

Compound feed for cattle

Shakti Industries , Jagera Road, Ahmedgarh, Distt. Sangrur.

3873 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आबाद 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7 4

05410

CementPoint

2003/10

68. 9353886

Britania Paints (P) Ltd. Dalhousie Road, Pathankot.

02062

2002/08

69. 9353987

Steel for General Structural Purposes.

Hans Metals Ltd. , UPSIDC Industrial Area, Bharwa Sumerpur, Hamerpur.

01417

99 70. 9354080 2002/09

Gold and GoldAlloys , Jewellery/Artifacts , Finess Marking.

Talwar JewelleryHouse , SCF, 13 Sec. 22D, Chandigarh -160022.

13428

71. 9354181 2002/10

Packaged Natural, Mineral Water.

Himachal Plywood Pvt . Ltd. 1-2, Industrial Area, Shamshi , Kulu.

03 83

09537

72. 9354282 2002/09

Conduit for Electrical Installations.

Singhal Tubes , 116-1, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur.

08249

9354383 2002/09

73.

Zinc Sulphate , Heptahydrate , Agri.

Jay Jay Chemicals, B/s . 262 East Mohan Nagar, Indl .Area, Amritsar- 143006.

11995

87. 9354484 2002/09

74.

Isoproturron , WP.

Chemicals & Insecticides, Ram Nagar KaranjahaPO. Bhansalia( 14-15 Km. ) , Deoria Road, Gorakhpur.

09585

2002/10

Lactometers.

75. 9354585

United Associates , Vill. Ferozepur Bangar, Teh.Kharkhoda, Distt . Sonepat.

89 9354686 2002/10

76.

00303

Plywood forGeneral Purposes .

Marshal Plywood (P) Ltd. , Raipur Road , Vill . Kami Majra, Yamunanagar.

68 2002/10

00303

Plywood forGeneral Purposes .

77. 9354/6/

Parkash Enterprises, Vill, Kamu Maira Maira Khajuri Road, Yamunanagar, -135001.

2000

04985

Unplasticized PVCPipes.

2002/09

78.9354848

AmbikaPolyTubes , 13/22-A, Nunhui , Agra-282006.

03975

Mild Steel Wire, Formed Wires .

2002/10

79. 9354989

Metal Coatings (India), See,45, Meela Maharajpur, Faridabad-121003.

01538

Cast Iron Fittings for Pressure.

2002/10

80. 9355082

ArkooMfg .Co. , 75, Near Indi . EstateBehind K.V. Rice Mills, Jalandhar-144004.

01417

2002/09

81. 9355183

GoldandGold Alloys , Jewellery/Artifacts , Finess Marking.

Jewellers N.N. Aggarwal , 1074/3 , Sarafa Bazar, AmbalaCity.

2001

03589

2002/10-

82. 9355284

Steel Pipe for Water and Sewage.

MukatPipes Ltd. , PatialaRoad, Rajpura- 140401

2052 Gl/2004-5 3874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

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

1 2

8 2002/10

83. 9355385

13997

Drum LargeOpen Top .

Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd. , Vill. Baholi, Panipat-132140.

84. 9355486 2002/09

04 94

00398

RohitConductors , 305, Karwat Ralhpur, C.T. Road , Dandi , Varanasi .

Alum, Conductors for Overhead Transmission Purposes.

85. 9355587 2002/10

02082

Stationary StorageEle. WaterHeater.

Maheshwari Appliances (P) , Ltd. , Unit II Vill. Khara , PO Jamsher Distt . Jalandhar.

86, 9355688 2002/10

04984

Polyeth , Pipes for Portable WaterSupplies.

Doaba Fastnors Pvt . Ltd. C-69 , Industrial Focal Point, Jalandhar - 144004.

87. 9355789 2002/10

03196

01 92

Welded Low Carbon Steel Cylinder .

Punjab Gas Cylinders Ltd. , Vill. Malikpur PO , Ahmedgarh, Distt. Sangrur.

88. 9355890 2002/09

01879

Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings:

Nice International , A-36 , Industrial Dev. Colony, Jalandhar.

89. 9355991 2002/10

00702

Industrial Bitumen.

Krishna Tar Products , 110 Km . Stone Vill . Gauhari , PO , Chhata , Distt . Mathura .

90. 9356084 2002/10

04717

Zinc Oxide Self Adhesive Plaster.

Sterimed Surgicals (India) Pvt. Ltd. , E - 11 , Govt . IndustrialArea , Bahadurgarh (Hy . )

91. 9356185 2002/10

01417

99 Seth Sundcrdas & Sons , 18-19, Tej Kumar Plaza, 75, Hazaratganj , Lucknow.

Gold and Gold Alloys, Jewellery/Artifacts Finess Marking.

92. 9356286 2002/10

02202

01 99

Wooden Flush. Door Shutters

Virgo Plywood Ltd. , Vill . Kuranwala Road Block Dera Bassi Teh . Rajpura Patiala

93. 9356385 2002/09

02202

Wooden Flush Door Shutters

99 Doors (India) Ltd. , Magarwara Unnao

94. 9356488 2002/10

01293

Plug and Sockets

Karan Electricals D-43 , FocalPoint Patiala- 147002

95. 9356589 2002/09

01879

Malleable Cast IronPipe Fittings

Sharına Industries Backside Focal Point Extn, Godajpur Jalandhar-04

96, 9356690 2002/10

00303

Plywood for General Purposes

Haribol Wood Products (P) Ltd. , 3km Bhogpur Mile Stone Vill. Sada Chak PO Bhagpur Distt . Jalandhar

97. 9356791 2002/10

04 94

00398

Alum , Conductors for Overhead T

Shashi Cables Ltd. , (Unit II) A- 3 Amausi Industrial Area Kanpur Road , Lucknow [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3875

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

98. 9356892 2002/11 Gupta Industries 61- Industrial Area - 11 Chandigarh- 160002 99, 9356993 2002/11 Gupta Industries 61- Industrial Area - 11 Chandigarh- 160002 100, 9357086 2002/11 Juneja Manufacturing Co. , Vill.Variana Kapurthala Road PO Basti Guzan Jalandhar- 144002 101. 9357187 2002/11 Vishnu Metals 26 New Industrial Estate Back Side Chara Mandi Jalandhar City

2002/11

102. 9357288

Classic Enterprises behind Punjab National Bank Main Road Gangyal , Jammu. 103, 9357389 2002/11 Kimberley Foods Pvt . Ltd. , Q-1 Phase 3 New Palamvihar Bajghera Road Gurgaon 9357490 2002/11

104.

AmritEnterprises Khajuri Road Yamunanagar 105. 9357591 2002/11 AmritEnterprises Khajuri Road Yamunanagar 2002/09

106. 9357692

Quality Scientific Mech . Works Research Microscope 84 HSIDC Indl . Estate Ambala Cantt.

107. 9357793 2002/11 Asian Cements 12 Industrial Estate Extn . Kathua J & K.

108. 9357894 2002/11 Motorola Auto India (P) Ltd. , 41/2Bahalgarh Road Sonepat 109. 9357995 2002/11 Virgo Plywood LIT. Kuranwala Barwala Road Block DeraBassi Teh . Rajpura Distt. Patiala

110, 9358088 2002/11 NPK Chemicals & Insecticides (P) Ltd. , C- Indl . Area Nautanwa Road Gorakhpur-273004 2002/10

111. 9358189

AquaFreash Mineral Water Pvt . Ltd. Sumer Sagar Gorakhpur-273001 112. 9358290 2002/11 JBM Industries Ltd. , Plot No. 133 Sec . 24 Faridabad

8 5

00369

92 Electrical Radiators

00302 02 30 Household and Similar Elec. Appliances

14846

2000 Sluice Valve for Water Works Purposes

00778

CopperAlloyGate Globe& Check Valves for Waterworks

02082

Stationary Storage Ele . Water Heater

14543

98 Packaged Drinking Water

00303

Plywood forGeneral Purposes

01659

BlockBoards

05204

01489 02 Portland Pozzolana Cement

01 94

02494

V Belts Endles V Belts for Industrial Purposes

00710

Marine Plywood

11995

Isoproturon , WP

14543

Packaged Drinking Water

2000

14899

LPG Container for Automatove Use 3876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1 2

2002/11

113. 9358391

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

01659

BlockBoards

M.R. Plyboards E- 1 Industrial Area Yamunanagar

114. 9358492 2002/11 M.R. Plyboards E- 1 Industrial , Area Yamunanagar

115. 9358593 2002/11 Maken Cement Industries 9-10 Industrial Area Kathua - 184102

116. 9358694 2002/11 Karan Electricals D-43 Focal Point Patiala- 147002

117. 9358795 2002/11

00303

Plywood for General Purposes

Portland Pozzolana Cement

01489

02 91

03854

Switches for Domestic and SimilarPurposes

13095

Butterfly Valves

Skope Products Pvt . Ltd. , PlotNo. 63 Sector 59 Faridabad

118. 9358896 2002/11 G.S. Chohan Inds . Budhewal Road Jandiali Ludhiana - 141012

119. 9358997 2002/11 Vill .KamiMajra Khajuri Road Yamunanagar 120. 9359090 2002/11 Surindera Engg . Co. Ltd. , Vill. Chalheri Rajpura -Ambala Road ( NH - 1 ) Near Syl . Canal Rajpura

121. 9359191 2002/11 Nayna Engineers 76 , Vasant Vihar Indl . Area Ambala City

122. 9359292 2002/11

01729

Sand Cast Iron Spigot and Socket

01659

BlockBoards

01161

Steel Tubes for Structural Purposes

04250

Domestic Elc. Food Mixer

Malleable Cast Iron

United Sales (India) D-127 , FocalPoint Extn. Jalandhar City

123. 9359393 2002/11

01879

08391

Rubberized Coil Sheet

Modern Coir Products 47 Indl . Area Dhartihera Distt. Rewari - 122106 124. 9359494 2002/11

01293

Plug and Socket Outlet

S.G. Control & Switchgears 82Udyog Vihar Phase IV Gurgaon

125. 9359595 2002/11

S.G. Control & Switchgears 82Udyog Vihar Phase IV Gurgaon

126. 9359696 2002/11

03854

Switches for Domestic and SimilarPurposes

00366

Electric Iron

Galaxy HomeAppliances Plot No. 30 Indl . Area Phase - II Chandigarh

127. 9359797 2002/11 Galaxy Home Appliances Plot No. 30 Indl . Area Phase - II Chandigarh

Household and Similar Elec . App . 00302 02 03 3877 भारत का राजपत्र । जुलाई 17, 2004/ वाषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (i ) ]

8 4

1 2

Disinfectant Fluid

9359801 2002/11

128.

Alpha Disinfectant 39 -C Phase Ird Indl. Area Gangyal , Jammu

14543

PackagedDrinking Water

2002/12

129. 9359902

Tripti Cools Pvt . Ltd. , VPO Rehanan Jattan Tehsil Phagwara Distt . Kapurthala

02721

Galvanized Steelchain Link

2002/11

130. 9360075

Himachal Wire Industries (P) Ltd., G.T. Road Damtal Distt. Kangra

03989

Iron Spigot and Socket

131. 9360176 2002/11 Anand Founders & Engineers Outside Bhandari Gate Batala-143505

04990

2002/11

132. 9360277

Plywood for Concrete Shuttering

Punjab Plywood Industries Vill. Kami Majra Yamunanagar.

00710

Marine Plywood

2002/11

133. 9360378

Punjab Plywood Industries Vill .Kami Majra Khajuri Road Yamunanagar

[No. CMD-4/13 : 11 ]

S. K. CHAUDHURI , Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2004

का.स. 1680.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्र.

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय भानक की संख्या

सं. और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

10-02-2004

दिसम्बर 2003

संशोधन सं. 7 ,

1. आईएस 269: 1989

31-12-2003

दिसम्बर 2003

संशोधन सं . 1 ,

2. आईएस 617:1994

19-04-2004

संशोधन सं. 1 , फरवरी 2004

3. आईएस 692: 1994

31-12-2003

संशोधन सं . 2 , दिसम्बर 2003

4. आईएस 5082: 1998

10-02-2004

संशोधन सं. 7 , दिसम्बर 2003

5. आईएस 8112:1989

28-02-2004

फरवरी 2004

संशोधन सं. 1 ,

6. आईएस 10412:1986

31-12-2003

संशोधन सं. 1 , दिसम्बर 2004

7. आईएस 11441 :1985

31-12-2003

संशोधन सं . 3 , दिसम्बर 2003

8. आईएस 11708:1986

31-01-2004

जनवरी 2004

संशोधन सं . 1 ,

9. आईएस 11860:1998

10-02-2004

संशोधन से . 7, दिसम्बर 2003

10. आईएस 12269:1987

31-01-2004

जनवरी 2004

संशोधन सं. 1 ,

11. आईएस 13742 ( भाग १ ): 1993

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १ , बहादुर साह अपार मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयीं नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चंडीगढ, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, शुभमेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुम्राहटी , हैदराबाद, बचपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. के प्रषि-4/13 : 5 ]

इस. के. चौधरी, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 3878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th July, 2004

S.O. 1680.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments of the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

Sl . No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

1. IS:269 : 1989

10-2-2004

Amendment No. 7 , December 2003

2. IS:617: 1994

Amendment No. 1 , December 2003

31-12-2003 3. IS: 692 : 1994

19-4-2004

Amendment No. 1 , February 2004

4. IS: 5082: 1998

31-12-2003

Amendment No. 2 , December 2003

5. IS: 8112 : 1989

10-2-2004

Amendment No. 7 , December 2003

6. IS: 10412: 1986

28-2-2004

Amendment No. 1 , February 2004

7. IS: 11441 : 1985

31-12-2003

Amendment No. 1 , December 2004

8. IS: 11708 : 1986

31-12-2003

Amendment No. 3 , December 2003

9. IS: 11860 : 1998

31-1-2004

Amendment No. 1 , January 2004

10. IS: 12269 : 1987

10-2-2004

Amendment No. 7, December 2003

11. IS:13742 (Part 9) : 1993

31-1-2004

Amendment No. 1 , January 2004

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

[No. CMD - IV/ 13 : 5 ]

S. K. CHAUDHURI , Dy. Director General (Marks)

शहरी विकास मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2004

का.आ. 1681.- राजघाट समाधि अधिनियम, 1951 ( 1951 का 41 ) की धारा 4 की उक्त धारा ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) तथा ( 3 ) के साथ पठित धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का उपयोग करते हुए तथा दिनांक 25 अक्तूबर, 2003 की अधिसूचना संख्या 25011 /7/ 85 - डब्ल्यू-3 का आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार श्री बंडारू दत्तात्रेय के स्थान पर श्री गुलाम नबी आजाद, शहरी विकास मंत्री को राजघाट समाधि समिति का अध्यक्ष नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं ० 25011/7/85 - डब्ल्यू-2 ]

देवेन्द्र कुमार, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004 .

S.O. 1681.- In partial modification of the Notification No. 25011 /7/85 - W3 dated 15th October, 2003 , the Central Government appoints Shri Ghulam Nabi Azad, Minister of Urban Development as Chairman of Rajghat Samadhi Commit- tee in place of Shri Bandaru Dattatraya, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 read with Sub- sections ( 1 ) , (2 ) and (3) of Section 4 ofthe Rajghat Samadhi Act, 1951 (41 of 1951).

[No. 25011/7/85 - W-2 ]

DEVINDER KUMAR, Under Secy.

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आपाय 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

-मेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1682.- तेल उद्योग ( विकास) अधिनियम , 1974 (1974 का 47) की धारा-3 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गईं शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री एस.सी. त्रिपाठी , सचिव , पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय , को 1 जुलाई , 2004 पूर्वाहन से, अगले आदेश तक श्री बी .के . चतुर्वेदी के स्थान पर तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के अध्यक्ष के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. जी-35012/3/92- वित्त-11 ] के.पी.के. नम्बीसन , अवर सचिव Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2004

S. O. 1682.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section (4 )of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints , with effect from the forenoon of the 1st July, 2004 and until further orders , Shri S.C. Tripathi Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , as the Chairman of the Oil Industry Development Board vice Shri B.K. Chaturvedi .

[No.G-35012/3/92-Fin . -II ] K.P.K. NAMBISSAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1683.- केन्द्रीय सरकार की लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उडिसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए,

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

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3. की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशाय की घोषणा करती है, 3880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART I-Sac. 3 (ii)] कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबन्द्व है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियी साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री अरविन्द घोष , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , पारादीप हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परिमौजमा, इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, कसबेरीया, डाकघर- खंजनचक, पूर्व मिदनापुर- 721602 (पश्चिमी बंगाल ) को लिखित रुप मे आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्यः पश्चिमी बंगाल

पुलिस थाना : भुपतिनगर

जिला : पूर्व मिदनापुर

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव कानाम

प्लॉट संख्या

अधिकारिता सूचिसंख्या

हेक्टेबर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) 156

4400

किसमतबाजकुल

4853

4857

4860

4861

4868

4869

4893

4853/17289

4854/17291

4854/17292

4854/17293

2820304 पुलिस थाना : भगबानपुर

टेथिबारि

153

440

448

1547

888888

981/1660

1522/1719

1523/1720

[ फा . सं . आर-25011/9/ 2004 -ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3881

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

S. O. 1683.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum (crude) from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited,

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition 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 acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Arabinda Ghosh , Competent Authority, Paradip Haldia Crude Oil Pipeline Project Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Kasberia, Post Office - Khanjanchak, Purba Midnapur- 721602 (West-Bengal ) .

Schedule

State:West-Bengal

District: Purba Midnapur

PoliceStation: Bhupatinagar

Name of Village

Jurisdiction List No.

Plot. No.

(3)

(2)

(1)

4400

156

Kismatbajkul

4853

4857

4860

4861

4868

4869

4893

Area Are SquareMetre Hectare

(6)

(5)

(4)

4853/17289

4854/17291

4854/17292

4854/17293

PoliceStation: Bhagabanpur

440

153

Tethibari

448

1547

981/1660

1522/1719

1523/1720

2052 G1 /2004-6

[No. R-25011/9/2004- O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

3882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2004

का. अ का. आ. 1684.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( 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 भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं० का. आ. 2642 तारीख 10 सितम्बर , 2003 द्वारा सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम- कोयली सेक्शन के संवर्धन के कार्यान्वयन के लिए, इंडियन ऑयल कॉरर्पोशन लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 22 अक्टूबर, 2003 को उपलब्ध करा दो गई थी।

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के सम्बन्ध में जनता से कोई आक्षेप 'प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं ।

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

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात और यह समाधान हो जाने पर की उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाये जाने के लिए अपेक्षित है उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछायं जान के लिए उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुका: आणंद

जिल्ला: आणंद

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे संख्या

उप- खण्ड संख्या

हेक्टर

एयर

वर्ग मीटर 1

6 करमसद

1227

[ फा. सं. आर -25011 /7/2002- ओ.आर । ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3883

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

S. O. 1684.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2642 dated the 10th September, 2003 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (herein after referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Koyli Section of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 22/10/2003 ;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of section of 6 of the said Acthas 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 conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification area hereby acquired;

And further, in the 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 , vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State : GUJARAT

District : ANAND

Taluka : ANAND

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq. Mtr.

Sub-Division No.

Survey No.

Name of the Village

1227

KARAMSAD

[No. R- 25011/7/2002- O.R. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

3884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii ))

नईदिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1685.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (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 भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं० का. आ . 2457 तारीख 18 अगस्त, 2003 द्वारा अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिष्ट भूमि में इंडियन ऑयल कॉरर्पोशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली सेक्शन के संवर्धन को कार्यान्वियत करने के लिए, गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशंय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 8-10-2003 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिष्टि 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 घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिल्ला: खेडा

तालुका: नडीयाद

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे संख्या

हेक्टर

उप -खण्ड संख्या

एयर

वर्ग मीटर 1

केरीयावी

860 1040

[फा. सं. आर -25011/4/2002- ओ.आर । ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3885 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

8. 0. 1688. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2457 dated the 18th August, 2003 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (herein after referred to as the said Act ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be lald by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Koyli Section of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 8/10/2003;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section of 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 conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification area hereby acquired;

And further, in the 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, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State : GUJARAT

District: KHEDA

Taluka : NADIAD

Area

Are Sq.Mtr.

Hectare

Sub-Division No.

Survey No.

6 Name of the Village

860

Keriavi

1040

[No. R-25011/4/2002-O.R. - I ] RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

3886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2004

का. अ का. आ. 1686.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (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 भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं० का. आ. 2458 तारीख 18 अगस्त, 2003 द्वारा अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिष्ट भूमि में इंडियन ऑयल कॉरर्पोशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया-मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली सेक्शन के संवर्धन को कार्यान्वियत करने के लिए, गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख गई थीः 8-10-2003 को उपलब्ध करा दी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम के धारा 6 के उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुका: महेमदाबाद

जिल्ला: खेडा

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे संख्या

उप-खण्ड संख्या

हेक्टर

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

6 खुमारवाड

495

[फा. सं . आर-25011/4/2002- ओ.आर-। ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3887 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

S. O. 1686.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2458 dated the 18th August, 2003 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , (herein after referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Koyli Section of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 8/10/2003;

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section of 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 conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification area hereby acquired;

And further, in the 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, vest from the date of publication of this declaration. , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State : GUJARAT Taluka : MEHMEDABAD

District : KHEDA

Area

Are

Sub-Division No. Hectare

Sq.Mtr. Nameof the Village SurveyNo.

495

Khumarvad

[No. R-25011/4/2002-O.R.-

RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secу.

3888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1687.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( 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 भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना, सं० का. आ. 2459 तारीख 18 अगस्त, 2003 द्वारा अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिष्ट भूमि में इंडियन ऑयल कॉरर्पोशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया-मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली सेक्शन के संवर्धन को कार्यान्वियत करने के लिए , गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 1-10-2003 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिष्टि 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 घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिल्ला: अहमदाबाद

तालुका: विरमगाम

राज्य: गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे संख्या

उप-खण्ड संख्या

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

एयर

664

हांसलपुर सेरेश्वर

[फा. सं. आर-25011/45/2001-ओ.आर । ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3889 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 14th July, 2004

S. 0. 1687.- Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2459 dated 18th August, 2003 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Koyli Section of Salaya- Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 1/10/2003 ;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of section of 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 conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification area hereby acquired ;

And further, in the 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 , vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State: GUJARAT

District : AHMEDABAD

Taluka : VIRAMGAM

Area

Are Sq.Mtr.

Hectare

Sub-Division No.

SurveyNo.

Name of the Village

664

HANSALPUR SERESHVAR

[No. R-25011/45 /2001 -O.R. - I ]

RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

2052 GI /2004-7 3890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ला, 14 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1688.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( 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 भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं० का. आ. 2460 तारीख 18 अगस्त, 2003 द्वारा अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में विनिष्ट भूमि में इंडियन ऑयल कॉरर्पोशन लिमिटेड द्वारा सलाया - मथुरा पाइपलाइन प्रणाली के विरमगाम-कोयली सेक्शनः के संवर्धन को कार्यान्वियत करने के लिए , गुजरात राज्य में विरमगाम से कोयली तक अपरिष्कृत तेल के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख गई थी; 1-10-2003 को उपलब्ध करा दी और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम के धारा 6 के उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिष्टि 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 घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिल्ला: अहमदाबाद

राज्य : गुजरात

तालुका: साणंद

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे संख्या

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर गाँव का नाम

उप- खण्ड संख्या

एयर

12 117

03 137

79 133

09 150

03 10 04 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/45/2001- ओ.आर -1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3891

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2004

S. O. 1688.-Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2460 dated 18th August, 2003 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , (herein after referred to as the said Act) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Crude Oil from Viramgam to Koyli in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited for implementing the Augmentation of Viramgam - Koyli Section of Salaya - Mathura Pipeline System;

And, whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 1/10/2003;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has under sub - section ( 1 ) of section of 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 conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the saidAct, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to this notification area hereby acquired;

And further, in the 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, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State : GUJARAT

District : AHMEDABAD

Taluka : SANAND

Area

Are Sq. Mtr.

Hectare

Sub-Division No.

Survey No.

Name of the Village

KALANA

117

137

133

150

[No. R-25011 /45/2001 - O.R. -I

RENUKA KUMAR , Under Secy.

3892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ . 1689.-- 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 में 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 प्रतियॉ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबध में श्री अशोक कुमारं दास , सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीप हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमीटेड , इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड मार्केटिंग डिजिन हाउसिंग कम्पलेक्स , मेघडमरू डाकघर - कुरुदा , बालासोर 756056 , ( उड़िसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3893

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची जिला : बालेसर

राज्य : उड़िसा

क्षेत्रफल

खसरा संख्या

गाँव का नाम

तहसील का नाम

हेक्टेयर

बस्ता

अलाओल

929

राईसुआं

930

923

919

1568

941

914

1500

951

1516

1519

952

1518

955

1517

1570

956

957

961

903

1494

1495

962

902

893

894

895

892

891

873

1470

876

1480

1481

1407

1409

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

05-

10 3894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1478

1479

कान्ताबनिया

152

खन्डाहार

1131

1121

1120

1119

1118

1117

1143

1115

1068

1021

1022

1023

1035

1038

1037

1036

नयापडा

1122

1128

1136.

1135

1129

1130

1131

1068

1067

1066

840

839

841

842

838

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii)] 5

82 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ मावाड़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

835

836

876

878

877

879

881

885

971

गोबिन्दा

970

972

980

981

982

963

987

988

1015

1069

1070

1071

1452

1461

1458

1459

1453

1452

1355

1244

1246

1245

1247

1248

1249

681

अगामौदा

662

686

687

653

614

613

601

602 3896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

709

607

608

606

569

502

558

557

503

556

554

504

555

543

538

530

531

कडामौदा

473

474

470

468

467

427

469

466

465

431

436

432

433

455

434

438

437

436

440

435

443

441

442.

447

1117

बरहमपुर

1116

1115

1114

1113

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

26 55093897

भारत का राजपत्र खुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

( ii) ]

1111

1110

1112

1109

1104

1105

1106

1039

1005

1004

1003

1002

कड़ा

1129

मिरिगिमुंडी

1138

1133

1134

1043

1040

1038

1039

1037

1036

1035

1021

1014

1015

1017

940

हुजा

37 2052 G1/2004-8

$48

00 3898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

4 1

सक्तिराम

107

106

108

109

120

131

130

121

129

180

284

285

289

288

265

229

230

232

आंको

2240

2241

2242

2243

2247

2248

2249

2004

2002

1998

1999

2001

2000

1991

1966

1965

1959

1958

1951

1950

1949

1948

टोलकडिहा

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

.16

71 3899

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

310

गोठोगडिया

311

312

316

317

324

323

322

326

329

328

331

330

332

291

290

256

255

254

253

252

248

249

242

241

352

116

मैसियाली

118

110

108

धपाकन्द

02 3900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

102

104

105

106

103

116

117

129

135

145

144

147

143

148

154

149

150

153

151

152

157

140

158

161

1016

1017

1018

1019

1021

1020..

1025

1058

1057

1056

1055

1027

1042

1034

1035

1036

1048

1074

1113

00 [PART II SEC . 3 ( ii)] 6

32..

15.

10 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आपाड़ 26/1926 [भाग II- खष्ठ 3( ii ) ] ,

1112

1110

11099

1108

1107

1119

1127

1126

11244

1123

1620

तिगीरिया

160

161

157-

146

147

148

145

1447

140

2785

136

139

138

277

111

112

113

114

1150分。

116

900

147

पोडापाडा

155

156.

158

159.

167

166

164

170

173

3901

2002

11-

33:

66:

61.7

06.

17:

12..

10.

..00

49.

00 3902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

174

176

175

177

202

203

201

181

183

200

198

205

207

लक्ष्मनपडा

340

339

धनाहांडा

660

661

659

665

637

618

620

619

627

628

615

614

597

193

196

190

194

189

188

186

184

132

133

131

129

130

135

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

12.

22 भारत को राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आभाद 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

411

: 0

266

बेगुनिया

102

104

103

105

106

107

109

113

111

112

115

261

260

259

258

234

119

120

232

233

228

338

कदलिहन्डा

419

418

420

416

415

427

414

413

372

412

404

405

403

472

402

400

399

474

3903 5

11 3904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

4 1

475

962

477

1178

518

519

602

520

521

531

530

529

545

543

544

555

556

565

567

568

566

564

569

579

570

571

572

573

574

575

186

1173

784

कुंडेई

426

311

315

312

314

313

309

308

306

307

301

302

304

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 5

02.

01 3905

भारत का रावपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

303

324

325

326

327

359

368

360

357

392

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

347

230

226

225

227

206

208

139

पलासिया

138

137

126

132

2000

दराडा

2001

2002

2908 2052 G1/2004-9

02 3906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

2909

2911

2910

2912

2915

2916

2922

2923

2924

2925

2926

2952

2947

2946

2959

2968

2970

2971

2966

2981

2979

2980

2988

2989

2990

3115

3114

3113

3112

3109

3111

3110

3144

3145

3087

3085

3086

3084

3082

3081

3083

3148

3149

3156

3152

3151

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

98 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3153

3167

3168

3169

3170

0 .

3171

3212

दान्डि

161

154

दुन्डा

440

441

442

443

446

461

450

449

454

455

457

456

404

403

492

392

391

390

387

385

519

530

529

3907

32.

09 3908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

528

531

532

535

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1229

1230

1231

1241

कुसिदा

117

127

128

132

133

135

138

140

141

142

143

150

151

149

152

153

154

161

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

757

छचिना

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

00 3909

STORNADO

17 , 2004/ 26,1926

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

766

767

सियालियापदा

बालिसाही

425

2356

426

2387

428

429

528

430

527

431

526

523

522

2346

509,

508

506

507

448

447

449

450

451

90.

457

459

458

467

498

497

482

2362

481

485

477

476

488 3910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

2260

पुटुरा

246

245

249

237

236

235

224

225

223

220

215

214

212

213

210

211

209

208

207

206

203

181

202

201

185

184

कमारगडिया

1691

जामसुली

1692

1694

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

01 3941

भारत का राजपत्र:

17,2004/ 26,1926

[ भाम II- खण्ड 3(ii)]

1695

2275

2276

1686 8

1684

1697

1678

1700

1707

1701

1705

1704

1703

1725

1726

1727

1056

1720

1729

1736

1737

1730

1754

1755

1753

1761

1760

1762

1797

1775

1774

1704

1706

364

374

414

415

416

467

1300

406

465

469

1401

472

58 3912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

4 1

473

474

645

644

643

1412

642

641

674

1351

676

693

692

691

302

आछुयापदा

301

300

299

298

297

296

295

293

294

286

285

284

283

339

440

338

340

344

345

346

1307

पथदुर्गा

1305

1308

1309

1310

1316

1313

त्रैलोकी

358

359

357

360

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 6

72 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आपाड़ 26,1926

361

362

363

364

338

365

337

336

335

334

448

330

313

456

310

311

326

314

325

324

322

323

321

115

सिंगीपुर

116

117

133

नवेरा

171

170

169

168

156

155

154

153

152

151

150

149

147

148

2793

2819

132

135

134 2052 GI/2004-10

3913 5

01 3914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

133

1164

1163

2144

2145

2146

2147

2150

2216

2215

2218

2217

2214

2213

2219

2209

2220

2360

2361

2362

2363

2364

2366

2365

2350

2369

2452

2451

2450

2455

2456

2457

2448

2458

2460

2459

2507

2461

2464

2445

2.465

2469

2467

2468

2503

2471

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

00 [ भाग II- कृष्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3915

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

2502

2500

2499

2498

2497

2495

2496

0 बालियापाल

1565

रेमु

1564

1571

1570

1572

1995

1549

1574

1573

1575

1531

1530

1529

1528

1527

1517

1516

1515

1506

1507

1319

1324

1333

1325

1334

1335

1336

1286

1285

1284

1010

1009

1001

1008

1002

1003

995

1005

994 5

05.

81 3916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

4 1

853

1959

983

861

865

982

866

824

823

822

801

802

803

804

791

790

789

788

888

889

890

785

784

779

778

728

729

730

751

750

128

गोकुलानन्दपुर

127

131

126.

धानंदा

276

427

281

294

295

293

282

291

290

416

289

302

[PART II SEC . 3 (іі) ]

01 3917

17, 2004/ 26,1936

[ भाग II- खण्ड (ii)]

303

304

200

259

309

312

310

311

352

392

350

351

401

345

344

338

337

336

333

निखीरा

1686

1251

1250

1674

1252

1253

1192

1193

1191

1190

1169

1188

1187

1278

1279

1280

2561

2560

1286

1297

1296

1293

1287

1288

1290 3918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1289

2562

1171

1312

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1337

1336

2642

2641

2640

2639

1112

1111

1091

1093

1092

1002

2507

1089

991

994

996

959

2454

990

989

988

987

992

985

983

982

981

980

979

978

977

976

1018

2450

966

2458

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ) 5

27 3919

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आफड़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

964

963

960

961

962

938

939

940

943

944

935

706

707

704

690

691

689

692

694

688

687

686

685

683

679

678

675

677

676

2449

601

2516

2515

2514

602

603

600

604

606

607

553

2447

562

561

560

559

02 3920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

2532

558

पालपदा

1477

1480

1478

1479

1504

1511

1510

1509

1508

1514

1507

2392

1506

2391

1515

1525

1524

1527

1650

1649

1648

1646

1659

2399

2393

1660

1348

2394

1637

1661

1662

2213

1664

1665

1666

1667

1668

1669

1678

1680

1679

1694

1345

1344

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii)] 5

10 3921

17, 2004/ आपाड़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खन्द 3(ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र

2271

1349

1350

1346

1351

2269

1347

1176

1170

1169

1168

1167

1166

2410

1177

1178

1180

1182

1181

1183

1186

1187

1188

1189

1001

1002

1000

1004

1006

991

2189

988

990

989

908

909

2314

912

2162

910

913

868

783

2244

784

785 2052 GI /2004-11

1 04

03 3922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

786

787

788

2344

789

790

807

806

805

536

537

538

547

548

535

533

534

549

550

551

555

556

574

573

572

568

581

580

566

562

563

184

190

191

192

193

194

2365

195

197

196

207

204

206

205

211

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5

44.

94.

01 3923

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

212

214

213

224

223

229

230

दखिनपडा

800

761

750

758

1050

उत्तरपडा

जलेश्वर

1051

1052

1093

960

959

957

955

956

1735

952

951

839

894

893

02 3924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

843

842

892

1653

844

890

1652

846

1585

867

847

848

849

1614

797

610

1616

611

612

642

641

640

647

648

649

650

639

651

638

1570

637

664

631

666

667

668

669

670

671

1746

673

672

681

683

खालाबडिया

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

18 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आपाड़ 26,1926

101

812

100

890

112

892

893

119

242

860

243

245

244

246

247

237

249

235

234

251

233

252

253

254

277

276

258

255

257

259

260

897

261

0 कसिदा

1510

1509

1173

1508

1174

1718

1175

1176

1183

1181

1177

1180

3925 5

02 3926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

1179

1178

1254

1251

1249

1250

1244

1243

1241

1240

1239

1290

1291

1292

1293

572

1299

573

531

543

544

571

570

566

569

1705

554

555

565

556

557

551

561

558

1347

350

351

355

347

346

327

329

328

330

318

331

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii )]

11.

01 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

317

315

316

312

313

161

देबकुमार

162

156

155

154

153

157

152

151

150

144

101

102

100

103

107

108

112

109

231

227

232

233

234

235

236

240

241

243

244

245

248

249

674

675

541

गौरीबेलदा

542

543

3907 5

99 3928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

4 1

926

546

862

863

864

871

869

870

सुल्तानपुर

139

126

127

135

सिमुलिया

127

134

128

130

131

133

132

122

160

161

156

155

154

164

222

223

215

216

217

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

10 भारत का एकपत्र: 17, 2004/ आना 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

214

213

212

211

घांटियाडी

209

208

1110

207

210

211

212

214

213

547

215

546

544

558

543

542

541

537

534

535

784

807

1179

1178

786

788

787

789

790 2052 G1/2004-12

3929 5

27 3930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26 , 1926

778

1176

794

795

777

774

773

796

797

798

772

763

762

888

887

886

885

884

846

834

872

847

849

850

854

851

852

झाउपिंपल

1246

1228

2753

खुलुा

2106

2105

2104

2103

2108

2109

2147

2146

2145

2152

2179

2170

2178

2177

2176

2180

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

15 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2181

2175

2546

2545

2547

2544

2543

2852

2872

2560

2542

2561

2562

2533

2532

2531

2576

2751

उलुडा

102

103 ?

104

110

105

106

107

108

109

111

122

121

3931

03.

00 3932

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

120

1871

118

115

117

116

1899

128

132

133

141

139

159

140

158

160

157-

161

238

156

239

155

154

290

289

288

301

286

302

285

304

303

363

343

344

2020

359

361

360

358

1950

1878

430

431

477

433

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

92 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17 , 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

432

474

434

473

0 .

472

498

2019

2018

500

501

502

1062

1029

1028

1027

1026

1025

1865

1104

1105

1106

1946

1109

11:10

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1117

1116

1120

1141

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

नुआपली

1676

3933

03 3934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

1678

1682

122

1660

121

129

130

131

168

167

166

165

170

171

178

177

176

226

227

341

371

1620

372

373

380

374

379

377

378

नचिंदा

1805

1806

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( 11, 5

97 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1817

1816

1828

1827

1824

1826

1825

1834

1836

1916

1917

1918

1927

1928

1926

1929

1930

1935

देउँरा

179

181

178

152

150

151

149

1927

148

131

134

133

1132

1129

1135

138

136

137

125

955

3935

08 3936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

189

190

220

221

218

219

215

217

214

216

878

357

361

362

363

384

383

364

382

01.

374

380

375

376

377

378

667

668

669

670

692

946

691

697

698

696

695

662

863

864

865

866

422

रघुचक

4031

कुसुदा

2919

4032

3967

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 6

15、

3937

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2921

3968

2924

2925

2946

2947

2948

2945

4103

4104

2937

2938

2987

2986

3018

3019

3013

3012

3015

3011

3010

3009

3027

3028

3049

3048

3047

3045

2541

3960

3114

3113

3115

3116

2523

3117

3121

3128

3122

3130

3127

3132

3164

3165

3166

3167 2052-GI / 2004-13

79 3938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

3 1

3841

3189

3180

3187

3179

3181

3182

3183.

3933

गवगाँ

614

531

532.

533

560.

602

603

561

545

546

547

548

5766

57:5

565

502

564

726

727

729

131

732

733

740

739

738

812

811

810

830

829

832

831

833

834.

861

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

04.

28.

00:

84 भारत कापराजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ वाद. 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

956

857

855

2145

4242

1440

1241

1966

1251

722215

121252

$1250

2025

1256

1259

1282

2026

1061

1280

1279

1277

1273

22.02

0 .

1993

1912

1366

31368

1307

2123

3.0

1362

1361

1352

2031

1357

-1816

2165

1643

4841

1847

1848

1849

1850

1890

1889

2104

3939

15 3940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26 , 1926

1888

2103

1879

1881

1880

अलालबिन्धा

1793

1802

1798

1836

1837

1860

1861

1859

1858

1857

1856

1855

1854

1939

1853

1940

1941

1942

1937

1938

1936

1932

1931

3774

1910

1909

3797

1908

1907

1906

1905

1903

1900

1902

727

रायपुर

725

720

721

719

734

733

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

00 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

730

732

1167

1114

1146

751

743

744

745

774

770

773

771

772

776

775

787

777

786

779

781

779

780

782

784

635

कुकुलेश्वर

643

644

645

647

पारुलिया

794

726

795

793

796

800

727

728

729

730

738

737

736

740

744

741

3941

01 3942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

742

786

743

785

781

780

747

749

750

779

752

931

753

757

754

755

764

762

765

767

766

866

868

870

869

बटगाँ

388

137

140

141

148

139

3384

209

208

207

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

01.

89 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

200

194

199

198

196

283

197

284

287

177

288

3420

289

3391

291

3393

306

305

304

303

302

301

325

326

332

331.

1904

3467

1905

1906

1901

3470

1909

1910

1913

1914

1949

1920

1922

1927

1928

2080

1929

2248

कटिसाही

2249

2286

3943

33.

08.

34.

25.

01.

.03

22.

00:

09 3944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

2250

2287

2285

2288

2303

2302

2294

2301

2346

2398

2299

2297

2296

2295

2309

2308

2300

2566

2311

2415

2313

2314

2315

2316

2330

2329

2328

2332

2333

2334

0 ,

2336

2335

2494

मोहम्दराजपुर

197

200

201

202

203

214

216

215

194

182

183

184

185

PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5

85 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

366

365

367

364

368

363

362

380

381

383

379

384

378

751

441

750

440

439

771

438

447

484

483

480

481

482

485

486

720

721

502

503

584

589

588

587

620

621

624

628

626

627

629

632

746

633

2052 GI /2004-14

3945 6

06 3946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

634

635

636

637

641

642

645

644

646

647

674

रामचन्द्रपुर

620

2224

मधुपूर

2225

1841

1802

1874

1878

1873

1879

1884

1885

1888

1809

1722

1920

1718

1720

1721

1719

1717

1716

1622

1623

1621

1619

1620

1625

1609

1610

1599

1596

1595

1589

1590

1591

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 5

05.

00-

86 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1585

1575

2182

1576

2231

1579

1577

1578

1570

1559

1569

1560

1562

1563

1593

कुलिदा

1595

1627

1626

1625

1596

1598

1599

1600

1601

1604

1605

1624

2823

1609

1610

28:16

1611

1612

1613

1615

1616

1818

2416

2417

2406

2415

2413

2414

2817

2412

2408

3947

00 3948

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

2411

2410

2427

2428

2382

2383

2381

2373

2374

2372

2354

2355

2356

2347

2357

2346

2859

2359

2661

2662

2663

2659

2664

2668

2665

2666

2735

2777

2276

2256

2274

2273

2272

2266

2265

2257

662

663

664

665

647

646

645

650

651

643

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

47 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

642

641

635

447

बलरामपुर

446

451

452

455

456

464

463

459

647

461

542

539

486

489

494

495

493

497

496

500

501

502

503

506

504

505

417

420

419

418

416

415

649

414

648

413

412

410

411

386

387

162

बाघधडास

3949

00 3950

THE GAZETLE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

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

161

160

159

158

157

156

155

154

153

152

150

151

286

144

140

139

133

134

120

109

110

289

[फा. सं. आर-25011/19/2004-ओ.आर-1 ]

रेणुका कुमार, अवर सचिव 3951 भारत काराजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2004

S. O. 1689.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of crude oil 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.

Andwhereas 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 laying 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, Meghadambaru , Post office- Kuruda , Balasore - 756 056 (Orissa).

3952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Schedule

Dist: Balasore

Nameof Tehsil Name of Village Khasra No.

Hectare

0 Basta

Alaol

929

Raisuan

930

923

919

1568

941

914

1500

951

1516

1519

952

1518

955

1517

1570

956

957

961

903

1494

1495

962

902

893

894

895

892

891

873

1470

876

1480

1481

1407

1409

0 State: Orissa

Area

Are

Sq.Mtr .

10 3953

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1478

1479

Kantabania

152

1131

Khandadhar

1121

1120

1119

1118

1117

1143

1115

1068

1021

1022

1023

1035

1038

1037

1036

1122

Nayapara

1128

1136

1135

1129

1130

1131

1068

1067

1066

840

839

841

842

838

08 3954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

4 1

835

836

876

878

877

879

881

885

971

Gobinda

970

972

980

981

982

983

987

988

1015

1069

1070

1071

1462

1461

1458

1459

1457

1456

1454

1453

1452

1355

1244

1246

1245

1247

1248

1249

681

Agamouda

682

686

687

653

614

613

601

602

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

23.

03 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

709

607

608

606

569

502

558

557

503

556

554

504

555

543

538

530

531

473

Kadamouda

474

470

468

467

427

469

466

465

431

436

432

433

455

434

438

437

436

440

435

443

441

442-

447

1117

Berhampur

1116

1115

1114

1113

3955

00 3956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1111

1110

1112

1109

1104

1105

1106

1039

1005

1004

1003

1002

Kada

1129

Mirigimundi

1138

1133

1134

1043

1040

1038

1039

1037

1036

1035

1021

1014

1015

1017

940

Huja

37 [PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]

13 3957

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

107

Saktiram

106

108

109

120

131

130

121.

129

180

284

285

289

288

265

229

230

232

2240

Anko

2241

2242

2243

2247

2248

2249

2004

2002

1998

1999

2001

2000

1991

1966

1965

1959

1958

1951

1950

1949

1948

Tolakdiha

01.

03 3958

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

310

Gothagaria

311

312

316

317

324

323

322

326

329

328

331

330

332

291

290

256

255

254

253

252

248

249

242

241

352

Mainsiali

116

118

110

108

Dhapakand

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 5

72 3959

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 17, 2004/मानाद 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii)]

102

104

105

106

103

116

117

129

135

145

144

147

143

148

154

149

150

153

151

152

157

140

158

161

1016

Barakhudi

1017

1018

1019

1021

1020

1025

1058

1057

1056

1055

1027

1042

1034

1035

1036

1048

1074

1113

00 3960

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1112

1110

1109

1108

1107.

1119

1127

1126

1124

1123

162

Tigiria

160

161

157

146

147

148

145

144

140

278

136

139

138

277

111

112

113

114

115

116

147

Porapara

155

156

158

159

167

166

164

170

173

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] 5

49 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

174

176

175

177

202

203

201

181

183

200

198

205

207

340

Lakshmanapara

339

660

Dhanahanda

661

659

665

637

618

)

620

619

627

628

615

614

597

193

196

190

194

189

188

186

184

132

133

131

129

130

135

34 2052 G1 /2004-16

3961

00 3962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

411

266

Begunia

102

104

103

105

106

107

109

113

111

112

115

261

260

259

258

234

119

120

232

233

228

338

Kadalihanda

419

418

420

416

415

427

414

413

372

412

404

405

403

472

402

400

399

474

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

03-

29 3963

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 304/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

475

962

477

1178

518

519

602

520

521

531

530

529

545

543

544

555

556

565

567

568

566

564

569

579

570

571

572

573

574

575

186

1173

784

Kundei

426

311

-0.

315

312

314

313

309

308

306

307

301

302

304

01 3964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

303

324

325

326

327

359

358

360

357

392

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

347

230

226

225

227

206

208

139

Palasia

138

137

126

132

2000

Darada

2001

2002

2908

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

35 3965

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2909

2911

2910

2912

2915

2916

2922

2923

2924

2925

2926

2952

2947

2946

2959

2968

2970

2971

2966

2981

2979

2980

2988

2989

2990

3115

3114

3113

3112

3109

3111

3110

3144

3145

3087

3085

3086

3084

3082

3081

3083

3148

3149

3156

3152

3151

03 3966

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

3153

3167

3168

3169

3170

3171

3212

Dandi

161

Dunda

154

440

441

442

443

446

461

450

449

454

455

457

456

404

403

492

392

391

390

387

385

519

530

529

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

33 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का रावापत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आण 26, 1926:

528

531

532

535

1184

1185

1186

1187

1188

1229

1230

1231

1241

Kusida

117

127

128.

132

133

135

138

140

141

142

143

150

151

149

152

153

154

181

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

1.76

177

757

Chhachina

3967 5

00 3968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

766

767

Sialiapada

425

Balisahi

2356

2358

426

2367

428

429

528

430

527

431

526

523

522

2346

509

508

506

507

448

447

449

450

451

457

459

458

467

498

497

482

2362

481

485

477

476

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

94 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2260

246

Putura

245

249

237

236

235

224

225

223

220

215

214

212

213

210

211

209

208

207

206

203

181

202

201

185

184

Kamargadia

1691

Jamsuli

1692

1694 2052 G /2004-17

3969

.06

04 3970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004 /ASADHA 26, 1926

1695

2275

2276

1696

1684

1697

1678

1700

1707

1701

1705

1704

1703

1725

1726

1727

1866

1728

1729

1736

1737

1738

1754

1755

1753

1761

1760

1762

1797

1775

1774

1784

1785

1786

364

Guhalipada

374

414

415

416

467

1309

466

468

469

1401

472

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

11 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3971

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926

473

474

645

644

643

1412

642

641

674

1351

676

693

692

691

302

Achhuapada

301

300

299

298

297

296

295

293

294

286

285

284

283

339

440

338

340

344

345

346

1307

Pathadurga

1305

1308

1309

1310

1316

1313

358

Trailoki

359

357

360

0 5

73.

05 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

3972

361

362

363

364

0 .

338

365

337

336

335

334

448

330

313

456

310

311

326

314

325

324

322

323

321

115

Singipur

116

117

133

171

Navera

170

169

168

156

155

154

153

152

151

150.

149

147

148

2793

2819

132

135

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

01 भारत का चम्रपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ 26,1926 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

133

1164

1163

2144

2145

2146

2147

2150

2216

2215

2218

2217

2214

2213

2219

2209

2220

2360

2361

2362

2363

2364

2366

2365

2350

2369

2452

2451

2450

2455

2456

2457

2448

2458

2460

2459

2507

2461

2464

2445

2,465

2469

2467

2468

2503

2471 5

41 03

24 05

03 04

50 02

58 02

03 07

31 01

85. 03

42 06

13 02

65 07

55 06

24 00

81 00

64 02

10 00

51 05

32 09

09 01

61 07

32 06

10 00

72 04

22 03

19 01

71 06

29 02

10 00

34 17

83 09

10 00

55 06

63 02

40 00

15 01

27 05

86 00 3974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

2502

2500

2499

2498

2497

2495

2496

1565

Remu

Baliapal

1564

1571

1570

1572

1995

1549

1574

1573

1575

1531

1530

1529

1528

1527

1517

1516

1515

1506

1507

1319

1324

1333

1325

1334

1335

1336

1286

1285

1284

1010

1009

1001

1008

1002

1003

995

1005

994

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

81 0

623

$22

801

802

803

804

791

790

789

788

888

889

890

785

784

779

778

729

730

751

750

128

Gokulanandpur

127

13 年

126

276

Dhanda

427

281

294

295

293

282

291

290

416

302

72 00

67 01

56 04

95 03

16 08

97 00

43 03

72 02

83 06

97 00

10 00

78 04

89 03

69 00

72 06

84 02

32 01

35 000

50 09

96 00

45 13

70 001

57 00

080

22 01

68 11

168 08

10 00

18 14

58號 08

03 07

42 000

22 12

24 04

15 00

74 05

69 00

81 00

250 06

85 00

25/ 03

01 3976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

303

304

260

259

309

312

310

311

352:

392

350

351

401

345

344

338

337

336

333

Nikhira

1685

1251

1250

1674

1252

1253

1192

1193

1191

1190

1189

1188

1187

1278

1279

1280

2561

2560

1286

1297

1295

1298

1296

1293

1287

1288

1290

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

49 3977

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

1289

2562

1171

1312

1331

1332

1333

1334

1335

1337

1336

2642

2641

2640

2639

1112

1111

1091

1093

1092

1002

2507

1089

991

994

996

959

2454

990

989

988

987

992

985

983

982

983

980

979

978

974

1976

1018

2450

966

24:58

02 3978

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

964

963

960

961

962

938

939

940

943

944

935

706

707

704

690

691

689

692

694

688

687

686

685

683

679

678

675

677

676

2449

601

2516

2515

2514

602

603

600

604

606

607

553

2447

562

561

560

559

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

73 3979

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आपाड़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2532

558

1477

Palpada

1480

1478

1479

1504

1511

1510

1509

1508

1514

1507

2392

1506

2391

1515

1525

1524

1527

1650

1649

1648

1846

1659

2399

2393

1660

1348

2394

1637

1661

1662

2213

1664

1665

1666

1667

1668

1669

1678

1680

1679

1604

1345

1344

24..

00 3980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

2271

1349

1350

1346

1351

2269

1347

1176

1170

1169

1168

1167

1166

2410

1177

1178

1180

1182

1181

1183

1186

1187

1188

1189

1001

1002

1000

1004

1006

991

2189

988

990

989

908

909

2314

912

2162

910

913

868

783

2244

784

785

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 5

15 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

786

787

788

2344

789

790

807

806

805

536

537

538

547

548

535

533

534

549

550

551

555

556

574

573

572

568

581

580

566

562

563

184

190

191

192

193

194

2365

195

197

196

207

204

206

205

211

3981

01 3982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

212

214

213

224

223

229

230

Dakhinapada

800

761

750

758

0 Jaleshwar

1050

Uttarpara

1051

1052

1093

960

959

957

955

956

1735

952

951

839

894

893

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

28 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

843

842

892

1653

844

890

1652

846

1585

867

847

848

849

1614

797

610

1616

611

612

642

641

640

647

648

649

650

639

651

638

1570

637

664

631

666

667

668

669

670

671

1746

673

672

681

683

Khalabania

3983

00 3984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

101

812

100

890

112

892

893

119

242

860

243

245

244

246

247

237

249

235

234

251

233

252

253

254

277

276

258

255

257

259

260

897

261

Kasida

1510

1509

1173

1508

1174

1718

1175

1176

1183

1181

1177

1180

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

78 3985

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1179

1178

1254

1251

1249.

1250

1244

1243

1241

1240

1239

1290

1291

1292

1293

572

1299

573

531

543

544

571

570

566

569

1705

554

555

565

556

557

551

561

558

1347

350

351

355

347

346

327

329

328

330

318

331 2052 G1/2004-19

01 3986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

317

315

316

312

313

Debkumar

161

162

156

155

154

153

157

152

151

150

144

101

102

100

103

107

108

112

109

231

227

232

233

234

235

236

240

241

243

244

245

248

249

674

675

Gouri Belda

541

542

543

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

01.

99 3987

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3(ii)]

926

546

862

863

864

871

869

870

Sultanpur

139

126

127

135

Simulia

127

134

128

130

131

133

132

122

160

161

156

155

154

164

222

223

215

216

217

.12

00 3988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ÁSADHA 26, 1926

214

213

212

211

Ghantiari

209

208

1110

207

210

211

212

214

213

547

215

546

544

558

543

542

541

537

534

535

784

807

1179

1178

786

788

787

789

790

[PART II SEC . 3( ii )] 5

27 3989

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

59 1

778

1176

794

795

777

774

773

796

797

798

772

763

762

888

887

886

885

884

846

834

872.

847

849

850

854

851

852

1246

Jhadapimpala

1228

2753

Khuluda

2106

2105

2104

2103

2108

2109

2147

2146

2145

2152

2179

2170

2178

2177

2176

2180 3990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

2181

2175

2546

2545

2547

2544

2543

2852

2872

2560

2542

2561

2562

2533

2532

2531

2576

2751

Uluda

102

103

104

110

105

106

107

108

109

111

122、

121

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

29 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

120

1871

118

115

117

116

1899

128

132

133

141

139

159

140

158

160

157

161

238

156

239

155

154

290

289

288

301

286

302

285

304

303

363

343

344

2020

359

361

360

358

1950

-1878

430

431

477

433

3991

-18-

09-

01 3992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

432

474

434

473

472

498

2019

2018

500

501

502

1062

1029

1028

1027

1026

1025

1865

1104

1105

1106

1946

1109

1110

1111

1112

1113

1114

1115

1117

1116

1120

1141

1122

1123

1124

1125

1126

Nuapali

1676

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 5

01 3993

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1678

1682

122

1660

121

129

130

131

168

167

166

165

170

171

178

177

176

226

227

341

371

1620

372

373

380

374

379

377

378

1805

Nachinda

1806 2052 GI /2004-20

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1817

1816

1826

1827

1824

1826

1825

1834

1836

1916

1917

1918

1927

1928

1926

1929

1930

1935

0 Denuara

152

150

151

149

927

148.

131

134

133

132

129

135

138

137

125

955

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

00 3995

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,19:26

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

189

190

220

221

218

219

215

217

214

216

878

357

361

362

363

384

383

364

382

374

380

375

376

377

378

667

668

669

670

692

946

691

697

698

696

695

662

863

864

865

866

422

Raghuchak

4031

Kusuda

2919

4032

3967

70.

01 3996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004 /ASADHA 26, 1926

2921

3968

2924

2925

2946

2947

2948

2945

4103

4104

2937

2938

2987

2986

3018

3019

3013

3012

3015

3011

3010

3009

3027

3028

3049

3048

3047

3045

2541

3960

3114

3113

3115

3116

2523

3117

3121

3128

3122

3130

3127

3132

3164

3165

3166

3167

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 5

79 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,1926 [भाग ] [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3841

3189

3180

3187

3179

3181

3182

3183

3933

614

Gabagan

531

532

533

560

602

603

561

545

546

547

548

576

575

565

562

564

726

727

729

131

732

733

740

739

738

812

811

810

830

829

832

831

833

834

861

860

3997

05 3998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

858.

857

855

2145

1242

1440

1241

1236

1251

2215

1252

1250

2025

1256

1259

1282

2026

1961

1280

1279

1277

1273

2202

1993

1912

1366

1368

1367

2123

1362

1361

1352

2031

1357

1816

2165

1843

1844

1841

1847

1848

1849

1850

1890

1889

2104

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

53.

43 3999

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आभाड़ 26,1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1888

2103

1879

1851

1880

1793

Alalbindha

1802

1798

1836

1837

1860

1861

1859

1858

1857

1856

1855

1854

1939

1853

1940

1941

1942

1937

1938

1936

1932

1931

3774

1910

1909

3797

1908

1907

1906

1905

1903

1900

1902

727

Raipur

725

720

721

719

734

733 الذا

02.

04 4000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

730

732

1167

1114

1146

751

743

744

745

774

770

773

771

772

776

775

787

777

786

779

781

779

780

782

784

635

Kukuleshwar

643

644

645

647

794

Parulia

726

795

793

796

800

727

728

729

730

738

737

736

740

744

741

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

61 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26,3926.

(भाग - खण्ड 3 (B) ]

742

786

743

785

781

780

747

749

750

779

752

931

753

757

754

755

764

762

785

767

766

866

868

870

869

Batgram

388

137

140

141

148

139

3384

209

208

207 2052GI/2004-21

4001

10,

18 01

38 05

55 00

38 00

10 03

89 01 4002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

200

194

199

196

283

197

284

287

177

288

3420

289

3391

291

3393

306

305

304

303

302

301

325

326

332

331

1904

3487

1905

1906

1901

3470

1909

1910

1013

1914

1919

1920

1922

1927

1928

2080

1929

Katisahi

2248

2249

2286

[PART 1 SEC. 3 (ii) ]

05 17, 2006/ 26,1936

भारत

2250

2287

2285

2288

2303

2302

2294

2301

2346

2398

2299

2297

2296

2295

2309

00 %

2308

2300

2566

2311

2415

2313

2314

0020

2315

2316

007

2330

2329

02.

2328

2332

2333

2334

2336

2335

2494

197

07 Mohamadrajpur

200

201

202

203

214

67 :

216

215

194

182

183

184

185 4004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)]

366

365

367

364

368

363

362

380

381

383

379

384

378

751

441

750

440

439

771

438

447

484

483

480

481

482

485

486

720

721

502

503

584

589

588

587

620

621

624

628

626

627

629

632

746

633

06 4005 भारत का रामपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आपाद 26,1926

[ भाग -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

634

635

636

637

641

642

645

644

646

647

674

35 Ram chandrapur

620

2224

Madhupur

2225

1841

1802

1874

1878

1873

1879

1884

1885

1888

1889

1722

1920

1718

1720

1721

1719

1717

1716

1622

1623

1621

1619

1620

1625

1609

1610

1599

1596

1595

1589

1590

1591 4006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

1585

1575

2182

1576

2231

1579

1577

1578

1570

1559

1569

1560

1562

1563

Kulida

1593

1595

1627

1626

1625

1596

1598

1599

1600

1601

1604

1605

1624

2823

1609

1610

2818

1611

1612.

1613

1615

1616

1818

2416

2417

2406

2415

2413

2414

2817

2412

2408

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

41 4007 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2411

2410

2427

2428

2382

2383

2381

072373

2374

2372

2354

2355

2358

2347

2357

2346

2659

2359

: 03

2661

2662

2663

2659

2664

2668

2665

2666

2735

2777

2276

2256

2274

2273

2272

2266

...2265

2257

662

663

664

665

847

646

645

650

651

643 4008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

642

641

635

Balrampur

447

446

451

452

455

456

464

463

459

647

461

542

539

486

489

494

495

493

497

496

500

501

502

503

506

504

505

417

420

419

418

416

415

649

414

648

413

412

410

411

386

387

0 Baghadhadas 162

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

35 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आपोड़ 26,1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

161

160

159

458

157

156

155

154

153

152

150

151

286

144

140

139

133

134

120

109

110

289

49 2052G1 /2004-22

03.

14.

47.

00-

T90

[No.R-25011/19/2004- O.R. -I ] RENUKA KUMAR, Under Secy.

4010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II BBC. 3 (il)]

नई दिल्ली , 15 जुलाई, 2004

का. आ. 1690.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और अभिन पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्छ अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 824 तारीख 26 मार्च, 2004, जो भरित के राजपत्र तारीख 3 अप्रैल , 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड (हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड की समनुषगी ) द्वारा मुन्द्रा- भटिंडा अपरिष्कृत तेल पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से गुजरात रज्यि में मुन्द्रा पत्तन स्थित अपरिष्कृत तेल संस्थापन से पंजाब राज्य में भटिंडा तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 13 मई, 2004 को उपलब्ध करो दी गई थीं ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात , और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपभोग के अधिकार को अर्जन करने की विनिश्चिय किया है ; !

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

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

अनुसूची

तहसील रानियां

जिला सिरसा

राज्य हरियाणा गांव का नाम

हदबस्त भम्बर

खसरा भम्बर

क्षेत्रफल

हिस्सा (यदि कौई है) कनाल मरला 1

6 रानियां

137

205/5

0-4

[फा. सं. आर-31015/5/2002- ओ.आर-1 ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आपाय 26,1926

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2004

8.Q. 1600 -Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.824, dated the 26th March 2004, issued under sub- section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), published in the Gazette of India dated the 3rd April,2004, the Contral Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of crude oil from crude oil terminal at Mundra Port in the State ofGujarat to Bathinda in the State of Punjab through Mundra-Bathinda Crude Oil Pipeline by Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited (a subsidiary of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited);

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 13th May, 2004;

Andwhereas, the competent authority has, under sub -section ( 1) of section 6 of the saidAct, submitted report to the Central Government;

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

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

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

SCHEDULE

State : Haryana

District : Sirsa

Extent Tehell : Rania

Khasra

Kanal -Maria NemeofVillage

No.

Hedbast No.

Part HissaNo. (ifany)

044

205/5

137

RANIA

[No. R-31015/5/ 2002-O.R. -II) HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

4012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( il)] श्रम मंत्रालय

नईदिल्ली, 21 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1691.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, वूल रिसर्च एसोसिएसन प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, मुम्बई सं. 1 (गंदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई.टी 24/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/75/2001- आई . आर. ( सी. II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi , the 21st June , 2004

S.O. 1691.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. CGIT 24/ 2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Mumbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s. Wool Research Association , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004.

[No. L-42012/ 75/2001 -IR (C -II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI

2. The undisputed facts of this case are that the workman was initially employed as a Security Guard as per order/letter dated 3/12/92 for a period of three years (AnnexureA to the Statement of claim). He was continued as a confirmed Security Guard as per order [letter dated 31-5-95with effect from 1st April 1995 (Annexure )B the Statement of claim. He went on leave and it was sanctioned between 17-4-2000 to 13-5-2000. He was issued memo dated 29-6-2000. It is not in dispute a memo dated 29-6-2000 (ExhibitW1)was issued to workman by Shri D. V. Kulkarni. inthat letter the workman was asked to explain conduct regarding his over staying the sanctioned leave . It was stated that the workman was warned that he shall not be given any extension and was given letter dated 25-5-2000 to report to duty. It was stated in the same letter that the workmanhad posted a pre dated letter mentioning date as 18-5-2000 but actually posted on 31-5-2000 . The workman, itwas alleged had asked for extension of leave till 17-6-2000. The letter rejected the extension of leave and stated that the workman ha lost his lien over the post and that he was liable to lose his appointment . He was given one more chance to explain as to why lien to his post should not be treated as lost. The workman gave reply and his medical certificate on Exhibit W2. The workman had given the reply dated 29-6-2000 (annexed as Exhibit E to the Statement of claim) . Thereafter, the impugned order dated 1-7-2000 was passed. It is said that workman name was removed from muster roll . Hehad lost his lien. He would be kept in waiting list . A referencewas made to 13 (4) ofthe Standing Orders.

PRESENT :

Shri Justice S. C. Pandey : Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . C'GIT . 24/2002

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Wool Research Association

And

Their Worktnen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr. Kurian , Advocate .

For the Workman : Mr. V. G. Panamabhan . Adv .

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 28th May, 2004 AWARD

1. This reference is made by the Central Govermitient under clause ( d) of sub -section 1 and sub -section 2A of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( the Act for short) for resolving the dispute between the Wool Research Association ( the employer ) and Shri K. S. Sahani (the workman for short ) . The terms of the disputes a as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Wool Research Association in terminating the services of Shri Kalpnath Shyamsunder Sahani w.e.f. 1-7-2000 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled?"

In his statement of claim, the workman inter alia stated that he was permanent employee of the employer. He was a workman under the Act. He used to sign the muster roll . His name was illegally removed from the muster roll as per order dated 1-7-2000. He was not taken back despite notice. Initially, the matter was raised before the authorized Conciliation Officer, Shri A. S. Kamat, Thane Maharashtra. Thereupon the Employer raised the objection that Central Govt. was the appropriate Govt. Thereupon on the advise of the Labour Officer, the matter was raised beforeDeputy Commissioner Labour (Central). The Asstt. Commissioner Labour reported failure of Conciliation. The dispute between him and the employer was not referred to this tribunal by Central Govt . as per order dated 9-7-2002. Itwas heldby the Central Govt. that workman was unable to sustain it . Thereafter the High Court in W.P. No. 5055/ 21002 set aside the order dated 9-7-2002 and directedthe Central Govt . to refer the dispute to this tribunal. Accordingly, the matter was referred to this tribunal. The workman had alleged that the employer was a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act . It was averred that its registration No. Bom/119, 1963G.BBSO. It was carrying out the work of rescarch and developinent had its office and laboratory at Akbar lamp road Post, Zunder Baug, Kolshet Road, Thane (Mumbai ) . It was stated that workman was retrenched from service contrary to Section 25F of the Act.

4013

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

framedunder the rules by the State of Maharashtra shall not apply. The workman shall not be governed by Standing Order 13 (4) of the Model Standing Orders as it was controlled by the Central Govt.

In the written statement it was pleaded that the reference was not maintainable for the reasons given in paragraph 1 , 2 and also in 3 of the written statement . Itwas further pleaded in paragraph 3 that the plea of theworkman is false to the effect that his services were terminated. Actually, he had lost his lien as per Standing Order No. 13(4) of the Model Standing Orders . Therefore , the referencewas not maintainable. Inparagraph 4 the employer took the plea regarding the decision on question of maintainability as a preliminary point. On merits , after stating the undisputed facts the defence of the employer was to the effect that his services were not terminated. Actually, the workman had lost his lien in terms ofModel Standing Order 13 (4) for which he was solely responsible. It was denied that Section 25 F of the Act was attracted. There was no justification for demand and claim was not liable tobe rejected. There was no specific demand that the employer did not raise a dispute as allegedby the workman before Shri A. S. Kamat, Labour Officer at Thane.

5. The workman filed his affidavit . He was cross examined by Ms. Bhavana Mhatre , Advocate. Thereafter his case was closed. The employer did not lead any evidence in support of its case . This case is now to be decided in merits .

7. It appears to this tribunal that employers was governedby the Model Standing Orders framed by the ContralGovt. under the Industriel Employment (Standing Orders) ContralRules, 1946. It may be noticed that Standing Order13 framed under the Bombay Rules are not identical with Standing Order 9 (3 ) of the Model Standing Order framedunder schedule 1 ofthe Model Standing Orders in respect of Industrial Establishment not being Industrial Establishment in Coal Mines. Thus the argument based on the fact of quoting a wrong rule does not hold good. The employer could not have applied Standing Order 13(4) as it seem have done . Therefore, the order dated 1-7-2000 amounted to retrenchment in violation of Section 25F of the Act . Moreover , this tribunal is of the view that the impugned order dated 1-7-2000 is punitive in nature . The workman was asked to give his explanation. He had furnishedMedical Certificate . It was rejected without an enquiry ondisputed question of fact . The order also costs stigma on the workman. It says that he has given false excuses . The order was made malafide under Model Standing Order 13 (4) with a view to avoid enquiry. The authority concerned was already convinced that workman was guilty. The principles of natural justice were violated. The evidence of workman establishes the aforesaid facts. The conclusion of this tribunal is supported by the decision of Supreme Court in case of D. K. Yadav vs. JMA Industries AIR 1998 S.C. 1681 wherein their Lordship read that the principles of natural justice or in build in provisions like Model Standing Order 13 (4) . This decision has been followed by the Supreme Court in two of its recent decisions i.e. Lakshmi Precision Screens Ltd. vs. Rabhagat 2002(3) Labour Law Journal 516 and Andhra Bank Vs. B. Satyanarayana 2004 II LLJ 5. The order dated 1-7-2000 is void abnitio . The order dated 1-7-2000 is set aside also for the reason that there is no request for proving the charges.

Accordingly, this reference is answered by stating that the order dated 1-7-2000 passed by employer against theworkman is illegal and justified. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages . No costs.

8. C. PANDEY, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1692.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यौगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चेन्नई (संदर्भ संख्या 449/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ

[ सं. पूल-22012 /268 / 1995 - आई. आर ( सी- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी 6. It may be noted that employer has not stated if Model Standing Order 13(4) are the Standing Orders framed by State Govt . of Maharashtra (At the relevant time State ofBombay ) . The Standing Order 13 (4) find place in the Schedule A to Bombay Industrial Employment Standing orders) Rules 1959 relating to workman doing Manual or Technical work . However , this tribunal finds that it is not open to the employer to argue that it is not an industry belonging to the Central Govt. The employer himself had taken an objection before Labour Officer of Maharashtra State that it was owned by the Central Govt. Therefore, the matter had to be taken before the Central LabourOfficer like the Deputy Labour Commissioner ( Central). Even the Central Govt. had not referred the matter on the ground that Central Govt. did not have power to refer the matter . TheHigh Court ofBombay has by order dated 11-10-2002 in W.P.5055/2002 between the parties directed Central Govt, is Govt . In view of this matter , the factual position that employer is either run by or carried on by the Central Govt. is no longer open to question before this tribunal . This tribunał being a subordinate tribunal is bound by the Order of the Bombay High Court . So also the Central Govt. In the opinion ofthe tribunal the question that the employer is owned and controlled by the Central Govt. follows from the order of the High Court because it set aside the order of the Central Govt . refusing to refer the dispute . Thus , the conclusion in the aforesaid writ petition governs the questlon of fact that the Central Govt , owns and controls the employer for the purpose of Section 2(b ) of the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act 1946. Thus, in that case the appropriate Government would be the Central Govt . If that be so the Model Standing Orders 4014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ĄSADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004

2. The schedule mentioned dispute in the order of reference is hereunder:-

S.O. 1692.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 449/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of FCI and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004.

"Whether the action of the management ofFood. Corporation of India Regional Office, Madras in terminating the services of Shri S. Kymar from March, 1994 onwards while he was in continuous service from 1982 isjust, proper and legal ? Ifnot. towhat relief is the workman entitled ?" [No. L- 22012/268/ 1995- IR ( C- II)]

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

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 28th April, 2004

PRESENT:

K. Jayaraman, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 449/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal I.D. No. 91/97)

( Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), between theManagement of Food Corporation of India and their workmen)

BETWEEN

Shri S. Kumar

: 1 Party/Workman

AND

II Party/Management

The Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Chennai

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Workman

: Sri S. Ayyathurai , Advocate

For the Management : M/ s. K. Sreekumaran Nair & S. V. Sudheer, Advocates

AWARD

ThePetitioner joined the services of the Respondent Corporation in 1982 in their Depot ontmplex at Arakkonam as a labourer on daily wage basis. He was doing various maintenance works which are of permanent nature like watering and maintenance of trees , garden , repairing pipelines, electrical fittings, pump operating , repairing rolling shelters in the Food Corporation of India depot complex at Arakkonam. In 1983 he was included in the category ofNMR employees and his wage was increased from Rs. 4.60 to Rs. 10/- per day. Since his duties were satisfactory to his superiors, his superiors recommended for his regularisation . But to his misfortune , his services were not regularised. While so, his services were abruptly terminated by the Junior Engineer of Food Corporation of India, Arakkonam on 5-3-1994 without assigning any reasons . The non- employment brought out by the Respondent /Management . is illegal and unjust . The petitioner was working continuously since 1982 and his work was of permanent nature and therefore , the termination of his services is arbitrary. The oral termination of the services of the Petitioner by the Respondent amounts to retrenchment and since the Respondent have not complied with the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , the retrenchment is illegal and unjust in law. Many persons who were juniors to Petitioners are still working under the Respondent and therefore, the action of the Respondent is discriminatory , which is illegal and unjust . The Respondent/Management engages more than 100 workers in Arakkonam depot , therefore, the retrenchment of the Petitioner without complying the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal . After the termination of the services of the Petitioner, the management has employed persons in his place which is also not valid in law . Hence , he raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) and on the failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to this Tribunal . Hence, he prays that an award may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification No. L -22012/268 /95 /IR( C- II ) dated 11-4-1996 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to CGIT cum- Labour Court at Bangalore for adjudication, wherein it was taken on file as C.R. No. 130/97 and subsequently it was transferred to Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal , Chennai for adjudication, and the said Tribunal has taken the dispute on its file as I.D.No.91 / 97and issued notices to both parties and both parties have entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively and after the constitution of this Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, the said industrial dispute was transferred to this Tribunal and after the receipt of records of this dispute, it was re-numbered as I.D. No. 449/2001 .

4. As against this, the Respondent in its Counter Statement has contended that the Petitioner was never appointed by any officer of Food Corporation of India and he has not even registered hisname in Employment Exchange. Though the Junior Engineer availed his services as Casual Labour, when ever the need arose and the 4015 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17 , 2004/ आषाड़ 26 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Petitioner never worked continuously for more than 106 days in any calendar year . The Petitiofterwas engaged for watering the garden, for removal of stagitatedwater and for cleaning the environment of Respondent's office and no permanent employee is necessary for doing the above works. Therefore , it is false to allege that the work done by the Petitioner is continuous. In the year 1991 he worked only for 7 days, in the year 1992, his services were never avalled of, in the year 1993 he worked for 19 days and in the year 1994 he worked for 31 days . After 19-3-1994, he never worked for Food Corporation of India or under the direction of Junior Engineer , Food Corporation of India, Thus, he was not working continuously for 106 days. Therefore, it is not open to the Petitioner to claim that he should be regularised in any post in Food Corporation of India, Further , there is no question of termination of petitioner because, he was not at all appointed and Food Corporation of India is not legally bound to give any employthentto the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner is Casual Labour, there is no question of seniority in the case of Casual Labourers . Further, it is false to allege that the Respondent Corporation has employed a person in his place after his disengagement . Therefore, the Petitioner has no legal right to claim any permanent post in Food Corporation of India, Hence , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner with costs .

5. In these circusmstances, the points for my determination are

(1) "Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner from March, 1994 is just , proper and legal ?"

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

Point No. 1:-

except the interested testimony of WW1 and WW2, there is no other material document produced to prove that the Petitioner was working from the year 1982 continuously under the Respondent/Management . On behalf ofthe Petitioner , it was argued that the Petitioner was doing various maintenance work which are permanent work in nature like watering and maintenance oftrees, garden, repairing pipelines , electrical fittings, pump operating repairing rolling shutters in the Food Corporation of India depot complex at Arakkonam , It is not established before this Tribunal that the work alleged to have been done by the Petitioner are permanent in nature and the petitioner was continuously engaged by the respondent for the said maintenance work . Though thePetitioner has produced nine documents , mone of the documents prove the contention of the Petitioner that he was working from the year 1982 under the Respondent/ Management. Since the Petitioner alleged that he has continuously worked from the year 1982 the burnden is on the employee namely the Petitioner to prove that he had rendered services for more than 240 days in a year or continuously working from the year 1982. Şince it was the claim of the Petitioner that he had worked continuously from the year 1982 which was denied by the Respondent/ Management, merely filing an affidavit or merely examining aoral witness in these circumstances cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence and therefore, 1 find there is no point in the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that the respondent has not produced any document to show that the Petitioner has worked for 106 days from the year 1991 to 1994. Again the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Petitioner has given particulars of numbers ofdays under Ex. W 4 and the Respondent has not disputed the same by producing any acceptable evidence and therefore, it should be accepted. But again, I find there is no point inthe contention of the leamed counsel for the Petitioner because mere allegation will not be a proof of the Petitioner's contention. The Petitioner has not produced any material documents to show that he has worked from the year 1982 continuously under the Respondent/Management and therefore, the vague allegation will not prove the case ofthe Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 19711 LLJ 241 PILOT PEN COMPANY INDIA PVT. LTD, US PRESIDING OFFICER, ADDITIONAL LABOUR COURT, MADRAS AND ANOTHER. But I find the said citation is not relevant for the purpose of this case. Inthis case, since the Petitioner has not proved that he was continuously working with the Respondent/Management from the year 1982, I cannot hold that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispsutes Act.

7. As against this, on behalf of the Respondent, it is contended that though the Petitioner was doing maintenance work, it was not continuous in nature. From the year 1983 , he has worked only for 106 days as per the report submitted by the Junior Engineer of Arakkonam Depot ofthe Respondent Corporation . He was engaged only as a casual iabourer and he was never appointed by 6. In this case, the Petitioner alleged that he joined the services of the Respondent Corporation in the year 1982 in the Depot complex at Arakkonam as labourer on daily wage basis and he was continuouly working all along, till he was orally terminated from the service . In this case, the Petitioner has examined himsel as WWi and also examined one witness Mr. Jayakanthan as WW 2. He has produced nine documents which are marked as Ex. Wi to W9 . As against this , on the side of the Respondent one Mr. Eraniyan , Assistant Manager was examined as MW 1 and six documents are marked as Ex. M1 to M6. Ex. M4 to M6 are the original documents v and Ex . M1 to M 3 are the copies of the said documents . In his evidence, the Petitioner as WW 1 says that he was appointed in the year 1982 as a Casual Labour on daily wage basis and he was continuouly working till he was disengaged by the Respondent/Management , but he has not produced any documents to show that from the year 1982 to 1994 he worked continuously and he has received wages from the Respondent/Management. Though he has examined one Mr. K. Jayakanthan WW2 as a second witness on his side and though he has stated that he is working as a Senior Picker in Food Corporation of India.

4016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Documents Marked :-

For the I Party/Workman:-

Ex. No. Date Description

W1 02-08-91 Xerox Copy of the letter from Food Corporation of India Velloreto Chennai office

W2 30-05-92 Xerox copy of the GazetteNotifica- tion.

W3 20-10-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Peti- tioner to Assistant Labour Commi- ssioner ( Central)

W4 25-10-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Assistant Labour Commissioner( Central)

W5 16-06-95 Xerox Copy of the letter from Food Corporation of India Employees Union to Respondent

W6 28-10-96 Xerox copy of the letter from Res- pondent/Management to Petitioner.

Nil W7

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent

W8 07-11-96 Хегоx copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent

W9 Nil

Xerox copy of the Petitioner's record sheet.

For the II Party/Management :-

the FCI , on the other hand, the Junior Engineer of Arakkonam Depot engaged the services of the Petitioner as casual labour and no permanent employee was necessary for doing the above said maintenance work. Since the Petitioner was never appointed by the Food Corporation of India, no question of retrenchment would arise to attract the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act and it is the further contention of the Respondent that labourers are engaged in depot only when need arose and engages contractors who will engage their own employees to do their work and the FCI never engaged anybody directly to do any work on permanent basis . Therefore , thePetitioner was engaged as a casual labour only when the services of casual labour was unavoidable. It is further contended on behalf of the Respondent that in the statement filedbefore the Regional Labour Commissioner, the Petitioner has stated that he worked in the houses of various officials of FCI and therefore if any official of Food Corporation of India engaged the Petitioner to do any of his personal work in his house , the Petitioner cannot claim any right to get permanent employment in FCI . The Petitioner never worked continuously for 240 days in a year and therefore , he is not entitled to claim the benefits under I.D. Act . Further , the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the judgment reported in 2003 3 MLJ 327 KASHMIR LAWRENCE VS. PONDICHERRY MUNICIPALITY AND ANOTHER and he argued that in that case the High Court has held that a temporary appointee is not entitled for regularisation of service and as such Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

Ex. No. , Date Description

M1 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement showing serivice particulars of Petitioner

M2 09-08-94 Xerox Copy of the letter from Food Corporation of India Vellore to Chennai office

MB 11-04-96

M4 09-08-94

8. From the documents produced by the parties and from the arguments advanced by the counsel on either side, I find much force in the contention of the Respondent because since the Petitioner alleged that he has worked continuously from the year 1982 under the Respondent/ Management, the burden of proving the contention is upon the Petitioner . But , the Petitioner has not established this fact with any satisfactory evidence . Under such circumstances . I Find the Petitioner cannot claim any relief against the respondent . Therefore, I find this point against thePetitioner.

Xerox Copy of the order of reference Letter from Food Corporation of India Vellore to Chennai Office Point No. 2:-

M5 Nil

Statement showing service particulars of Petitioner The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

M6 11-04-96 Order of refcrence received from Ministry.

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2004

9. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him No. Costs .

10. Thus , The reference is answred accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th April , 2004)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :---

का. आ. 1693.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ ० सीवाई ० प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- नई दिल्ली (संदर्भ संख्या-51/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Forthe I Party/Workman : WWI Sri S. Kumar

WW2 Sri K. Jayakanthan

[सं. एल-22012 /476/एफ/91 - आई. आर. ( सी. 11 ) ] Forthe II Party /Management : WW1 Sri T. Eraniyan

एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी 4017 ४ भारत का राजनक जुलाई 17, 2004/ आपार 26, 1926190

[ भाग- खण्ड ( 1 )

NewDelhi, the 21stJune, 2004

periodof3 years. He will be promanden bir origin after three years subject to suitability

When the workmores charpeshests. working as Asstt . Manager Thetrafincheovensavertoubd and he was givengiven three years time foi proinbalongkhan penalty of expiry period. He was not promoteddoddis original post of Assistant Manager (Depot ) betwe promoted to the post ofAssistant , Glide Dept. 9.00 1693 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), th Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No:51/92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-oun -Labour Court - II New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen, which was received by the Central Goverrimantem 21-6-04

[No. L -22012/476/F /91 -IR (C -II) ,

N.P. KESAVAN Desk Off

ANNIKURE

qu GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

KUR COURT-

The Oppositie Patty hac firen kijibil brick linkite, theirwritten statement itches of the clairti have been denied. Some of th has been stated that the application admitte minconceived He has no fight to the the applicationlication: He has filed applicatkinder 33 C The workman has filed several applications bi Hon'ble Tribunal and his stated multifla against the Management of tof Food Corporation o pr s RAJENDRA BHAWAN, GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELH

PRESIONING OFFICER RON RAI

Thatthe claiment has filed rejoinder. He handenindu the allegations of written statement in the rejoindurandho has stated that he should bebe promoted to the post of Asstt Manager.

I.D. NO. 51/92

Heard argument from both the sides and h thepaperson record:

IN THEMATTER OF R.C. ABR VERSUS

F.CL

From perusal of the order sheet, it transpins th the workman was absenting since 2000. He isnot tumuing upa

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L/22012/ 476/F/91, IR(C- II) Central Government has referred the following point. for adjudication . The point runs as hereunder

"Whetherthe action of the management of Foods Corporation abuindia in not giving the original posti.c. Asstt. Manager (Depot to Shrint R.C. Abbiais justified ? Ifnottoatelinfitisa workmanis entitled to.?

Theobiumthani Fakultant of claim. It is stated in the statemente claimthat hewas promoted to the post ofAssttin Gended Dupot)cin/Nov /December, 197 and joined MayannRegion (FCI) in Nov /Dec. 1971 as Asstt. Gradodiet

The learned counsel from the management haestatail that the retired in 1994. He was working as Asstt. Manager In1983 onprobation, but charge-shoet was given to him and his promotion was withheld for three years. He won eligible for the post of Asstt. Grade - Iso he was postedas such. The management has filed written arguments but nothing has been filed from the side of the workman: Hid retired in 1994. Papers regarding his retirement has been annexed with the record . As such, it was further argued that no post of Asstt . Manager was vacant at that ti and he was revertedto the Asstt . Grade- l as he was pe probation so he was promoted to Asstt. Grado- lan was no post vacant so he could not be promoted. In the meantime, he retired. As such the work applicashhad case.He has left the case himself

The award is replied thus:-

Tht the workharwas permoted from Asstt . Grade I tothe post of Asstt Manager (Depot) and posted to Punjab Region on pronsstion and the workinan joined in Punjab Rigion as Asett Manager (Depot ) in May, 1982.

That thewo

warkansashile working as Asstt . Manager,

" The action of the management of Food Corporation of India in not giving the original postave Asstt-Manager (Depot) to Shri R.C. Abbi , is justifie The workman is not entitled to any relief as askeddah

The award is given accordingly .

(Depot) in Pun s issued with aa charge shoct As a resulin Etten changesheet the workman was fint verted from Asstt. Metertothepest of Assistant Grade-

Dated 23-4-2004

R. N. RAL, Presiding Officer ThitachiliThitachilidomidingdeciding the aforesaid case, the Senior Regionghidegen FI Panjabi Region awarded the

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2004

का.आ.1694.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947

का 14 ) की की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार क ग्रुप एण्ड सेन्दर केके

"Thibefore the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred undenregalation 16 of FCI (Stuff) Regulationid 999 shereby imposes upon said Shri REC Abhi Assistant Onded (Depot) , the penalty ofreduction to the lower post of Assistant grade -II (Depot ) for a

2052 G020044-233 4018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या-10/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल -14012/59/2001 - आई ० आर० ( डी ०यू० ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004

S.O. 1694. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.. 10/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bengal Engineering Group & Centre and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004 .

[No. L- 14012/59/2001 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

Presiding Officer : Shrikant Shukla

Present:

Bakery functions under the control and directions of Bengal Engineering Group and Centre. For proper functioning of the Sapper Bakery civil and regimental employees are appointed. Such employees are different than armed soldiers. Regimental Institute is established for its employment and manmanagement . Various confectionery/bakery items such as bread , biscuit, pastry , patties, pizzas, cakes etc. are produced in furnishes under planned and systematic process, the same are sold and profit is earned. Employers of the Sapper Bakery appointed the workers Shri Matin as Helper in February 95 at the monthly wages of Rs . 300 p.m. Shri Matin was terminated in February'96 without any notice, compensation. It is alleged that the worker has worked for over 240 days in the 12 months . Thus the retrenchment of the worker is not legal and justified . The work on which Shri Matin was employed is that of a permanent nature and other person named Shri Madan Pal is engaged on the same post and MadanPal is accordingly working. When Shri Matin came toknow that fact, he demanded for employment from the employers and also placed his demands in writing dated 23-10-2000 and 27-11-2000 . Ultimately Shri Matin got served legal notice on employer. Shri Matin was assured in writing that his name is registered in waiting list . Worker has pleaded that not only he is unemployed, but also reached at the stage of starvation. Worker has prayed that the issue he answered in affirmative and he be reinstated with backwages.

1.D. No. 10/2002 (No. L- 14012/59 /2001 - IR (DU )

Dated 7/23-1-2002

Between:

Shri Matin S/o Shri Hashiben Ahmed Near Masjid, Lalkurti Bazar, Roorkee Cant, Roorkee, Hardwar(U.P.)

And

1. Commandant/Administrative Officer Bengal Engineers Group & Centre, Roorkee, Hardwar (U.P. )

2. The Manager. Sapper Bakery Bengal Engineers Group & Centre, Roorkee , Hardwar(U.P. )

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L- 14012 /59 /2001 - IR ( DU ) dated 7/23-1-2002 referred following issue for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court , Lucknow.

"Whether the action of the management ofBengal Engineering Group and Centre in terminating the services of Shri Matin Ahmed, Helper w.e.f. February 96 is just and legal ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for? "

Facts of the case is that Commandant, Bengal EngineeringGroup and Centre, Roorkee is an unit of Government of India, Ministry of Defence and Sappers

Management (employer) while contesting the statement of claim , has denied the claim of Shri Matin . Management has alleged that the production of confectionery , bakery articles are produced on mini scale and the sarne is done with the purpose of welfare of service men, ex - service men . There is lack of profit motive. The activities cannot be termed as industry . The worker does not come with in the definition of workman. Shri Matin has not put in 240 days working during the preceding 12 calendar months. He has left service of his own will and accord. That is the reason the workmen remained silent for a period of 5 years and did not initiate any case. It is alleged that since the opposite party is not an industry therefore CGIT cum Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and reference order under Section 10 ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not legally sustainable. The Bengal Engineers, Group and Centre is a training centre for Engineer personnel of the Indian Army . It is integral part of the Indian Army, and is engaged in sovereign function of the State and is not engaged in any industrial activity, commercial venture, business, trade or any manufacture venture. As a welfare activity and totally dedicated to thewelfare of army jawans, troops , the service personnel , ex -service personnel and other families , on a mini scale basis carry on bakery called Sappers Bakery and products are not sold to open market for the public at large. Bakery is functioning on no profit no loss basis . Sappers Bakery is not independent, separate , alienable or severable from Bengal Engineer Group and Centre, but a small part and parcel of the Centre.

4019

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

services of Shri Matin S/o Shri Hashiben Ahmed Helpen w.e.f. Feb. '96 is justified and legal ?

The worker has filed following Photostat copies of documents :-

I. Extract of salary register for the month of Jan'96 .

Worker has stated in para 4 of his statement of claim that he was terminated in Feb. 96 without notice and compensation.

2. Receipt of Sappers Bakery 27-8-2000 in the name of Iqbal, without any signature .

Worker has to prove that on a specific date in Feb. 96 he was terminated by the employer .

3. Application of Matin dated 4-10-2000 addressed to Manager, Sappers Bakery.

4. Postal Receipt.

5. Application of Matin dated 23-10-2000 addressed toCommandant Bengal Engineers Group and Centre, Roorkee.

Onthe other hand the employer has specifically denied the allegation , and stated that worker had left the service of his own will and accord. Therefore it has to be adjudged whether the worker was terminated by employer or he deserted the employer.

6. Post Receipt.

7. Application of Matin addressed to Commandant Bengal Engineers dated 27-11-2000.

8. Legal notice ofAdvocate dated 8-1-2001 with postal receipts.

9. Letter of Administrative Officer dated 3-11-2000 addressed to Matin Ahmed.

10. Photocopy of envelope.

11. Reply of legal notice dated 3-2-2001.

Opposite party has filed Photostat copies of following documents:-

I. Order dated 2-8-2001 ofLabour Court , Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 58/2001 Karfulu Rehman Vs. Bengal Engineers Group and Centre.

2. Order dated 2-8-2001 of Labour Court, Dehradun in Misc . Case No. 59/2001 Matin Ahmed Vs Bengal Engineers Group and Centre .

3. Functions of Bengal Engineers Group and Centre , Roorkee.

The worker has filed the Photostat copy of his application dated 4-10-2000 , addressed to the Manager , SapperBakery wherein he stated that he was terminated in Nov. '96 without any reason . In another letter dated 23-10-2000 , addressed to the opposite parties , he again stated that he was terminated in Nov. '96 . He again stated inthird letter dated 27-11-2000, that he was terminated in Nov. '96 . Legal notice was also sent to the employer dated 8-1-2001 on behalf of the worker stating that the worker was terminated in March'96 . It is strange to observe that in all his statements he has not stated the date of his terminations in Nov. '96 or March'96 . When worker examined himself on oath he did not specify specific date and month on which he was terminated. However he has stated in examination in chief that he worked as a help as casual worker only for a period of 6-7 months . Matin has stated in his cross - examination that he himself left the job on the ground of low salary . He also stated that he started earning Rs . 2000 p.m. from service in another private bakery for 2-3 months, thereafter he is self employed and earns about Rs . 3000 besides paying Rs . 200 to sales men whom he has engaged . On the one hand the worker has failed to state any specific date , month and year of his termination , on the other hand he states that he has worked only for 6-7 months with the opposite party.

4. Briefhistory of Bengal Engineers Group and Centre (Relevant portion) .

5. Extract ofAttendance Register ofMatin from Feb. '95 to Feb.'96.

6. Extract ofWage Register October'95 to Feb. '96 .

Theabove discussion clearly proves that the worker Sh. Matin was not terminated by the employer . It proves that the worker deserted the employer of his own due to less wages for gainful employment.

7. Terms and conditions of service of regimental employees dated 3 Ist Oct. 1995 and 17th Oct. 1998.

The worker (Matin ) has examined himself on 7-4-2004 and closed the eviderice .

The management has also proved by the working days by producing the photocopies of attendance register of Sh . Matin. The said document prove that the worker Sh. Matin actually worked for a total of 130 days from Feb. '95 to Jan. '96. As the worker did not work for 240 days, prior to his leaving the employment, therefore also no question arose for compensation .

On 9-6-2004 the worker and his representative remained absent and as such case proceeded ex -parte against the worker. On 10-6-2004 the opposite party filed affidavit ofLt. Col. R. Swain.

Heard Learned representative of opposite party alone as the worker and his representative remained absent. I have carefully perused pleadings and evidence onrecord.

From the discussion above , I come to the conclusion that the workman was not terminated by the opposite party, and he left the employment of his own for better employment. Issue is answered accordingly . I also come to the conclusion that the claim initiated was baseless and theworker is not entitled to any relief.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer Issue referred for adjudication is whether the action ofBengal Engineers Group and Centre in terminating the 4020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2004

w.e.f. 5-12-89 is justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

का. आ. 1695.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल०-12012/47/93- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004

S.O. 1695.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/93 ) ofthe Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-5-2004.

[No. L- 12012/47/93-IR (B- II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri D.N. Pandey

L. D. No. 44/93

Shri Anil Kumar Anand

S/o Shri Kishan Lal Anand , R/ o 97/2 , Mohalla Dhama Wali , Dehradun, through Shri N. S. Kaushik,

Workman

Court Road , Moradabad .

Versus

Senior Manager,

CanaraBank, 29, Rajpur Road, Anikan Place, Dehradun -248001 .

Management

2. The workman Shri Anil Kumar Anand has challenged the validity ofthe impuged dismissal order dated 5-12-89 passed against him by the management of Canara bank: In his statement of claim the workman has alleged that he was serving the management respondent as sub staff at its Rajpur Road Branch; Dehradun till 15-12-89 . That in the month ofOctober , 1988 a sum ofRs. 61062(Sixty mone Thousand and Sixty two only) was defrauded by a gang at work in the branch ofthe respondent at Rajpur Road Branch Dehradun, that although the scandle was detected yet the matter was concealed from the higher authorities for a period of four month and no report was made by anybody either to the bank or the police; that later on existence ofa conspiracy in the scandle with definite involvement of bank officials at different points and at different levels was revealed, that apparently it was on participation of more than one person in the day and a fake investigation was arranged in conspiracy with the bank officials , a false report was submitted by the investigating agency and in the same sequence , as a next step, this workmen was a low paid employee was chosen to be made scapegoat for the purpose and so on 10-4-89 a charge sheet was served on him; that the workman was given only 3 days to imply the charge sheet, that the provisions ofBipartite Settlement which have overriding effect on the rules and procedure of discipline and conduct are applicable in the case of the workman and the management that an enquiry was instituted without complying procedure prescribed in the Bipartite Settlement. The enquiry officer acted more as disciplinary authority and not like the enquiry officer alone, that the enquiry officer ignored the rules and procedure provided intheBipartite Settlement and also the principles of natural justice and ultimately held the workman guilty ofthe charge levelled against him; that no show cause notice was given to the workman and the disciplinary authority did not apply his own independent and free mind. No personal hearing was given to the workmari either by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority and the disciplinery authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal of the workman. That the impugned order is illegal and against the principles of natural justice . Hence liable to be set aside and the workman is entitled to be re -instated in the Berservice with full back wages, continuity in-service and all other benefits alongwith cost .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/47/ 93 - IR (B - II) dated 17-5-93 has referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing Shri Anil Kumar Anand S/ o Shri Sri Kishan Lal Anand from the services of the Bank

3. The claim of the workman has been contestedby themanagement by way of filing a written statement . In written statement it has been inter -alia alleged that the allegations made by the claimant workman are pulpably wrongthat the claimant while on duty committed fraud in a sum of Rs. 61062 which aspect on coming to know was duly investigated, the matter was duly enquired by serving a charge sheet in the departmental enquiry wherein the [आगम 3 (ii) ]

loudlemias the workman fipra his jurisdiction by late poolt ment, Thong

1935

workman was found guilty of the charges. The claimant had daly cross commined the heak witoomes through his defence perprerastivo. Ho suas given proper fair and reasonable opportunity. The apquiry offices found the charges against the claimant proved. The lesiplinary authority bootpted findings ofa was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority confioning At the order of disciplinary authority that there was none illegality in holding the daquiry and awarding the punish nt of dismissal and dientioning theappeal , that the matter does not warrant interferenceby this hibanakiwape the cla is not entitled to any

clains petitión deserves to be dismissed 1.8

was also fled by the wortel Rejoinderwas al the written statement denying conte ent

bag bara til

5. Out of the pleadings of the pastios following

anal my

As inthe terms of reference

with the

seoral oidence through affidavit . The golis

the A/R of the rospective opposito party

Γιάνοια representatives ofboth the sides and perused the file.

FINDINGS

VISSUE NO 1

to geohlin protocood, fote within a year of thes babyprovided that if under the provisionς και The prosecution proceedings enfants to deist orvosine to the conclusion that there is no caste for proweatntion in skall be open to the winningsndan to proceedagsitat the employce set out below init below in Clauses 19.11and In the ovant of the management deciding after eпощипка be liable only for terminationermination with him in servicehe shall be liabl three months pay and allowances in ligy of motice as provided in clause 19. supra 19.12 infra relating to disphar89 топор ,

The emberesantative of the workman did not ne so far as it relates to theFormatformat proceduresprocedures press this isne so dopted by the enquiry officer during enquiry proceedings. hut the vehemently argued that the very initiation of the Kelplinary proceedings were against the provisions of e and rtile Settlement which was applicable in this case and. therefore, the entire discipimary proceedings adopted by the management against the workman Villated andLisis void initio. He contended that in the instant case it is alleged that the workman made certain forged entry viz " A/ C Everest Wine Shop " in his own hand writing on cheque No. 7963163 which was also stolen by him and subsub sequently withdrawn fhedulently and thereby committed an offence and caused damage to the property of the Hence committed & gross misconduct.ed tross misconchict, It is also alleged by the management that itht it was an offence amounting to turpitude but no FIR was lodg to the police nor anyof Deher action weis taken for abor months

Bankomisedly no FIR was tongue algorit The above mentioned plastike urake Bipartite Soulementalenty provides atat in zoy wapidyon has List negotidied any offkhee the ssteps to prosboukeim untere ke baatmisritapthecuted Healthough iccnding to dichuanngardant koloid volumitted Workman moralaan offence involkinginewabturpinale. Theld is nothing on the record to be taajustep web estudo to prosecute Tal216 the mockinac of otherwoes he was pleaseboled. There is nothing oft thepesurit te themi thithrathon prosecation the iso worktuan was convictedin view of theabove provisions of The Id. counsel of the workman also contended that the enquiry officer acted with the pre- determined mind to 4022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] cheBipartite Settlement. In a case of offence involving moral turpitude an employee can be dismissed only ifhe has been convicted after trial but in case of no conviction or prosecution even after holding departmental enquiry the employee cannot be dismissed even after holding enquiry and finding the charges proved against the employee, employee cannot be dismissed from service but if the management decides after enquiry not to continue him in service the employee shall be liable only for termination of service with three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in para 19.3 (C) of the 1st Bipartite Settlement. Similar provisions have also been laid down in para 19.4 ofthe Bipartite Settlement which provides that if after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee but he is not put on trial within a year ofthe commission of offence. The Management may then deal with him as ifhe had committed an act of gross misconduct provided that if the authority which was to start prosecution proceedings refused to do so or comes to the conclusion that there is no case for prosecution, the management can proceed to hold enquiry and in case after enquiry the management decides not to continue the employee in service, the employee shall be liable only for termination with three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in clause 19.3 of the Bipartite Settlement. In the instant case admittedly neither any FIR was lodged nor any steps for prosecution of the workman was taken, nor he was otherwise prosecuted for the alleged offence within a year of commission of the offence . Therefore, the management could not punish the workman with the punishment of dismissal. If after holding the enquiry the management came to the conclusion and decide not to continue the workman in services the management could award the punishment of termination only with 3. months pay and allowances in lieu of notice as provided in clause 19.3 of the Bipartite Settlement. Admittedly this was not done in the instant case. Therefore, the management could not award punishment of dismissal .

As regards the findings and conclusion drawn by the enquiry officer I find that the enquiry officer based his enquiry report more on the alleged so called admission of guilt of the workman although I find that there was no admission by the workman before the enquiry officer or during enquiry .It was alleged that the workman had confessed his guilt before the Investigating Officer prior to enquiry . A copy of the Investigation report has also been filed by the workman himself. In this report it has been mentioned that on 12-10-88, 14 items were received in the registered tappal by Shri V.K. Hora , Accountant who handed over the same to the manager II line namely Shri R.K. Hari Dass who in turn handed over it to Anil Kumar Anand(workman) Sub Staff for handing over the same to the clerk incharge of Tappal namely Sh. Sateshwar Pershad. It is alleged in the investigation report that the clerk of the Tappal Department namely Sateshwar Pd. found only 12

letters as against 14 and on enquiries being made it was ascertained that one cover had been handed over to A.P. Gaur who is working as an Armed Guard in the branch and only 12 covers were available with the Tappal Clerk. On going through the list the branch realised that a cover bearing No. 5885 and an illegible name being the place of originwas concluded to be the missing cover. The branch had not made any further efferts to locate the missing item atthat stage. Ithas been alleged that the S.B.I. , after being requested by the branch furnished a photo copy of the D.D. which reveried that the D.D. was drawn favouring " Canara Bank A/ c Everest Wine Stores " Further investigation at the branch level revealed that on 17-10-88 theproceeds ofthe said D.D. had been collected from the S.B.I. through clearing and that the same had been representationof the instrument which had originally been sent in clearing on 14-10-88 and returned for want of endorsement. It was also revealed that the proceeds collectedwere credited to C/A No. 167 in the name of "Everest Wine Shop " A/ C No. 1 and that on 21-10-88 an amount ofRs . 61062/-had been withdrawn from the above account by issuing a self cheque. That the said cheque had been passed by the Senior Manager after comparing the signature on the cheque with a specimen lodged with the bank. Enquiries also revealed that Sri Satyabir Singh, who was authorised signatory for operation of the a/c, was no longer residing at Dehradun. Thereafter the Sr. Manager ofthe branch traced the address of Satyabir Singh near Moradabad and on contacting him he obtained a letter from him stating that the signatures found on the said cheque is his own. It is said that on perusal of the photo copyofthe D.D. where the words " A/ c Everest Wine Shop " has been added, the credit slip by which the D.D. was submitted for collection in clearing and cheque No. 7963 163 by which the amount has been withdrawn. It is clear that they are written by the same hand. is also alleged that the style of writing the language including spelling mistakes indicated that they resembled the handwriting of Anil Anand Sub Staff (workman) , on interrogation,-The workman initially pleaded his ignorance in respect of the entire issue and handed over letter addressed to the Deputy General Manager stating that he has no knowledge whatsoever in the matter. Further sustained interrogation brought out the confession on the part of the employee wherein he stated that the cheque was encashed by him at the instance of an outsider who is said to have paid him an amount of Rs . 15000/- for assisting him in this fraud. He declined to identify the outsider on the plea that he did not know him and further stated that he will not give the same inwriting for fear of action taken against him. It has been further mentioned in the investigation report that on Friday 24th February Shri K.L. Anand father of said Shri Anil Anand approached our senior manager, Deharadun Branch and offered to remit the amount involved in the above fraud. On being informed of the above, we proceeded to Dehradun on Sunday and on Monday 27th February K.L.

4023 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Anand approached the branch and remitted the amount of Rs . 61062/-. The amount has been kept in sundry Liability Suspense A/c . on 1-3-89 Shri Anil Anand approached the investigating Agency in the Circle Office and requested that he may be excused for having indulged in the above activity which according to him was due to the circumstances . The investigating officer has further mentioned that the family members of Anil Anand have cooperated with us in as much as they have repaid the entire amount which aspect may be kept in view as a circumstancewhich mitigates the culpability on the part of Shri Anil Anand.

From the report of the Investigating Agency it is clear that the workman did not confess his guilt in writing. There seems to be no reason as to why no action was taken at once if 1 or 2 envelopes were not received to the tappal clerk . There is no explanation as to why no action was taken at that stage . It has also come in the report that the amount was admittedly withdrawn by one Satyavir Singh who was authorised signatory for operation of the Account . On being asked Shri Satyavir Singh stated that he does not know how the cheque came in the passion of any third party to play the above fraud. The withdrawal cheque had been passed by the Senior Manager after comparing the signature on the cheque with the specimen lodged with the bank . There is nothing to show as to why no action was taken against Satyabir Singh or any other official or officer of the bank. The workman has given a clear explanation alleging that he never made any such confession before any authority and it was wrongly mentioned in the investigation report that he had admitted his guilt . He has also explained as to why amount was deposited by his father by alleging that there was an occasion of marriage in his family. The bank authorities called for his father and threatened him that in case he did not deposit the said amount his son (workman ) shall be arrested and lodged in the prison and also be dismissed from service, and on account of that threat the father ofthe workman, in order to save his prestige at the occasion of marriage the said amount, therefore, it cannot be treatedas any admission of guilt of the workman:

Pd . ) himself had entered registered covers (inward) received in [copy illegible ) register from item No. 1 to 12. Item 13 was entered by R.K. Haridass Manager. He further stated that he himself had asked Anil Anand to searchthe envelopewhich was missing and then he himselfreported to R.K. Haridass regarding the missing of one cover . In cross-examination by the defence representative MW1 stated that he himself first asked Shri Anil Anand to search envelope which was missing and then myself, Mr. V.K. Hora and Sateshwar Pd. searched the missing envelope but could not find. This evidence goes to show that one envelope was found missing on the same day inpresence ofall other official-officers of the bank but no action was taken in that respect against anyone including the workman at that time MW4 was the Investigating officer,Manager staff section (O) , in his evidence before the enquiry officer he stated that Anil Anand had admitted before him andhe isnot aware whether Shri Anil Anand made any admission before the authority . Admittedly admission was not recorded in writing and it has also been denied by the workman, MW5 was the hand writing expert . The workman hadalso examined another hand writing expert in his defence before the enquiry officer . In his report DW1 Shri B.S. Chaudhary hand writing expert of the workman clearly. stated before the enquiry officer that the fraudulent endorsement were made in different hand writing by different persons nad not by the same person who had written the admitted writings . I find that there was no evidence of admission of guilt against the workman, the investigation officer was not an independent witness; the members consitsting investigating team were officers of the same bank. The report of the hand writing experts are from both the sides and their opinion evidence are different. Their evidence before the enquiry officer is oath against oath. more over it was only opinion evidence, hence in absence of any substantive evidence it could not be made basis ofproof of the charge against the workman . I find that this aspect of the case and value of the evidence was not considered by the enquiry officer before giving his findings against the workman . The contradictory reports given by the hand writing experts ofboth sides itselfgoes to showthat the management failed to prove its case against the accused beyond doubt. In absence of any cogent and reliable evidence against the workman, he could not be held guilty for the alleged charges. Besides , the enquiry officer also proposed the punishment of dismissal in his enquiry report, for which he was not competent. Any punishment can be proposed by the disciplinary authority only after concurring the enquiry report holding the employee guilty. It also goes to show that the enquiry officer was not acting fairly and independently but acted with predetermined mind. The workman was only a substaff. Ifind that from the very beginning the management acted arbitrarily and against the provisions of law and para 19 of the firstBipartite Settlement. The alleged conduct of fraud and forgery in the cheque was an offence, butno F.I.R. was It is well settled that any confession must be made by the accused before any authority authorised to record confession or in presence of independent reliable witnesses . The workman has clearly denied the said allegation of admission and therefore deposit made by his father cannot be treated as an admission of workman for commission of guilt of the workman. Both the parties examined witnesses before the enquiry officer including handwriting experts , from both the sides . MW3 Sateshwar Pd .was examined by the management before the enquiry officer who is his examination in chief stated that during October , 1998 he was working in the Tappal Department and that Shri Anil Ananad Sub Staff had opened the 14 inward registered covers on 12-10-88 and that he (Sateswar 4024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

publication of the award in the official gazette. Parties shall beartheir own costs . Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 22-4-2004

lodged nor any other action was taken. There was also involvement of other officials . Bank authorities and others but no action was taken against them. The alleged amount was admittedly withdrawn by 3rd party who also admitted this fact before the investigating agency. But there is no explanation as to why no action was taken against him . There is also no explanation as to why immediate action was not taken by the bank authorities soon after the fact came to their knowledge that one envelope was found missing. Therefore, I find that the bank authorities did not act fairlyand legally. No doubt during enquiry proceedings procedural formalities were completed by giving opportunity of cross -examination of witnesses in producing defence evidence but it appears that it was merely a sham show. Issue No. 1 is decided accordingly .

In view of the above facts that the bank authorities did not act properly and legally from the very beginning , they did not lodge any FIR nor took any action for prosecution of the workman . They ignored the provisions of para 19 of the 1st Bipartite Settlement . Therefore, the entire enquiry proceedings vitiated . Hence I find no justification to re- open the enquiry or give further opportunity to the management to adduce any other evidence. If it is done it would be futile and merely causing further harassment to the workman . All the possible evidence was already adduced by the management before theEnquiryOfficer . No other proposed evidence or witness was left to be produced or examined during enquiry. The case is also old one. Therefore, I proceed to decide the case onmerit.

ISSUE NO . 2

PRE

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

B. N. PANDEY, Presiding Officer 1

का०आ० 1696.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एस, सी, सी, एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निमोजकों और उत्तके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुसंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 292/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सॅ. एल -22012/36/ 2002 -आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] एकः पी केशवर डैरुफ अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004.

S.O. 1696. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 292/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, inthe Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workman, received bythe Central Government on 21-6-2004,

[No. L- 22012/36/2002 -IR (C-II) ) NAP. KESAVAN, Desic Officer ANNEXURE

INDU CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. UNAL CUM LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

Shri E: Ismail, B.Sc , LL.B., PresidingOfficer Dated the 28th day ofMay, 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 293/2002

BETWEENS

Shri T. Ram Babu,

Vice President,

Singareni Coal Mines Labour

AND

I have already held above that in case of an offence ifno step for prosecution of an employee is taken or even if it is taken employee may ultimately be acquitted or after steps have been taken to prosecute an employee he is not put on trial within a year of commission of the offence the employee cannot be dismissed even after he is found guilty- and even if the management decides after enquiry not to continuehim in service. The employee can only be terminated with three months pay and allowance in lieu of notice. Admittedly it was not done in the instant case . The disciplinary authority as well as the A.G. failed to consider this aspect of the case. Therefore, the order of dismissal of the workman from service ofthe bank cannot be legally sustained.

In view of the above discussions , I find that the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing Shri Anil Kumar Anand workman from the services of the bank w.e.f. 5-12-99 is not justified . It is absolutely illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed and the workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity and all other consequential benefits, except back wages . The management shall take the workman in service within 30 days from the date of

Union (INTUC), Near Super Bazar,

Ramakrishnapur-504301 .

..Petitioner

The General Manager,

M/s Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. ,

Ramakrishnapur Division,

Ramakrishnapur-504301 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES:

ForthePetitioner : SriT. Ram Babu, Representative

For the Respondent : M/ s . K. Srinivas Murthy, V. Umadevi, C. Vijayshekar Reddy& G. Praveen, Advocates 4025

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[भांग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22012/ 36/2002-IR (CM . II) dated 3-10-2002 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the employers in relation to the Management of M/ s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. and their workman.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. , Ramakrishnapur Division, Adilabad District (AP) in not considering Sri Perugu Sadanandam , Acting Clerk for appointment as Clerk in R.K. - 1 Division is justified or not? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

This reference was registered as Industrial Dispute No. 292/2002 and notices were issued to the parties .

the union. But when the acting clerks made demand for regularisation oftheir services, the management stated that theyhave formulated eligibility criteria, according to which the clerk should possess qualification of graduation with typewriting and also should pass the typewriting and also should pass the typewriting examination and should have work experience. The Petitioner herein was graduate , passed typewriting examination and also passed post graduate diploma in PMRI . As he is having all the necessary qualifications , the Management was extracting three different duties assigned to clerks from one employee, but startedpaying mine wage contrary to the settlement dated 21-11-86. It may not be out of place to mention that the .persons who passed SSC examination also selected and posted as clerks . That in order to deprive the Petitioner an order dated 14-2-98 was issued to the Petitioner to go back to mine to work as tunnel mazdoor and depriving him ofhis rights to get the benefit of appointment as clerk and the emoluments. The Petitioner filed WP No. 5731/1998 and obtained status quo order and continued to work as acting clerk. After disposal of the said writ he filed Review Petition No. WPMP No. 21967/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. and the review petition was allowed on 29-10-99 with a direction to the Management to determine the Petitioner's entitlement to the benefit ofthe settlement dated 31-7-1997 duly considering the facts , within a period of two months from the date of order , tiil then status quo should be maintained in respect of the continuation of the Petitioner in service . In pursuance of the said order the Respondent Management ought to have been reviewed the entire case , the Management was aggrieved of the review order and only to show to the Hon'ble High Court , that they have implemented the settlement, have chosen to issue order dated 29-12-99 stating that this Petitioner was not qualified in the order of merit as such he was not regularized and the Management has regularized the services of 157 acting personnel as clerks . That the Petitioner was called for interview on 25-1-99 along with others and make show interview was conducted, only to show before the Hon'ble High Court that they acted in compliance with the order . That WP No. 1269/2000 was disposed of on 26-12-2000 with the observance that the aggrieved candidates can approach appropriate Forum under Sec. 2 (K) of the I.D. Act . Hence, the present dispute . Several juniors with no qualifications were appointed but the Petitioner was disqualified. In the counter affidavit in WPNo. 978/2000 marks obtained were shown to the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. as though this Petitioner has got less marks. Had the Management did not take the clerical work from the Petitioner and Petitioner remained in the mine, he would have even become a Overman or Under Manager of the Mine under the Mining Act and couid have been drawing higher salary than in the Administrative Area on surface. Hence , an award may be passed directing the Managementto issue orders to the Petitioner as a clerk in Ramakrishnapuram Division from the date of his eligibility 2. The brief averments of the claim statement as averred are: That the Petitioner was appointed as floating badli coal fillet in the year 1989 and regularized in service in the year 1990. At time of initial appointment, the Petitioner was studying in the final year of Graduation . Due to family circumstances he opted for the post and joined as badli coal filler and was getting wages as per the National Coal Wage Agreement . It is respectfully submitted that in the year 1992 internal circular was issued by the respondent Management called for the candidates who are working in the mines and having educational qualifications to work as Clerks and he applied for the said post, by that time he passed graduation . That Ramakrishnapuram area was totally neglected for selection of clerks. That the Petitioner was identified as a graduate and called upon to work as clerk.At that point of time the Petitioner pointed out that he was working as piece rate coal filler and getting first categorywages, which is more than that of a clerk post and he isnot interested to work as clerk, and he is not interested towork as clerk as he is getting lesser wages . In view of the serious shortage of clerks , they assured the Petitioner that they will be giving a post of clerk and issued orders to work as clerk and thus made this Petitioner to discharge duties ofthree different clerk duties i.e. , Manway Clerk , Magazine Clerk and Paysheet Clerk. When the Petitioner was discharging duties as clerk as per the instructions of the Management they have to pay the difference ofwages between category one wage and the clerk category wage , but the management did not follow the practice in the case of Petitioner and started paying underground allowance. Which clearly indicates that this Petitioner was underground workman , made to discharge duties as surface clerk thus deprived the line ofpromotion in the underground area and not regularized as clerk in the clerical category. This createddisharmony in the workman and union raised demand in this regard and they entered into settlement on 31-3-97 and under Sec . 3 of the 1.D. Act. That an understanding was arrived between the Management and

2052GI /2004-24 4026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] by giving the said pay scale, wages, continuity of service, seniority and all attendant benefits etc.

3. A counter was filed stating that mere acting does not confer any rights . The Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 38/2000 and batch dismissed the Petitions vide its orders dated 17-8-2000 where Sri P. Sadanandam was also one of the Writ Petitioners in the batch i.e. , WP No. 978/2000. The operative portion is extracted below:

rated grade, technical and srupervisory Grade -C with pay scale: Rs . 3988.00-135.00-5078.00-145.00-6528.00, whereas that of a clerk is Rs. 3698.00-110.00-4578.00-130.00-5878.00. So actually he is drawing higher pay and further the Writ Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court wherein Sri P. Sadanandam is the Writ Petitioner in WP No. 978/2000, which was dismissed. The review petition was field and again it was directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms ofthe settlement dated 31-7-97. As per the orders ofthe Hon'ble High Court of A.P. the case was considered andthe Petitioner was informed that he is not eligible for regularization. So matter is already decidedby the Hon'ble High Court. He is getting more pay. Hence, there is no merits in the case of the Petitioner. Hence, the petition may be dismissed.

"ThePetitioner claim that they are seniors to those who have been selected, therefore, they should have been regularized rather than the private Respondents . No factual basis is laid down on the basis of which this Court could come to a conclusion that the Petitioners are better than the selected ones. Even otherwise , it is settled that this Court is not empowered to act as an appellate authority. Since a procedure has been prescribed by the Respondents for selection, there were limited number of posts and large number of contenders, seniority was not the only criteria as has been stated in the counter affidavit and also the settlements. In the 1997 settlement , it was agreed between the parties that the regularization will be as a one time measure and qualifications were laid down . It was also stated that the selections should be made on the basis of assessment and interview. Seniority was only relevant to the extent that persons who had three ycars service on a particular date should be cligible for regularization. Only on the ground that somejunior people have been regularized, their selection cannot be quashed. For these reasons, I don't find any merit in these Writ Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. "

4. The contention of the Petitioner that the orders dated 14-2-98 asking the Petitioner to go back to mine to work as tunnel mazdoor and depriving him of the right to benefit of appointment as clerk and the emoluments for the said grade is denied and the Petitioner is put to strict proof there off. That the Petitioners have filed a review petition and the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. directed the Respondent Management to assess and determine the Petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of settlement dated 31-7-97 and maintain status quo as on the date. The Petitioner's were informed that they were not eligible in terms of settlement dated 31-7-97. Hence, the claim is devoid ofmerits and may be dismissed with costs.

7. It may be seen that the Petitioner has chosen to remain absent or even the affected party . Admittedly the Writ Petition was by the Petitioner for the same reliefwhich was dismissed . A review petition was filed where the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. directed to consider whether he comes under the settlement dated 31-7-97 he was informed that he does not come. So apparently the matter has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. has decided on merits the Writ Petition, because his Lordship observed, " for these reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed" . So once the matter has been decided on merits and on a further application for review the Respondent Management was directed to consider whether the Petitioner comes within the settlement dated 31-7-1997 and that he was informed that he does not come. I am afraid I cannot be called upon to decide the same case once it is decided by the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. Further there appears to be no merits because his major complaint was that he is getting lesser amount. But the additional affidavit on behalf of the Respondent shows that he Petitioner is working in technical and supervisory grade C, drawing more pay than clerical grade II. Hence, I find no merits in the Petitioner's case. Further, affected party has not examined himself or the Vice President and not placed before this Court as to how injustice has been done to him. Even if it were placed as the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. has not dismissed the petition on the ground that the matter shall be decided by the Industrial Tribunal to decide but on merits. I amprecluded to decide on merits once again. Hence the reference is answered as follows : The action of the Management of M/ s. Singareni Collieries Co.Ltd. , Ramakrishnapuram Division, Adilabad District in not considering Sri Perugu Sadanandam, acting clerk for appointment as clerk in R. K. I Division is justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

5. The Petitioner, affected party Sri P. Sadanandam or Sri , T. Ram Babu, the Vice President of the union, the Petitioner herein were continuously absent from 25-11-2003 for about 5 or 6 adjournments . Ultimately, arguments of the Respondent's Counsel were heard.

Awardpassed accordingly. Transınit. Dictatedto Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 28th day ofMay, 2004 .

6. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner is now working as a monthly

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer 4027 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Appendix ofevidence

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की ओर से अधिसूचना संख्या- दिनांक 10-8-01 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस न्यायालय को न्याय निर्णयन के लिए प्रेषित किया गया:-

Witnesses examined forthe Respondent:

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner:

MWI: Sri K.

NIL

Venkateswara Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

"Whether the action of the management of Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Pvt . ) Ltd. , Bhilwara in resorting to lay off 60 workmen employed at Bhagwasa Soap Stone Mines , Dt. Bhilwara w.e.f. 15-5-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workmen concerned entitledto".

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

गया । विवाद प्राप्त होने पर पक्षकारों को नोटिस के द्वारा आहूत किया नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

दिनांक 10-6-03 को दोनों पक्षों की ओर से एक आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रकट किया गया कि दोनों पक्षों के मध्य लोक अदालत की भावना से समझौता हो गया है तथा इस संबंध में उनके मध्य कोई विवाद शेष नहीं है । चूंकि दोनों पक्षों के मध्य अब कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है । अतः कोई विवाद नहीं रहा आशय का पंचाट जारी किया जाता है । पंचाट की प्रति भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय को भेजी जाये । का. आ. 1697.- औद्योधिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उदयपुर मिनरल डवलपमेंट सिंडीकेट ( प्रा. ) लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

के. सी. सिंहल , न्यायाधीश

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

[सं. एल०-29011 /42/2001-आई.आर. (एम ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004

का. आ. 1698.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उदयपुर मिनरल डवलपमेंट सिंडीकेट ( प्रा. ) लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , भीलवाड़ा के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-6-04 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

S.O. 1697. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal Bhilwara as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to theManagement Udaipur Mineral Development Syn . (P) . Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-04.

[सं. एल०-29011/65/2000 -आई.आर. (एम) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004 [No. L -29011/42/2001 -IR (M)] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

अनुबंध

औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण , भीलवाड़ा ( राज.)

औद्योगिक विवाद प्रकरण संख्या : 36/01 विवाद मध्य:

S.O. 1698.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal , Bhilwara as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management Udaipur Mineral Development Syn . (P) Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-6-04 .

सचिव, खान मजदूर कांग्रेस , गांधी मजदूर सेवालय, भीलवाड़ा

प्रार्थी/यूनियन

[No. L-29011/65/2000 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

एवं

अनुबंध श्रम न्यायालय , भीलवाड़ा ( राज.) चीफ एग्जीक्यूटिव, मैं. उदयपुर मिनरल डवलपमेंट सिंडीकेट ( प्रा. ) लि. , भलवाड़ा

श्रम विवाद प्रकरण संख्या : 108/01 विवाद मध्य:

विपक्षी/नियोजक

उपस्थित

सचिव, खान मजदूर कांग्रेस , गांधी मजदूर सेवालय, भभीलवाड़ा प्रार्थी/यूनियन

एवं

(श्री के. सी. सिंहल, आर. एच. जे. एस. , न्यायाधीश ) प्रार्थी की ओर से : श्री छीतर मल सेन, प्रतिनिधि

चीफ एग्जीक्यूटिव, उदयपुर मिनरल डवलपमेंट सिंडीकेट ( प्रा. ) लि. , भीलवाड़ा

विपक्षी/नियोजक विपक्षी की ओर से: श्री आर ० एस ० सौलंकी, अधिवक्ता पंचाट: दिनांक 6-8-03 4028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

उपस्थित:

( श्री के. सी. सिंहल, आर. एच. जे. एस. , न्यायाधीश) प्रार्थी यूनियन की ओर सेः श्री छीतर मल सेन , प्रतिनिधि। विपक्षी नियोजक की ओर से: श्री आर. एस. सौलंकी, अधिवक्ता : पंचाट: दिनांक 6-8-03

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना दिनांक 30-3-01 के द्वारा निम्न विवाद इस न्यायालय को न्याय निर्णयन के लिए प्रेषित किया गया:-

"Whether the action of Chief Executive Agent , Udaipur Mineral Development Syndicate (Pvt. ) Ltd. , Bhilwara in terminating the services of 53 workmen as per list w.e.f. 27-7-2000 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is Union concerned entitled?"

गया । विवाद प्राप्त होने पर पक्षकारों को नोटिस के द्वारा आहूत किया दिनांक 10-6-03 को दोनों पक्षों की ओर से एक आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रकट किया गया कि लोक अदालत की भावना से उनके मध्य समझौता हो गया है तथा इस संबंध में अब कोई विवाद शेष नही रहा है । चूंकि पक्षकारों के मध्य अब कोई विवाद शेष नहीं रहा है । अतः कोई विवाद नहीं रहा आशय का पंचाट जारी किया जाता है । पंचाट की प्रति श्रम मंत्रालय को भेजी जाये ।

के. सी. सिंहल, न्यायाधीश

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT:-Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer

Dated the 28th day of May, 2004

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE LC.LD No. 84/2003 BETWEEN:

Shri T. Subramanyam,

S/o T. Gantaiah, C/o Vedula Srinivas , Advocate, 62/ 2RT , Saidabad Colony , Hyderabad-59.

AND

1. The Dy. General Manager, Andhra Bank, HeadOffice, 5-9-11, Saifabad, Hyderabad -4.

2. The Assistant General Manager & Disciplinary Authority, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office, Karimnagar.

Respondents APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2004

: M/s Vedula Srinivas , S. Sreenath & A. Prasada Rao , Advocates

Forthe Respondent

का. आ. 1699.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल०-12025 /1 / 2004- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004

S.O. 1699.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 84/2003 ) 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 Andhra Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Goverument on 17-6-2004.

[No. L- 121025/ 1 /2004- IR (B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

:M/s . S. Udayachal Rao , S. Vikramaditya Babu, S. Mujib Kumar& S. Lavanya Lakshmi , Advocates

AWARD

Thisis a case taken under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of thejudgment 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 .

2. The brieffacts as averred in the petition are: That the Petitioner joined in the Respondent bank as sub -staff, on2-1-79 at Sultan Bazar , main branch , Hyderabad. The Petitioner was working, as sub - staff in the Respondent bank with code No. 6648. Earlier he was dismissed for some alleged irregularities . The Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute against the said order. The Hon'ble Industrial Tribunal directed the Respondent bank to reinstate the Petitioner into service . A Writ Petition was filed by Management vide No. 3963/98 and the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. has stayed the award on paying 17 BGRR wages .

4029 भाग्त का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

sympathy may be shown to him because afterall it is only absenteeism.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that it is not only absenteeism, he was guilty of fraud also. Hewas excused. The writ is still pending for his previous acts treating him as voluntarily retired . He again not mend hisways . Therefore , no sympathy may be shown to him.

That as the matter stood thus , the Respondent bank without prejudice to their rights and contentions reinstated the Petitioner as sub- staff on 25-6-99 . The Petitioner was directed to report to the Regional Manager, Nizamabad for posting. The Petitioner made a representation requesting the Respondent for posting at Hyderabad on medical grounds. The request was not considered and the Petitioner was retained at Laxmapur Branch , Nizamabad. The Petitioner was charge sheeted on 22-3-2001 . The charges were for remaining absent unauthorisedly from duty without permission or sanction of leave . That he was absenting himself from 28-9-2000. He gave an explanation but an enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed on 23-3-2002. Hepreferred an appeal which was also dismissed. The punishment is gross disproportionate. Hence, the dismissal order dated 6-8-2002 may be set aside and the Petitioner may be directed to be reinstated into service .

7. No doubt, the quality of mercy is not strained. But yet, if mercy shown beyond any reasonability then perhaps it may amount to injustice . The dismal record of the Petitioner shows how one when they get the job the persons take it as their birth right and take it for granted as whatever they do , they will continue in their service. Already awrit ispending. yet a dismal record of his absence speaks volumes that he is not at all interested. Continuing such persons in service amounts to encouraging such absenteeism. I can understand if it is once or twice . This absenteeism is for number of times in one way but reading the counter he was charge sheeted on 11-11-85 for his unauthorized absence again he submitted fictitious counter foil with cash receipt stamp . Again he was absent unauthorisedly from 1985 to 1987 for 212 days . Again a lenient view was taken and he was allowed to join . Again he was absent . Ultimately he was treated as voluntarily retired. The same was challenged before the Industrial Tribunal . He was asked to be reinstated. The bank has filed awritchallenging the award ofthe Industrial Tribunal which is still pending. Again he was asked to get in. Again be was absent from 31-1-2000 to 14-6-2000 for 56 days for which he was imposed minor penalty of stoppage ofone increment. Again he absented for duty form 28-2-2001 . So Iam afraid thatgiving him reinstatement is actually allowing, encouraging others to adopt the same method but as in the previous cases without enquiry Petitioner was treated as voluntarily retired, here , a regular enquiry has been conducted and it was conceded that the enquiry is validly conducted. Hence , the only relief which is reasonable according to me is that the dismissal order dated 6-8-2002 ismodified into one ofcompulsory retirement on 6-8-2002.

Awardpassed accordingly . Transmit.

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 28th day ofMay , 2004 .

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Respondent:

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner:

3. A counter was filed stating that since the beginning ofservice he was in the habit of absenting from duty unauthorisedly. He was received a charge sheet for hewas absenting from 16-9-85 . He also attempted to defraud the bank while he was working at Sultan Bazar branch of the bank. A charge sheet was issued. They wanted to impose the punishment of dismissal . Hence , they awarded thepenalty of stoppage oftwo annual increments . Anyway, number ofpunishments are initiated. That during the period from 3-9-85 to 2-5-87 he was absent unauthorisedly for 212 days.He was charge sheeted for the same . He was allowed. to join duty on 3-9-87. Again after a lapse of two days , he again abstained from duty unauthorisedly . Due to his absence for more than 90 days continuously it was justly presumed by the Management that he was not interested in serving the bank. There was no response since he was treated as voluntarily retired from banks service . He filed ID NO. 36/94. He was directed to be reinstated . The bank fileda Writ Petitioner which was stayed on compliance of 17 B. Even after his reinstatement he has not inend his habit of absenting from duty . He was charge sheeted on 15-9-2000 for his unauthorized absence for total period of 56days from 31-1-2000 to 14-6-2000 . He was imposed with minor penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a period of six months, vide order dated 8-12-2000 . Again he abstained from duty from 28-9-2000. Again he was charge sheeted dated 22-3-2001 . He did not give any explanation . Hence an enquiry committed was constituted . A notice was served on the Petitioner . The Petitioner participated in the enquiry . That he attended personal hearing. He was dismissed. The appeal was also confirmed.

NIL

4. The counsel conceded that the domestic enquiry isvalidly conducted and arguments were heard under Sec. 11A.

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

5. It is argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that this Petitioner has been working from 2-1-79 and he was dismissed on 6-8-2002 . Hence, some 4030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2004

For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. J. Sathyanarayana Prasad, Advocate

For the Respondent No. 2 : Ms. K. Akhilandeswari , ACGSC

AWARD

का. आ. 1700.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 82/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-5-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल -33011/2/2002- आई.आर. ( एम ) ]

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour videNotification Order No. L-33011 /2/2002- IR(M) dated 12-8-2002has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004

"Whether the demand of the Madras Port Trust Employees Union for redesignation of Diploma Holders in the Chennai Port Trust as Junior Engineers Gr. II/Gr. I and for revision ofpay scales is justified?"

S.O. 1700.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 82/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chennai Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-5-2004.

[No. L -33011 /2/2002- IR (M) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 82/2002 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed the Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively. On the side of the I Party/Union, a petition was filed before this Tribunal to implead the Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Shipping and Transport, New Delhi as 2nd Respondent in this dispute and the same was allowed by this Tribunal vide I.A. 58 / 2003. Thereafter the I Party Union filed the amended Claim Statement impleading the Secretary, Ministry of Shipping and Transport, New Delhi as 2nd Respondent and the 1st Respondent/Management also filed their additional Counter Statements.

MONDAY, THE 5TH APRIL, 2004

PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN,

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

Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO. 82/2002

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of Chennai Port Trust and their workman)

BETWEEN

:I Party/Claimant

TheGeneral Secretary, TheMadras Port Trust Employees Union, Chennai

AND

1. The Chairman,

: IInd Party/Respondent

Chennai Port Trust, Chennai

2.The Secretary, Ministry of Shipping & Transport, New Delhi . **2nd Respondent is impleaded

asper order in l.A. No. 58/2003

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Claimant

: M/s. R. Ganesan & V. Gangatharan, Advocates

The Petitioner Union has raised this dispute on behalf of the diploma holders belonging to Class III employees consisting of Special Mechanics , Supervisor Grade II and Supervisor Grade I in the Electrical and Mechanical Departments. The appointment for the above categories of Special Mechanic and Supervisor Grade II are that the incumbent must be in a possession of Diploma in Mechanical /Electrical /Elctronics Automobile Engineering of State Board of Technical Education, Though the responsibilities are same for the two posts , they are having different scales of pay, as such, principle of equal pay and equal work will apply to the posts of Special Mechanic and Supervisor Grade II . Secondly in all the Central Govt. institutions and in some ports , diploma engineers are called as Junior Engineers . In the wage settlement under Section 12 (3 ) of the I.D. Act dated 6-12-94, there was a clause that the problems in respect of class IV and III employees can be locally discussed and settled. As such, as per the instructions of Ministry , a Committee was formed consisting of Chairman, Member Secretary and Two Members . And the Indian Port Association Committee made its recommendations for re- designating the posts of special mechanic and supervisor 4031

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Supervisor Grade II as Junior Enginoor Grade II and Supervisor Grade I in the scale ofpay ofRs. 2600-4940 and Rs.2750-5690 respectively. But the recommendation of the committee is only recommendatory in nature and the recommendations contained in the report can be implemented only after the report is accepted by the Govt. as referred to above and the Govt. isnow examining the recommendations contained in the Committee's report in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and its final orders are still awaited. The comparison given by the Petitioner Union is not correct one, further the comparison between the ITI/NAC holding Grade III technicians with diploma engineers who are appointed as Special Machanics is not at all relevant for the issue in question. Further , the PortTrust- cannot be at fault for the existing scale ofpay prescribed for the post of Special Mechanics . The Port Trust cannot straight away implement the reconamendations of the Indian Port Association Committee unless the approval of the Govt, is received . Therefore, the contention ofthe Petitioner that thepower to implement the recommendations of Indian: Port Association Committee is within the power of Port Administration is not correct. Therefore, the Respondent prays that unless the final decision of the Govt. on the recommendations-of the Committee and date of its implementation is effected, the question of redesignating the Special Mechanic and Supervisor Grade II with retrospective affect from 01-01-93- doesnot arise now. Hence, the Respondent prays that the grade II as Junior Engineer II and for designating the posts ofSupervisor Grade I as Junior Engineer I. They have also recommended for the revision ofscales ofpay. There are 149 special mechanics , 27 supervisor Grade II and 109 Supervisor Grade I in the Respondent/Management. The IndianPortAssociation decided that ifthe recommendation were effected, the financial commitment will be only marginal . Furtherthe 1.T.1. Grade III technicians carry the same scale ofpay as Special Mechanics , though the Special Mechanics are Diploma Engineers, it is an automatic promotion for ITI/NAC holders in Grade III technicians. But, there is no automatic promotion for speciał mechanics who are diploma engineers . Therefore , the redesignation ofdiploma engineers as Junior Engineers Grade II and 1 is necessary and their pay scales are to be revised. Though their demands are genuine , and recommendations were made by Indian Port Association in 1996 itself, it was not implemented till now. The Petitioner Union issued a strike notice under Section 22 of IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 for this purpose. In that, conciliation proceedings were initiated before the conciliation officer. The Port Trust management in the conciliation proceedings has also conceded that the demands are genuine but they said the matter is pending with the Govt . Therefore , the Petitioner Union prays that the redesignation of diploma holders as Junior Engineer Grade II & I and revision oftheir scales of pay should be implemented and the order has to be effected from 1-1-93.

claim may be dismissedwith costs.

5. After the amended Claim Statement filedby Petitioner Union, which includes the Secretary , Ministry of Shipping & Transport as 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent in the additional Counter Statement has alleged that the Channai Port Trust could not redesignate the. Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II and I as Junior Engineers because the Chennai Port Trust does not have scale ofpay of Rs . 6170-11975 which is the fitment scale for Supervisor Grade I. However , it is available in the wage settlement dated 2-8-2000 and secondly, the Ministry's instructions indicated that while re -designating the Special Mechanics and others, the Port should not incuradditional costs. Therefore, the 1st Respondent could not redesignate the employees without financial implication because the Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II who are in the scalesof Rs. 4300-120-5260-130-8120 and Rs. 5000-150- 5450-200-10850 respectively and on redesignation as Junior Engineer are to be fitted in the scale ofpay ofRs . 5500-200- 6100-220-11380. When these two categories ofemployees are given different higher scales, there will be an additional cost to the Port Trust. Since the Port Trust is to be incurred withamarginal ofRs . 8.8 lakhs per assum approximately, the Port Trust has requested the Ministry of Shipping to issue orders permitting the Chennai Port Trust for adopting the same and as the sanction is obtained freudinistry of Shipping, the Chennai Port Trust will orders implementing the directions contained indhound Letter, 4. As against this, the 1st Respondent in its Counter Statement alleged that it is not true that two posts namely Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II in Electrical and Mechnical Departments of the Respondent have the same responsibility. Special Mechanics were appointed mainly for operation of the various sophisticated equipment and for doing quality maintenance jobs on sophisticated equipments as such it is not correct to say that both these categories are performing exactly the same task and duties as Supervisor Grade II /Grade I. Further , the Special Machanics are not entrusted with supervisory duties , though the qualification of Special Mechanics may be the same. Further, the Special Mechanic is the feeder post for the promotional post of Supervisor Grade II, hence the special Mechanies on promotion to the post of Supervisor Grade II should shoulder higher responsibilities in the promotional post of Supervisor Grade II and therefore , the request of the Union that in these two posts , they are doing the same type ofjob and they should be paid equally for equal work is not correct. No doubt, the Ministry have conveyed their decision to refer the above issue and all the representations received from various Association on similar issues to the Managing Director , Indian Port Association to examine and submit a consolidated report to the Ministryto implement the same after examinationby the Govt. The Committee has also submitted its report to Govt . alongwith its recommendations which includes the re-designation of the posts of "Special Mechanics and 4032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA26, 1926

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) ] butwilltake effect only prospectively. Hence, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

6. In the Counter Statement filed by the 2nd Respondent, it is alleged that in view of the long pending issues of the Diploma Engineers in all Major Port Trusts of India, the Government of India issued a number of circulars bearing No. C- 13019/ 24/87 -PE - II dated 8-6-91 , C- 13019/30/ 92-PE- II dated 6-6-94, C- 13019/20/ 94 -PE -II dated28-6-94 and C- 13019/20/94- PE- II dated 11-10-94 extending certain benefits to diploma/ degree holder engineers in majorports . This cadre restructurting prosposal inter alia envisages redesignation/upgradation of posts , manner of recruitment and promotional avenues involving policy decisions and financial implications . Therefore, the proposal needs consultations/ concurrence with the Ministry of Finance . Even in spite ofpresistent efforts, it has not been possible so far to finalise the proposal . Considering that finalisation of cadre restructuring proposal is taking time , it was felt that promotion of degree/diploma holders , if due should not wait as there was no clear instructions on the issues like promotional avenues for diploma/ degree holders in view ofGovt . letter No. C- 13019/11/96-PE- II dated 8-3-2000. The matter was reviewed recently and it was decided to withdraw the Ministry's letter No. C- 13019/ 11/96-PE -II dated 8-3-2000 vide letter No. C- 13019/ 11 / 96- PE - II dated 24-12-2002 and restore the position available before 8-3-2000. The recommendations of Indian Port Association Committee are not mandatory in nature and only recommendatory . Therefore, the recommendation is under consideration ofthe Ministry . Hence , the 2nd Respondent prays that this Tribunal may pass an award it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case .

7. In these circumstances , the points for my determination are-

(i) " Whether the demand made by the Petitioner Union for re -designation of deploma holders as Junior Engineers Grade- II/ I and for revision of pay scales is justified?"

(ii) " To reliefthey are entitled" ?

Point No. 1 :-

the two posts namely Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II though they have same responsibilities , but the said two posts have different scales ofpay and as such the principles of equal pay for equal work will apply to the above two categories of posts . Further, it is the contention of the Petitioner that in all the Central Govt . institutions and also in some Ports in India, Diploma Engineers are called as Junior Engineers. In the wage settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act dated 6-12-94, there wasa clause that the problems in respect of classes IV and III employees can be locally discussed and settled. The Ministry of Surface and Transport also instructed the IndianPortAssociation by letter dated 20-7-95 to re-examine the problems of degree/diploma engineers and to submit their report. In view of the said letter, the Indian Port Association formed a Committee consisting of Chairman, Member Secretary and Two Members. The Indian Port Association Committee made its recommendations for re- designating the posts of Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II as Junior Engineer Grade II and for designating the posts of Supervisor Grade I as Junior Engineer I and also they have recommended to revise the scales accordingly . But, even though the Indian Port Association has recommended for re -designation and also re -fixing of scales of pay of diploma holders, the said proposal has not been implemented till now . Therefore, the Petitioner Union has issued a strike notice under Section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act , demanding re - designation of Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II as Junior Engineer Grade II and Supervisor Grade I as Junior Engineer Grade 1 and also revising their pay scales on 18-11-2000 . In which, conciliation was also made , but it was ended in a failure . But, even in that conciliation, the Port Trust has accepted that the Indian Port Association has recommended for re- designation and re- fixing the pay of diploma holders and they are awaiting for the sanction of the Ministry and therefore, they cannot implement the same immediately . Onbehalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that it is well within the power of Port Administration to implement the recommendations of Indian Port Association and therefore , they have raised the dispute before this Tribunal .

8. In this case , on the side of the Petitioner Union 12 documents were marked as Exs . WI to W13 and on the side of the Respondent 3 documents were marked as Exs . M1 to M3 and no one was examined as a witness on either side .

9. The Petitioner's contention in this case is that the diploma engineers , belonging to class III employees consisting of Special Mechanics , Supervisor Grade II and Supervisor Grade I are in the Electrical and Mechanical departments . It is the further contention of the Petitioner that for all these categories , the incumbent must be in a possession ofdiploma in Mechanical/Electrical/Electronics/ Automobile Engineering of State Board of Technical Education . It is the further contention of the Petitioner that

10. As against this , the 1st Respondent contended thatin the 1st Counter Statement contended that it cannot be said that the two posts namely Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II in Electrical and Mechanical Departments are having the same responsibilities. It is contended that Special Mechanics were appointed mainly for operation of the various sophisticated equipment and for doing quality maintenance jobs on sophisticated equipments , whereas the Special Mechanics are not entrusted with supervisory duties, though their qualification of Special Mechanics may be the same as that of the Supervisor Grade II. But, I find this contention of the Ist Respondent has no substance because , on behalf of the PetitionerUnion, it was contended that even for the supervisory staff posting for operation and maintenance for every day's 4033 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

work, chargehanded over to the Special Mechanics by the Supervisors and again it was handed over by the Special Mechanics to the Supervisor Grade II and this work was done as a day to day work and as such it cannot be said that Special Mechanics are not entrusted with supervisory duties . Therefore , I find no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent.

oftheMadras High Court, wherein the Division Bench of the Madras High Court while considering the Assistant Engineers of Diploma Holders held that " the persons/ Petitioners concerned Promotion will be granted to them aftermaking a common seniority list of Assistant Engineers who are graduate engineers and who are diploma holders also and further held that diploma holders are entitled to promotion on the basis of common seniority in pursuance of the decision as per guidelines provided by the Cental Govt . and the matter is pending for a very long time, the port witll be well advised to finish all these exercises within six months from to day " He further argued that in the same circular, the Ministry has also issued guidelines to implement the redesignation and also re-fixing of their scales ofpay but still the Port Trust has not implemented the same because they are awaiting the sanction of the Govt. and also from the Ministry of Finance . Therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in favour of the Petitioner Union as prayed for..

11. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied ontherulings reported in 1982 3 SCR 298RANDHIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. wherein, the Supreme Court while considering the Driver/ Constable in Delhi Police Force under Delhi Administration has given a finding that "the Petitioner and other driver constables are getting lesser pay than the drivers in Railway Protection Force and other Govt. institutions , therefore , they made representation to the authorities wherein they stated that theirpay scales should be the same as the drivers ofheavy vehicles in other departments , and as their claimsfor better scales of pay did not meet with success, the present application has been filed by the Petitioner for the issue ofWrit underArticle 32 ofthe Constitution. "

14. As against this, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that no doubt the Indian Port Association has recommended in their report that diploma holders' re-designation and re- fixation of their pay were to be made. But the said report is only on recommendatory capacity and the matter is pending with the Ministry and the Ministry has not sanctioned the financial burden and therefore , they have not implemented the recommendations ofthe Indian Port Association and further contended that even assuming for an argument sake that the Govt. will implement the recommendations of Indian port Association, itmust be only prospectively and not retrospectively.

12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Supreme Court has held that equal pay must be given for equal work and the counsel for the Petitioner relied on the ruling 1986 ILLJ 134 DHIRENDRA CHAMOLI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OFU.P. , wherein the Supreme Court while considering the employees engaged as casual worker on daily wage basis and not paid the same salary andallowances as Class IV employees. The Supreme Court held that " the argument envisaged in the CounterAffidavit is that since there are no sanctioned posts to which regular appointments can be made , the casual employees employed by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and perquisites as class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned posts. But, while raising the argument, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that the persons engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendrasperform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis against sanctionedposts. Ifthat be so , it is difficult to understand how the Central Govt. can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It ispeculiar on the part ofthe Central Govt. to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that they will be paid only dailywages and therefore, they cannot claim more . This argument lies ill in the mouth ofthe Central Govt. for it is an all tofamiliar argument with the exploiting class and awelfare state committed to a socialist pattern ofsociety cannot be permitted to advance such an argument " and upholding the contention of the Petitioner, the Supreme Court has held that they are entitled to pay as that of Class IV employees.

15. But, as the learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the Indian Port Association has recommended this restructuring and re -designating the posts even in the year 1996 and still the Govt. is considering theproposal without passing any final orders , I find, there is novalid reason for rejecting the request of the Petitioner Union, Further , on behalf of the Petitioner Union, it is contended that there are about 149 Special Mechanics , 29 Supervisor Grade II and 109 Supervisor Grade I are there and the incumbents of posts have been getting minimum basic ofRs. 5500/-and Rs. 6170/-and therefore, even ifthe recommendations were effected, the financial commitment . will be only marginal and in such circumstances . I find there is no point in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that still the Ministry is considering theproposal and the matter is pending with the Ministry of Finance. It is well established that while the qualification and also the responsibility of two cadres namely Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II are the same, therefore, 1find the re-designation requested by the Petitioner Union is a valid one. Further, the Indian Port Association has also recommended for re -designation and also for re- fixing the salary of the above categories . Under such circumstances , the prayer of the Petitioner Union is to be accepted and 1 further find that the inordinate delay on the part of the Port _13 . The counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings in W. A. No. 1251 of 2000 by the Division Bench

2052G1/2004-25 4034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

W7 01-04-02

Trust and also the Ministry of Shipping is arbitrary and violationofprinciples of natural justice .

Xerox copy of the letter from Indian Port Association to Director , Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi.

W8 09-09-02 Xerox copy of the statement showing details of Supervisory staff posted for shipping operation.

W9 24-12-02 Xerox copy of the letter from Government of India, Ministry of Shipping to all major port trusts.

W10 Nil

Xerox copy of the manner of appointment of Supervisor Grade 1 and II in Civil Engineering Department.

W11 Nil

16. Again, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that even assuming for an argument sake without conceding that the salary in new scales will be fixed under Rule 22 (a) ( i ) and ( ii ) and they further contended that as soon as the sanction is obtained from the Ministry of Shipping, the Respondent will issue necessary orders and it will take effect only prospectively. But no reason was stated by the Respondent for giving the prospective effect, since it is a long pending and sine the Indian Port Association has recommended for re-designation and restructuring of pay scales of the diploma holders , I find the orders should be effected retrospectively and not prospectively. Hence, I find this point in favour of the Petitioner Union.

Point No. 2 :

Xerox copy of the manner of appointment of Special Mechanics Supervisor Grade II & I in E & M department.

W12 Nil

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

Xerox copy of the MPT Act Section 23&27 Draft.

W13 19-02-2003 Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner Union to the Respondent/ Management.

For the II Party/Management:

17. In view of my foregoing findings, I find the Respondents have to implement the demand of the Petitioner Union for redesignation and for refixation pertaining to Diploma holders in the Respondent/ Management retrospectively from 01-01-1997. Ordered accordingly . No Costs .

Ex. No. Date

Description

M1 24-12-02

18. The reference is answered accordingly.

Xerox copy of the letter from the Ministry of Shipping to Chennai Port Trust.

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 5th April, 2004)

24-01-03 Xerox copy of the letter from the Ministry of Shipping to Chennai Port Trust.

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

M3 28-05-03

Witnesses Examined : On either side

: None

Xerox copy of the tetter from the Ministry of Shipping to Chennai Port Trust.

Documents Marked:

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

For the I Party/ Claimant:

Ex. No. Date

Description

W1 24-03-78 Хегох Copy of the memorandum of settlement between the parties to the dispute.

W2 00-12-96 Xerox copy of the Indian Port Association Recommendations .

का०आ० 1701.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण /श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/64/2002- आई. आर. ( बी. II ) ] W3 14-08-98 Xerox copy of the letter regarding approyal of Govt . for Calcutta Port.

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव W4 18-11-00 Xerox copy ofthe strike notice .

New Delhi , the 21st June, 2004 W5 08-12-00 Xerox Copy of the letter from the Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central) regarding Strike notice issuedby petitioner Union.

18-02-01

W6 Xerox copy of the board's resolution 192/2001.

S.O. 1701. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 34/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation 4035 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-6-2004.

[No. L- 12011/64/2002- IR (B -II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT,

unauthorized absence on various occasions and he repeated the misconduct once again without showing any improvement in his attitude . He violated the leave rules. amounting to gross misconduct of doing an act prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank vide clause 19.5(j ) of theBipartite Settlement; that the workman denied those charges on the ground that he was absented from duty on account of ill dealth and that he had observed the leave rules by submitting leave application along with medical certificates.

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

Bangalore 4th June, 2004

3.He further contented that he had been attending the bank regularly since October , 1998, however, the disciplinary authourity ordered for a departmenal enqulry tobe held at zonal office , Bangalore on 3-12-1998.

PRESENT

Shri A. R. SIDDIQUI PresidingOfficer

C. R. No. 34/2002

HPARTY

IPARTY

The Zonal Manager,

TheGeneral Sectetary,

SyndicateBank,

SyndicateBank Staff

ZonalOffice,

SyndicateBankBuilding Gandhinagar,

Bangalore-560009

Association, Anand Plaza, IInd Floor, Near Anand Rao Circle, Bangalore-560009

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order. No. L- 12011/64/2002- IR (B -II) dated 10th July, 2002 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action ofthe management ofSyndicate Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri P. V. Jagannath, Clerk, Basavakalyan Branch, byway ofcompulsory retirement from services of theBank? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

4. That during the course of enquiry the sole management witness , who was the Manager at Basavakalyan Branch, confirmed during his cross examination that workman was regular in this duties since October, 1988; that the workman was absent from duty for 42days from 28-8-97 to 30-8-1997 and from 1-12-97 to 31-12-97 while working at Chickpet Bangalore Branch, on account ofhis ill health and he was absent from duty from 3-9-98 to 24-9-98 while working at Basavakalyan Branch on account ofhis illness and also to see his ailing mother, that his absence was treated as unauthorized as per Ex . MEX- 1 and MEX- 2 even though he had sufficient leave to his credit; that the reasons for his absence on various occasions was modical and that as far as the work aspect was concerned, the workman was a very good worker and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 31-12-99 has observed that, the only point in favour of the CSE is that he was not absentod unauthorisedly after October, 1998 andtheDisciplinary Authority alino in its proceedings dated 31-3-2000 at page & obeervol that, it maybe true that CSE might have assisted the branch in recovering loan. In spite ofall these favourable points, the Disciplinary Authority however, confirmed the penishmeat of compulsory retirement from the services ofbank on 4-4-2000 and his appeal against the punishment onder was also rejected in a mechanical way under the heading "Grounds " . It was averredthat the misconduct was committedby theworkman during theperiod 16-8-1997 to 24-9-98 andwherein charge sheet dated 15-9-1999 was served on him in October, 1999, that the allegation against the workman that he has not improved despite the opportunity given to kina is not correct keeping inview the fact that the workman was very regular. inhis duties for abont a period ofmore than one year from the date of charge sheet and then till the date of his compulsory retirement and this fact has been acknowledged by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority, themselves .

5. That the workman cannot be held guilty of gross misconduct as he submitted medical certificates and remained absent on account of his ill health and not with any intention to do any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. That the workman was victimized and is singled out in as much as the other employees who absented from 2.The first party uunion through its Joint Secretary has filed its Claim Statement with the averments that Shri P.V. Jagannath (herein after referred to as the workmanjoined SecondpartyBank (herein after called as Management) as a Clerk on 4th February, 1978 and worked at various branches/offices of the management in Malleshwaram, Zonal Office, V.V. Puram , P. C. Road, Chickpet and Basavakalyan. When there was a shortage of staff at Port Blair (Andaman and Nicobar Islands ) the workman volunteered to serve at this for off place for a period of more than 2 years, that while working at Basaakalyan branch he was charge sheeted for certain misconduct vide charge sheet dated 15-9-1999 alleging that he absented fromduties for 81 days between the period from 16-8-97 to 24-9-98 while working at Chickpet Bangalore and Basavakalyan branches of the management. It was alleged that the workman earlier was charge sheeted for 4036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] duty days together and one employee who was absent for about 1000 days was not even charge sheeted . Therefore, the action taken against the workman in retiring him compulsorily, was bad in law resulting into his economic death . The Domestic Enquiry conducted against the workman was also challenged on the ground that there was no sufficient and proper opportunity given to the workman. Findings of the Enquiry also were assailed contenting that they are perverse and that Disciplinary Authority did not apply its mind properly in imposing the aforesaid punishment etc.

9. The Disciplinary Authority offered a personal hearingto the concemed workman. The concerned workman along with his Defence Representative appeared for personal hearing and submitted that he had realized his mistake and there was some delay on his part in submitting the leave applications . The Disciplinary Authority , after cereful perusal of all the materials placed before him, observed that inspite of earlier charge sheets and punishments , the concerned workman had not reformed himself. The Disciplinary authority observed that the concerned workman had already exhausted the sick leave limitof540 days and had also availed extra ordinary leave on loss ofpay for 124 days besides the total unauthorized absence of 745 days and that there was no chage in his attitude and had no respect for the leave rules of the Management.

6. The management filed its counter statement challenging the claim of the workman as false and not maintainable under the law or on facts . It contented that the first party employee was in the habit of absenting frequently from duties, unauthorisedly . He was not following the leave rules of the mangement . He was issued charge sheet six times on 13-6-91 , 16-8-91 , 2-1-95 , 14-9-95, 26-10-96 and 6-10-1997 for the misconduct of absence without leave and irregular attendance for which he was imposed with a punishment of " warning" etc.

10. That the grounds that are urged in the Claim Statement are all baseless and liable to be rejected. There is no legal bar to issue a Charge Sheet within the stipulated time. Moreover no prejudice is caused to the concerned workman for issuing the charge sheet in 1999. The management has rightly charge sheeted the concerned workmanunder clause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement for remaining absent unauthorisedly which is an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

7. Inspite of showing leniency again and again to the workman he did not imporve his conduct and once again, he remained unauthorisedly absent for 81 days for the period betweeen 16-8-1997 and 24-9-98 . The workman did not improve his conduct and pursued his habit in remaining unauthorisedly absent for which the seventh time present charge sheet was issued on 15-9-1999 . The workman in reply to the charge sheet admitted the fact that he was absent for 81 days from 16-8-97 to 24-9-98 as mentioned in the charge sheet but denied having committed gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank. Since his conduct was of repetitive nature and the reply submitted by the first party workman was not convincing the Disciplinary Authority and the management by exercising his powers ordered for a departmental enquiry and appointed Shir M. S. Dwaraganath as Enquiry Officer ta enquire into the allegations that are levelled against the concerned workman in the charge sheet dated 25-9-1999 .

11. That the 2nd Party Bank is the custodian of the publicmoney. The Banking Industry and all its components must strive towards excellence, so that the Banking Iridustry rises to higher levels of endeavour and achievement . Excellence is not achieved except with a deep sense of commitmentto work and discipline . Diluting discipline and condoning indiscipline would only destroy motivation . The management has imposed a proper punishment for the concemed workman for the grave misconduct committed by him. The acts committed by the first party not only spoiled the image of the management but also hampered the discipline among the other employees of the bank. The punishment given to the concerned workman is very much in accordance with the gravity of misconduct committed by him and the same is not to be interfered by this court . Therefore, the management prayed that the reference may be rejected and award may be passed in favour of the management.

12. When the matter was posted to record the evidence on DE issue , the learned counsel for the first party filed a memo conceding the fairness of DE proceedings and therefore, my learned predecessor recorded a finding to the effect that the DE was 'fair and proper' . The management in this court filed 23 documents and they were marked as Ex . Ml to M23 with consent of learned counsel for the first party. They are as follows :-

1. Charge Sheet dated 15-9-1999

2. Letter dated 1-1-1999

8. That there was absolutely no merit in the contention of the concerned workman that he was regular in his attendance since October 1998 as it is not subject mattter of the present case in hand . It is well settled position oflaw that leave is not a matter of right of an employee. It is the dutly of the employee to inform the management and to adhere to the leave rules of the Management . The Second Party bank being a custodian of public money and a number of custoiners come every day to the branches of the bank for various transactions . The second party bank being in the public utility service has provide the services to its custoiners through its employees . The bank cannot affored to keep on its pay roll an employce who is regularly irregular in attendance since it affects the interest of the Bank.

3. Letter dated 12-10-99 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26 , 1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4. Letter dated- 15-10-1999

5..Appointment ofthe Enquiry Officer

6. Enquiry Notice dated 4-11-1999

7. Appointment of the management representative 8. Letter dated 11-11-1999

9. Letter dated 15-11-1999

10. Enquiry Proceedings

11. Enquiry Report

12. Letter dated 14-1-2000

13. Letter dated 3-2-2000

14. Letter dated 5-2-2000

15. Letter dated 12-2-2000

16. Letter dated 16-2-2000

17. Proceedings of Disciplinary Authority 18. Letter dated 28-2-2000

19. Letted dated 1-4-2000

20. Proceedings of the Disciplinary Authority 21. Proceedings of the Appellate Authority 22. Letter dated 3-12-1999

23. Exhibits marked in the Enquiry.

13. Therefore, in the light ofthe finding and DE issue, the only point remained to be considered in the first instance is as to whether the Enquiry findings holding the workman guilty of the misconduct suffered from any perversity and that the impugned punishment order was the result of any victimisation or unfair labour practive by the management .

}

14. Learned counsel for the first party submitted his written and oral arguments and he challenged the enquiry findings as perverse on the ground that in the face ofthe oral and dicumentary evidence produced by the respective parties and the admissions made by the manageinent witness in his cross examination that the first party remained absent from duty for the period in question not willfully but on account of his ill health and that his defence was supported by medical certificates submitted along with leave applications , the enquiry findings holding the workman guilty of unauthorized absence suffered from perversity.He submitted that the statement of the first party before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent from duty due to his illness and sometimes to attend his ailing family members and submitted leave applications along with inedical certificates remained, uncontroverted, there being no cross examination on behalf of the management. He nextly contentrd that even if it is taken proved that the first party remained absent from duty without submitting his leave application, getting the leave sanctioned before he proceeded on leave and that he submitted the Medical Certificates subsequently, it cannot be said that he remained unauthorisedly absent from duty willfully and

4037 that the fact ofnot submitting the leave applications in time or the medical certificates at the most can be said tobe atechnical lapse on his part and therefore, the punishment ofcompulsory retirement was not called for. He submitted before the court a decision of Hon'ble High court in WA 3985-86/2002 to highlight the point that is the misconduct established was technical in nature then the punishment ofdismissal was not proper and proportionate with gravity ofalleged misconduct . His next argument was that there were many mitigating circumstances not to resort to severe punishment. Firstly, for the reason that for his unauthorized absence from 16-8-1997 to 24-9-98 i.e. for about 80days, the charge sheet dated 15-9-99 was served on the first party in October 1999 thereby causing the delay of about more than one year . Henextly contented that from October , 98 onwards till the first party was served with charge sheet, he was very regular in his duty and he was also regularly attending his duty up till April 2000, the date on which he was served with the impugned punishment order . He contentedthat this fact has been admitted by the Enquiry Officer himself in his report. He contented that the first paety was a sincer and hard worker , the fact admitted by the Manager, MW1 before the Enquiry Officer not to be disputedby the Disciplinary Authority, which on the other hand appreciated the work of the first party in making recovery of the loan amount . It is also not disputed that the first party for about a period of 2-1/2 years worked at places like Port Blair in Andaman & Nicobar Islands, Voluntarlly. Therefore , his submission was that in the light of these mitigating circumstances and the subsequent conduct of the first party in not remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly for a period of more than 18 months must have been taken into account in handing down the punishment of compulsory retirement, as he deserved lenient view .

15. As far as the merits ofthe case, learned counsel for management argued that there is a clear finding ofthe Enquiry Officer that it was a clear cut case of unauthorised absence, undoubtedly there being no leave applications filedby the first party, not getting leave sanctioned in time and that the Medical Certificates were only submitted along with leave application, that too after the lapse of numberof days after reporting for duty. Therfore, assuming for a moment that he suffered from illness , it cannot be said that hedidnot remain unauthorisedly absent since he submitted themedical certificates, subsequentlly. Therefore he argued that there can be no hesitation to hold that charge of misconduct alleged against workman has been proved.

16. Learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that undisputedly the workman earlier to the charge sheet on hand was charge sheeted six times for his unauthorized absence and after due enquiry into the matter hewas punished on 4 occasions by just giving a "warning" and on the last two occasions he was punished with stoppage of next one increment for six months each:

4038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 17. He contended that keeping in view the conduct ofthe first party having been punished by the management not once or twice but from time to time on six occasions , that too , for the very misconduct of unauthorized absence prejudicial to the interest of the bank , his subsequent conduct fromOctober , 1998 onwards being regular in duty and not committing any such misconduct carries no significance so as to warrant lenient view . In support of his argument , learned counsel for the mangement that an application for leave must be made before workman proceeded on leave that too getting leave sanctioned or otherwise the period of absence should be treated unauthorized absence, he cited the ruling reported in 2003 102FJR479 ( SC) .

18. He submitted that the workman as could be seen from the Enquiry Report exhausted the sick leave of 540 days, availed extraordinary leave of loss of pay for 124 days , and thereby remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a period of about 745 days and therefore , this conduct of the first party not only damaged the reputation of bank but also hampered the day to day functioning of the banking causing lot of inconvenience to the public.

19. Learned counsel in support of his argument that the impugned punishment in this case was quite commensurate and proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party and that in such cases even the punishment of dismissal was up held , cited decisions of Hon'ble High Court and their Lordship Supreme Court , as under :

( 1) IKR 2003 KAR Page 865 (DB)

(2) 1996 LABIC 745 ( SC)

(3) 2002 - I LLJ (DB )

(4) FJR(Vol . 103 ) Page 304(DB)

(5) 1999-1 LLJ Page 1172(DB )

20 Before adverting upon the various contentions of the respective parties it will be worthwhile to bring on record the reasonings and the observations made by the learned Enquiry Officer in coming to the conclusion that the first party was guilty of misconduct charged against him. On page under 4 under the heading ' Analysis of Evidence' , those reasonings commenced as under:

ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE

informing the CSE of his absence being treated as unauthorized. The defence of the CSE is that he had submitted leave applications on all the occasions along with the medical certificates . His other defence was that he had to absent from duty on account of his own sickness and also at times to take care of his family members . Therefore, now the point in dispute is whether it is true that the CSE submitted leave applications along with medical certificates in time. Going through MEX- 1 , 1 observe that for the absence from 20-8-1997 to 30-8-1997, CSE submitted leave application only on 10-9-1997 , after 6 weeks ofjoiningduty.Of course, the CSE produced medical certificate. But as per leave rules, since the CSE was absent continuously for 11 days, he was required to keep informed the branch about his absence then and there , whereas in the instant case , even after joining duty, he did not prefer to submit leave application along with MC immediately . Similarly , going through MEX- 2 , I observe that for his absence of 11 days on various days between 16-8-97 and 23-9-97, he had not at all submitted leave applications even as on 5-11-1997 i.e. the date of letter issued to him treating his 11 days absence as unauthorized . Again, going through MEX -3 , I observe that during the entire month of December , 1997 , the CSE did not attend office norm kept informed ofthe same to the Bank. In MEX-3 , it was brought to his notice that as per leave rules leave application and medical certificate shall be submitted immediately on proceeding on leave and fitness certificate at the time of reporting for duty . MEX -4 is also an example of continuous violation of leave rules by the CSE, wherein he did not submit leave application as on 17-9-1998 to 23-5-1998. Going through all exhibits , I have no hesitation to state that the CSE has not at all submitted leave applications as per leave rules then there of his absence but preferred to submit leave applications at his own convenient time , ignoring the inconvenience faced by the Bank. Therefore , the CSE's statement that he submitted leave applications along with MC and still his absence was treated as unauthorized cannot be accepted as he violated leave rules . It has also come on record that the CSE unauthorisedly absented for 745 days and exhausted all kinds of leave . Such action of the CSE, no doubt affects the functioning of the branch and customer service . The CSE's action ofviolating leave rules inspite of having been punished 6 times in the past show that the CSE has utter disregard to the leave rule and the interest of the Bank. As such, the CSE's action amounts to doing act prejudicial to the interest of the bank . The onlypoint in favour of the CSE is that he has not absented unauthorisedly after Octber . 1998. "

" I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the Management and Defence sides. It has come on record that the CSE was served with 6 chargesheets in the past about which there is no dispute before the enquiry forum . In fact , the CSE himself in his reply to the charge sheet has categorically admitted that he was charge sheeted on earlier occasions also . It is also not in dispute that the CSE absented for 81 days, for which he has been served with the present charge sheet . To substantiate the unauthorized absence of the CSE , 5 documents were produced before the enquiry forum

21. Therefore, from the reading of the aforesaid reasonings and observations made by the learned Enquiry Officer it is very difficult ot appreciate the arguments advanced by the first party that the act of first party in remaining absent from duty was not an unauthorized one butwas technical in nature as he did not submit his leave application or got sanctioned leave in time. It is crystal [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4039

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़26, 1926

clear from the reasonings assigned by the Enquiry Officer be lost sight of this tribunal would be the undisputable conduct of the first party in discharging his duties very regularlywithout committing the misconduct like the one onhand continuously from the month ofOctober 1998up tilf April 2000 when he was served with impunged punishment order . This subsequent conduct of the first partybefore he was removed from service has been ignored bydisciplinary authority while taking into consideration his past conduct . Of course the past conduct ofthe first partywas very bad as he failed to mend his ways despite being punished on several occasions followed by departmental enquiry. However, at the same time the conduct ofthefirst party continuously for a period of more than 18 months in not committing the sort of misconduct of unauthorized absence must have been taken into considerationwhile imposing the punishment. In fact the Enquiry Officer in his report in the last sentence observed asunder:-

"The only point is favour of the CSE is that he has not absented unauthorisedly after Ocbtober 98" . The fact that the first party workmam is a hard and sincers worker again not to be disputed -in this case as MW1 himself as noted above, admitted this fact that he served at Andaman &Nicobar Islands for about a period of 2 1/2 years, that too voluntarily, must weigh in his favour, that he was good in recovering of loan amount is taken note of by the DisciplinaryAuthority itself in the impugned punishment order.

22. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances narrated above and at the same time being conscious of the fact that the misconduct committed by the workman involves no moral turpitude , it appears to me that the punishment of Compulsory Retirement meted out to the workman is excessive and not commensurate to the gravity ofthe misconduct committed by him . It appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if the punishment of Compulsory Retirement is substituted by lesser punishment of withholding of 5 Annual Increments of the workman with cumulative effect from the date ofthe original punishment order dated4-4-2000. He shall be reinstated with continuity ofservice from the date of his dismissal but not entitled to any back wages. His unauthorized absence period of 81 days shallbe treated as any kind of leave permissibleunder therules.Accordingly reference is answered and following award ispassed.

ORDER

that the first party never submitted leave application as per leave rules and submitted such applications at his own convenient time along with medical certificates . It was rightly held by the Enquiry Officer that the absence ofthe first in violation of the leave rules was unauthorized. Their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case reported in 2003 102 FJR 479 (SC) while dealing with a similar question held that the inere making of an application for leave cannot be construed to be of any consequence in the background of the strict requirement of giving proper intimation. In the instant case, it is something more . Here the first party never gave applications before he proceeded on leave or remained absent from duty getting leave sanctioned in time .He also didnot submit medical certificates whenever he reported for duty after remining absent from duty. Therefore, the case onhand is a clear case of unauthorized absence and there cannot be two opinion for that. Now the onlyquestion to be considered would be ' Whether there are circumstances favouring the first party to take any lenient view' . Of course in the decisions cited on behalf of the management, in most ofthe cases , the dismissal order for misconduct of unauthorized absence was up held by the Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court but as submitted by the learned counsel for the first party there are mitigating circumstances in this case to be considered in favour of the first party. The first one as said above is the fact undisputed that for the period of unauthorized absence from 16-8-1997 to 24-9-98, Charge sheet dated 15-9-99 was served upon the first party in the month of October 1999 i.e. after a gap of more than one year from the date of alleged misconduct. This delay on the part of the management in issuing the charge sheet though may not haveprejudiced the case ofthe first party but it shows that the management was little bit hesitant in issuing the charge sheet . The next circumstance is the fact brought out in the statement of MWI before the Enquiry Officer wherein no uncertainterms MWI in whose period the first party worked atBasavakalayan Branch , to question No. 6, stated that the first party is good and hard worker and he is a good worker except for his absentism . When a suggestion was made to him at Question No. 7 that he was absent from duty from 20-8-97 to 30-8-97 and from 1-12-97 to 31-12-97 on accunt of his illness , the plain answer given by MWI was ' Yes' . When a question was put to him as to on what ground the first party remained absent from 3-9-98 to24-9- 98, his answer was that ' it was on sick grounds and to see hismother'. Therefore , the statement of MWI , a material witness for the management, would make it abundantly clear that on most of the times, the first party remained absent from duty on account of his illness and some time to see his mother. Therefore, the observations made by the Lordship of our Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

The Five Annual Increments of the workman are withheldwith cumulative effect w.e.f. 4th April 2000. He shall be reinstated with continuity of service from the dated ofhis dismissal but not entitled to any back wages . His unauthorized absence period of 81 days shall be treatedas anykind ofleave permissible under the rules.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th June 2004)

WritAppeal cited on behalfof the first party to some extent will support his case saying that the misconduct is technical in nature. The next important circumstance not to

A. R. SIDDIQUI, PresidingOfficer [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 4040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

2. The Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust Tuticorin .

3. The Administrator, *** Tuticorin Port Trust Cargo Handling Labour Pool , Tuticorin .

*** 3rd Respondent is impleaded as per order of this Tribunal dated 14-2-2003.

APPEARANCE :

का०आ० 1702.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार तूतीकोरीन पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 540/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Forthe Claimant : M/s P. K. Rajagopal & K. Santhakumari , Advocates [सं० एल.-44011/3/98- आई० आर० ( एम ) ]

सी० गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव For the Respondent : M/s . T. S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates No. 1 & 3

New Delhi, the 21st June, 2004

For the Respondent : M/ s. M. Sriram, D. Rajendran & No. 2 A. Gandhi , Advocates .

AWARD

S.O. 1702.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 540/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Tuticorin Port Trust and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004.

[No. L-44011/3/98 - IR (M)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide NotificationNo.L-44011/3/98 -IR (M) dated 14-12-1998 has earlier referred this industrial dispute to Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal for adjudication . The Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal has taken the same on its file as I.D. No. 146/98 and issued notices to both sides and both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim statement and counter statement respectively and after the constitution of this Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, the said Industrial Dispute was transferred to this Tribunal and after the receipt of records of this dispute, it was re- numbered as I.D. No. 540/ 2001 and notices were issued to both the parties for further prosecution.

Friday, the 30th April, 2004

2. The schedule mentioned dispute in the order of reference is hereunder :-

PRESENT:

K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 540/2001

(Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal LD.No. 146/98 )

"Whether the action of the management of Tuticorin Stevedore's Association in denying employment to the following 26 Cargo Handling Workers is justified? If not to what relief are they entitled to ?"

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between theManagement of Tuticorin Stevedores Association and theirworkmen)

BETWEEN :

: 1 Party/Claimant

The Secretary, Tuticorin Port & Mariners ' Union, Tuticorin.

AND

1. Shri S. Singu , 2. Shri K. Chellappa, 3. Shri Muniasamy, 4. Shri S. Gurusamy, 5. Shri T. Pious , 6. Shri S. Palanivel , 7. Shri M. Muniasamy, 8. Shri C. Velusamy, 9. Shri A. Kasankathan, 10. Shri A. Subramanian, 11. Shri A. Soliappa, 12. Shri V. Arumugam, 13. Shri P. Chellaperumal , 14. Shri O. Paulraj ,, 15. Shri S. Rajendran, 16. Shri G. Gompa Mada, 17. Shri C. Velu , 18. Shri M. Perumal , 19. Shri T. Thamma Perumal, 20. Shri A. Mayandi , 21. Shri M. Muniasamy , 22. Shri L. Percy Motha, 23. Shri R. Palanichamy, 24. Shri M. Thangaraj , 25. Shri K. Sakthivel and 26. Shri C. Thamman .

: II Party/Management

3. The allegations of the Petitioners in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

1. The Administrator Tuticorin Stevedores Association, Tuticorin .

4041 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The workmen concerned joined the services of economic justice enshrined in the Constitution of India. After the Industrial Dispute was taken on file and after filing of the pleadings by original parties , the third Respondent came into being and the rights and obligations ofthe 1st Respondent were passed on to third Respondent by virtue of express agreement , Hence , the third Respondent has been added as a party to the Industrial Dispute. Therefore , the Petitioner Union prays that an award may be passed directing the Respondent to reinstate the concerned employees on regular basis with continuity of service and other attendant benefits and since the third Respondent has taken over the first Respondent, the reliof sought for against first Respondent is now sought for against the third Respondent .

4. As against this , the 1st Respondent in its Counter Statement has alleged that historically in the Tuticorin Port, the cargo whether imported or exported was carried by plying country boats from the main land to the ships anchored was about six miles away vice versa , in other words, it was only an anchored port . The Ist Respondent was formed in the year 1952 and the stevedores who were operating in Tuticorin were members of the association . The labour pool of the 1st Respondent Association came into being only from November, 1981. In 1960 a new port wasdeveloped for steamer vessels to call at Tuticorin and this was called as new harbour and the original berth was called as old harbour. In the year 1980 it was felt that the Cargo Handling Workers in Tuticorin should be brought under one centralised agency and their employment should be regulated. Form 1980 the Tuticorin Port Trust started issuing dock entry permits to the labourers working under the Stevedores and other port users . In October, 1981 a casual labour pool of Cargo Handling Workers holding dock entry permits was prepared and it contained 3646 naines . The Cargo Handling Workers of Tuticorin Port also demanded similar regularisation in the services ofan institution and they threatened that they would go on'strike boycotting all the vessels from 1-9-81 and during the course of concitiation on 31-8-81 a settlenient under section 12(3) was me. Under this settlement, itwas agreed that pending establishment of a suitably agency system an adhoc committee consisting of the representatives of stevedores. steamer agents , two union representatives will attendto thework of rotational booking of Cargo Handling Workers for both Zone A and Zone B. From November , 1981 the Ist Respondent started rotational booking on ad- hoc basis and when the 1st Respondent started allocating the listed Cargo Handling Workers on rotational basis , the 2nd Respondent insisted that it should be informed of holders of dock entry permits who do not offer themselves for engagement continuously for 45 days , so that in those cases, they will cancel the permits. Accordingly , the 1st Respondent used to send intimationto the 2nd Respondent every month, the list of workmen who have not offered themselves for engagement continuously for 45 days and various cargo handling contractors doing the work ofPort Trust for over a decade and more as in the year 1981. These workers along with several other similarly placed workmen had done the work of Port almost continuously round -the clock for years together under very adverse working conditions. Their names had been borne out in an agreed list ofworkmen doing the job as casual pool workers, based on unanimous written agreement of all concerned. Negotiations were held in the presence of Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Chennai between the port authorities . Tuticorin Port Users ( Stevedores) and the representatives of Labour consisting of several Trade Unions for the purpose of decasualisation and regularisation of these workers including the Petitioners and a settlement under Section 12(3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act was entered into on 1-8-81 and it was also published in the Gazette . Finally, an agreed list of workmen to be absorbed and regularised in service was prepared and published in October, 1981. In the settlement , a provision was made stating that ' cargo handling labour for deployment will be taken only from the agreed list of the casual pool of Cargo Handling Workers finalised by the port . It contains 3686 names based on number of permits issued by the Port Authority. The names of 26 workmen concerned in the present Industrial Dispute are also included in that. These concerend workmen were contimied to work under Tuticorin Stevedores Association right upto August, 1982. Their addresses were also available both in the agreed list as well as in the records of Tuticorin Stevedores Association . But these workers were not called for medical examination to ascertain their fitness and all of a sudden they were refused entry passes from September, 1982. They were not continued in service thereafter. No notice of termination or any consagunication was served on them either prior to non -employment or thereafter. At the same time, the other similarly place workmen were given employment . Finally , they approached the then Secretary ofthe Petitioner Union who was Labour Trustee in the Port TrustBoard with a memorandum demanding employment and the same was forwarded to the Assistam Labour Commissioner (Central drum . When the matterwas taken up for conciliation , the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) refused to entertain the dispute on untenable grounds by letter dated 18-6-85 and thereupon the Union was constrained to challenge the refusal to entertain the dispute by a Writ Petition before the High Court in W.P. No. 11740 of 1985 and after the final order in the said W.P. on 13-12-95 , the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Chennai has taken the matter and on submission ofhis failure report , the matter was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. The refusal of employment by the Tuticorin Stevedores Association amounts to illegal non-employment and it is arbitrary, unlawful and violative of law governing employer employee relationship and the non -employment is contrary to the principles of socio-

2052 G1 /2004-26 4042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004 / ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

the annexure to claim petition were not working under the Respondent/Tuticorin Port Trust as stated by the Petitioner Union in the Claim statement and they were not members of the 1st Respondent Association . The said 26 workers were employed by independent stevedores in Tuticorin Portprior to 31-8-81 and therefore, the Respondent Tuticorin Port Trust has nothing to do with them and hence, this industrial dispute is not maintainable and the same is liable tobe dismissed in limine . The other contentions of the 2nd Respondent are more or less the same of the 1st Respondent.

6. The 3rd Respondent in its Counter Statement disputes the alleged denial of employment to 26 Cargo Handling Workers mentioned in the reference and the denial ofemployment is alleged against the Ist Respondent Association. The pool of Cargo Handling Workers were demanding absorption in the service of the 2nd Respondent and in support of the said demand , the Cargo Handling Workers went on a strike on 1-1-98 and subsequently, the dispute was pursued in conciliation . On 22-12-99 a settlement was made under section 12 ( 3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947by which it was agreed that, the 3rd Respondent would absorb the 1926 workers and 64 staff and officers in the 3rd Respondent pool. The 3rd Respondent came into being pursuant to the settlement and in terms of the settlement , the 3rd Respondent is liable to absorb and also answerable only to the claim of 1990 workers, staff and officers . The 3rd Respondent is neither liable nor obliged to consider any other person for employment or for any other claim . Even if the Petitioner succeeds , they will have to look up to the 1st Respondent for relief. They cannot ask any relief against the 3rd Respondent. Hence , the 3rd Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

7. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are

(i ) "Whether the action of the 1st Respondent in denying the employment to the 26 Cargo Handling Workers isjustified? "

(ii) " To what relief, the 26 Cargo Handling Workers are entitled ? "

Point No. 1 :-

basing on such letters , the 2nd Respondent used to cancel their dock entry permits . When once the dock entry permits are cancelled by the 2nd Respondent , the 1st Respondent also used to remove the name of those persons from the list of Cargo Handling Workers maintained by it . Between November, 1981 and January , 1983 , the 2nd Respondent cancelled the dock entry permits of a large number of workmen including the 26 workmen who are concerned in the present dispute who did not offer themselves for engagement and based on the cancellation , the 1st Respondent also removed their names from the list of cargo handling workers maintained as from 1-11-81 . The Cargo Handling Workers who were given rotational booking were recciving wages from the stevedores . They were not happy about the arrangement and they wanted that they should be brought under the control of the 1st Respondent . On 11-5-83. a settlement was made between the 1st Respondent and unions representing the workmen in the Tuticorin Port Trust by which it was agreed that Cargo Handling Workers will be subject to screening and it will be completed before 30-7-83 . Accordingly , the Ist Respondent used to display notice at the call point calling upon the listed Cargo Handling Workers to appear for medical test and for other verification and such of those workers who passed the screening test were taken on the rolls of the 1 st Respondent and they were extended all the benefits in terms of the settlement dated 11-5-83 . The persons concerned were not in the list of Cargo Handling Workers when screening was agreed to be done by the settlement dated 11-5-83 . To the knowledge of the 1st Respondent many among the 26 persons were recruited by one local recruiting agency and they were taken to the port of Guetar and they did not offer themselves for engagement even long before the settlement dated 11-5-83 . Therefore , the question of considering them for employment in the services of the Respondent did not arise. In this case, the Petitioner Union is put to strict proof of its representative character to espouse the cause of the 26 persons mentioned in the order of reference. The Petitioner Union has no authority or competence to raise or maintain the present dispute. It is only in May , 1985 the 26 persons mentioned in the order of reference submitted a. joint memorandum to the Petitioner that they had worked in the port upto August , 1982. Therefore , the countenance of the said claim now after nearly 17 years will be neither fair nor just to the 1st Respondent or to the other listed workmen . Further, if the claim of the 26 persons is to be countenanced , it will substantially jeopardize the interest ofother listed Cargo Handling Workers as their employment opportunities will get reduced . Further, the 26 persons mentioned in the order of reference are not remaining idle and they are in gainful occupation . Hence, for all these reasons , the 1st Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed.

5. The 2nd Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the 26 Cargo Handling Workers given in

8. It is an admitted case of both sides that Tuticorin Stevedores Association was formed in the year 1952 and the Labour Pool of the Tuticorin Stevedores Association namely 1st Respondent came into being in the year 1981 and in 1960s when a new port was developed for steamer vessels to call at Tuticorin , it is called as new harbour and the original berth was called as old harbour. In the year 1980 it was felt that Cargo Handling Workers of Tuticorin should be brought under one centralised agency and their employment should be regulated and from the year 1980 , theTuticorin Port Trust started issuing dock entry permits [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

to labourers working under the stevedores and other port users . In October , 1981 a casual labour pool of Cargo Handling Workers holding dock entry permits was prepared and it contained 3686 names. Subsequently , the Cargo Handling Workers of Tuticorin Port demanded regularisation of their services and they threatened that they would go on strike boycotting all vessels from 1-9-81 . Subsequently, during conciliation on 31-8-81 under Ex. M3 a settlement under section 12 (3 ) of Industrial DisputesAct, was made and it was further agreed that pending establishment of a suitable agency system on ad -hoc committee consisting of representatives of stevedores , steamer agents and two union representatives will attend to the work of rotational booking of Cargo Handling Workers for both Zone . A namely new harbour and Zone B, namely old harbour.

9. Then it is the case of the 1st Respondent , when that being the case , the 2nd Respondent namely Port Trust insisted that is should be informed about holders of dock entry permits, who do not offer themselves for engagement continuously for 45 days , so that in those cases, they will cancel the dock entry permits . Accordingly , the Stevedores Association namely the 1st Respondent , used to send intimation to the 2nd Respondent every month, a list of workmen, who have not offered themselves for engagement ofcontinuously for 45 days and it is the further case ofthe 1st Respondent that between Noveinber, 1981 and January, 1983 the 2nd Respondent namely the Port Trust has cancelled the dock entry permits of a large number of workmen including the 26 workmen, concerned in the present dispute who did not offer themselves for engagement were cancelled and the ist Respondent also removed their names from the list of Cargo Handling Workers list maintained from 1-11-81 .

10. But , as against this, it is the case of the Petitioner Union that they worked under the Tuticorin Stevedores Association right upto August , 1982 and their addresses were available both in the agreed list as well as the records of Tuticorin Stevedores Association and they werc not called for medical examination to ascertain their medical fitness and all of a sudden. they were refused entry passes from September , 1982 and they were not continued in service thereafter and no notice of termination or any other communication was served on them either prior to their non - employment or thereafter. Therefore, it is the admitted fact of both sides that after the agreed lists were prepared on 11-5-1983 , the Cargo Handling Workers , who were given rotational booking were receiving wages from the Stevedores and they were not happy about the arrangement and they were keen that they should be brought under the control of the Ist Respondent and since the Cargo Handling Workers to whom roll numbers were assigned were fairly large and with the equitable distribution of the available job opportunities , each worker could not get work even for two days in a month , it was suggested that before the ist

4043 Respondent namely the Stevedores Association absorb the listed Cargo Handling Workers , they should be screened about their age , physical capacity , medical fitness and bonafide of the pass holders. On behalf of the Petitioner Union, it was contended that the concerned employees were not called for medical fitness. The 1st Respondent wantonly avoided the concerned employees to be tested by medical team and subsequently the dock entry permits were also cancelled and they were not permitted to enter the port and under such circumstances , they have taken the matter before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

11. But as against this , the Respondent contended that many among these concerned employees were recruited by one local recruiting agency and they were taken to port Quetar and they were not offered themselves even long before the settlement i . e. 11-5-1983. Therefore , the question of considering them for employment in the services of the Respondent and the question of medical examination will not arise at all and they have abandoned the work of the Respondent in the Port. Further , the Respondent have stated that they have issued general notice for the absentees and it was affixed in the call point of the Ist Respondent in the Port and such of 3686 listed Cargo Handling Workers who passed the screening test were taken on the rolls of Tuticorin Stevedores Association and they were extended all the benefits in terms of the settlement dated 11-5-83 . The concemed employees were not in the list of Cargo Handling Workers , when the scrcening was done because even long prior to that datc , they left India and they were not available for screening .Therefore, they have not offered themselves for engagement and which resulted in dock entry permits being cancelled by Port Authorities .

12. On behalf of the 1st Respondent reliance was placed on Ex. M10 , M11 and M13. Ex. M10 is the notice issued by the 1st Respondent regarding removal of names of such of those workers from the rolls of the 1st Respondent . Ex. M11 is the minutes of meeting held on 18-5-83 . As per the settlement dated, 11-5-83 in which the 1st Respondent and the Port Trust Authorisies have taken follow up action as per the above settlement, in which they have agreed how the medical examination has to be conducted and how the wages has to be distributed among the Cargo Handling Workers . Ex. M13 is the screening records of 1056 workmen of the 11 Party in which it is clearly mentioned that the concerned employees due to their absence and on enquiry that they have again approached theyhave not attended the screening programme . Further, the counsel for the 1st Respondent also placed reliance on the communication sent by the 2nd Respondent to the 1st Respondent with regard to cancellation of dock entry permits namely Ex. M4, M7 and M9 in which the dock entry permits have been cancelled for the persons who were not attended the work for more than 45 days .

4044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) )

and this delay will be a fatal to their claim and he has relied on the rulings reported in 2002 I LLJ 457, wherein the Supreme Court has held that the " the delay for more than nine years in approaching the Labour Officer would come in long way of true that the delay is fatal to the case of the employees . In that case, where there was a serious dispute regarding the relationship between the parties as cinployer and employee, long delay would come in way of employer in maintenance of records and the situation would render the claim to have become stale and the delay in that case is fatal to the case

15. But. as against this , the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that even though it is alleged that there is a delay of more than three years in approaching the Labour Officer, in this case, the concerned employees expecting up their representation before the 1st Respondent and they waited for a reasonable time and only after that they have approached the Labour Officer and further the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) has rejected the contention of the Petitioner and therefore , they have to approach the High Court for taking their matter by the labourOfficer and it was ended only in the year 1995. Only after that the conciliation was made but on the failure of conciliation , the matter was referred to this Tribunal and therefore , it cannot be said that there is a long delay and the delay is unavoidable . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that it is a fatal to the Petitioner's case .

16. But , again the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that though their matter was taken cognisance by the High Court , they have not given any valid explanation for approaching the labour Officer three years after the termination . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that they have approached this Court without any delay . Furhter, it is one of the evidences that will show that these concerned employees have left India and they were not available in India as alleged by the Respondent . Further, though it is argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent has not taken the plea that employe left India to Quatar, but even in the Counter Statement , the Ist Respondent has clearly stated that the concerned employees have left India and therefore, it cannot be said that due enquiry was not held by the 1st Respondent with regard to their availability in India. were 13. As against this. the counsel for the Petitioner contended that the witnesses examined on the side of the Ist Respondent has clearly admitted that the concerned employees names were found in the agreed list i.e. 3686 names . But they have not issued any notice of termination and they have not issued any individual notice . Under such circumstances , the termination is illegal and void ab initio and they have not follwed any procedure as laid down under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Under such circumstances , the concerned employees are to be reinstated in service as prayed for. Further, it is not the case ofthe Respondent that the concerned employees have left India for egging out their livelihood . Only in the evidence, they have produced certain office copy of the notice which are alleged to have been the correspondence between the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent and there is no proof that individual notices were sent to the concerned employees . under such circumstances , these documents will not give any strength to the contention of the Respondents . Further, there is no proof that the concerned employees have left India for job and the document produced as Ex. M22 , which is the copy of the letter sent by one Diamond Shipping Agents to the Traffic Manager , Tuticorin Port Trust will not in any way show that one of the concerned employees has left Quatar for hisjob. Further, it is the admission of the Respondent witness that the entire workers were under the control of the 1st Respondent and if any workman remained absent , it will be known only to the Ist Respondent and the Port Trust will have no reason for his absence and the Port Trust will not search for concerned workman and therefore , under such circumstances , this document Ex . M22 addressed to the Port Trust by individual stevedore will not help in any way to show that one of the employees in this dispute had left for Quatar. Further, the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that it is the admission of the Respondent witness that they have not issued any individual notice to the persons concemed and they have also not produced any general notice alleged to have been issued by them in this regard and therefore , the allegation that they have affixed notice with regard to the long absence of the concerned employees cannot be believed and therefore , the action of the Respondent is illegal and it cannot be valid in low .

17.But, again the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that when the agreed list namely Ex . M2 has contained the residential addresses of the concerned employees , the 1st Respondent has not taken any steps to serve any notice with regard to their long absence . Under such circumstances , the allegation made by the 1st Respondent and also the other Respondents that the concerned employees were not available in India for screening is a false one .

14. As against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that it is admitted case of the Petitioner that there is no enmity between the 1st Respondent and the concerned employees and under such circumstances , they have not stated for what reason they have excluded these employees . Further , it is the contention of the Petitioner Union that these employees were disengaged on September, 1982 and they have approached only in the year 1985 i.c. three years after their alleged disengagement. Under such circumstances , the concerned employees have to explain for the delay in approaching the labour department

18. Though, I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, on a perusal of the 4045 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

19. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the concerned employees are not entitled to any relief as claimed by the Petitioner Union . No Costs.

20. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronouncedby me in the open court on this day the 30th April, 2004.)

K. JAYARAMAN,Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:-

: WW1 Sri M. Ravindran

Forthe I party/Workman

MW1 Sri R. Sudalaiyandi

Forthe II Party/Management :

Documents Marked-

Forthe I party/Workman;-

Ex. No. Date

Description

W1

14-09-87

Xerox copy ofthe circular issuedby respondent regarding details of punishment awarded.

Forthe II Party/Management: -

Date

Ex. No.

Description

M1 17-02-86

Xerox copy of the order passed by CIT(Appeals)Exempting the II Party No. 2

Oct. 81 Xerox copy of the list containing the names of Casual pool ofcargo handling

M3 01-09-81 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement U/ s . 13 ofI.D. Act.

M4 25-11-82 Xerox copy of the letter from 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent regarding cancellation of entry permits

M5 27-11-82 Xerox copy of the letter from 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent

M6 29-11-82 Xerox copy of the letter from 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent

M7 31-12-82 Xerex copy of the letter from 2nd Respondent to bst. Respondent regarding cancellation of entry permits

documents produced by the Respondent namely Ex. M10 , MI1 , M13 , M4 , M7 and M9 , I find it is clear that the Respondent has taken all steps and only because of the concerned employees long absence, they were not available for screening and therefore, their dock entry permits were nightly cancelled by the 2nd Respondent. Under such circumstances, since the concerned employees were not available for screening and were not available to work in the Port, their dock entry permits were cancelled and after the cancellation of dock entry permits , they were not included in the final list and therefore , they cannot claim any relief withregard to their contention. Though, it is said that there is no delay on the part of the concerned employees to approach the Labour Officer , it is clear that only because theywere not available in India, they have not approached the labour department from the year 1982 to 1985. Under such circumstances, I,find the delay is fatal and it clearly proves that they were not available at that time in India. Further, from the documents produced namely Ex. M21 and M22 which are alleged to be created documents by the Petitioner, I find these documents are true documents and it clearly prove that one of the concerned employees was not available and he had left India for Quatar. Further, it is not disputed that the signature found in Ex. M-21 is not of the concerned employees , under such circumstances , I findthere is no merit in the contention ofthe Petitioner Union. Further in this case , even though the Petitioner Union contended that the Respondent has terminated the employees without any notice and so on, not even a single employee was examined in this case of establish their contention . Though, it isnot necessary that all the employees should be examined in this case, when the allegations were made against the concerned employees that they were not in India during that period, they can come and depose before this Tribunal that they were very well available at that time and it was only a mistake of the Respondent that they have not been called for screening.But, for the reasons best known to them, they have not entered into the witness box . Under such circumstances, I find the contention of the Respondent is a true one. Further , the General Secretary of the Unionwas examined on the behalf of the Petitioner has clearly admitted that ifthe employees were not turned up for duty continously, they will issue general notice and publication and cancel the dock entry permit issued to them. In this case, since the Respondent has established that after the general notice the dock entry permits have been cancelled to the persons who have absented for duty for more than 45 days , I find the cancellation ofdock entry permits issued to the concerned employees will hold good. Under such circumstances , I find there is no merits in the case ofthe Petitioner Union that the concemed employees have been terminated from service illegally . As such, I find this point against the Petitioner Union.

M8 05-01-83

PointNo. 2 :-

Xerox copy of the letter from 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent regarding cancellation of entry permits

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioneris entitled ?

4046

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

Ex. No. Date

Description

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून , 2004

M9 28-04-83 Xerox copy of the letter from 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent

M10 30-04-83 Xerox copy of the notice issued by 1stRespondent

M11 18-05-83 Xerox copy of the minutes ofmeeting

M12 20-08-83 &21-8-83

का. आ. 1703.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट टस्टके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्दीय सरकार को 20-5-2002 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Xerox copy ofthe minutes of meeting regarding screening of Cargo HandlingWorkers .

M13 Nil

Xerox copy ofthe screening records of 1056 workmen.

[सं. एल.- 33011/1/2002- आई. आर. ( एम) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव M14 21-10-97 Xerox copy of the minutes of joint discussion between the parties .

New Delhi , the 21st June , 2004 M15 29-12-96 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement u/ s . 12(3 ).

M16 22-12-96 Хегоox copy of the memorandum of settlement u/s . 12 (3 ) .

M17 01-09-81 Xerox copy of the notification of TuticorinPort-Trust.

M18 Nil

Xerox copy ofthe cancellation list of dock entry permits.

S.O. 1703. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 99/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chennai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-5-2004.

M19 Nil

Xerox copy of the official note of Tuticorin Port Trust.

Nil

M20

[No. L-33011/1 /2002 -IR(M) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy . ANNEXURE

Xerox copy of the list of dock entry permit holders who are continuously absent .

M21 03-11-82

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Xerox copy of the letter from palaniswamy to Tuticorin Port Trust

M22 25-11-82

Monday, the 5th April , 2004

PRESENT :

Xerox copy ofthe letter from Diamond Shipping Agency to Tuticorin Port Trust.

M23 25-11-82 Xerox copy of the cancellation order ofTuticorin Port Trust .

K. Jayaraman, PresidingOfficer

M24 27-11-82

Industrial Dispute No. 99/2002 Xerox copy of the letter from 1st Respondent to 2nd Respondent .

M25 29-11-82 Xerox copy of the letter from 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent .

M26 31-12-82

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub-section 2 (A) of section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Chennai Port Trust.and their workmen)

Xerox copy of the letter from 2nd Respondent to 1st Respondent .

M27

BETWEEN :

06-11-83

:1Party/Claimant Xerox copy ofthe letter from Tuticorin Stevedores Association to Tuticorin PortTrust .

28-04-83

M28

TheGeneral Secretary, Madras Port Trust United Labour Union, Chennai . AND

Xerox copy of the letter fromTuticorin Stevedores Association to Tuticorin PortTrust with list of absentees .

M29

: II Party /Respondents 28-08-88 Xerox copy of the long absentees givenby INTU.

1. The Chairman, Chennai Port Trust , Chennai

M30 11-05-83 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement u/s . 18 (1 ) .

2. The Secretary, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4047

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

Ministry of Shipping & Transport, New Delhi .

** 2nd Respondent is impleaded as per order in I.A. No. 59/2003.

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Claimant : M/s . R. P. Pannerselvam & R. Damodharan, Advocates

For the Respondent : Mr J. Sathyanarayana Prasad, No. I Advocates

For the Respondent : No. 2

M/ s . K. Akhilandeswari, ACGSC

AWARD

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Notification Order No.L - 33011 / 1 /2002- IR(M) dated 22-10-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:-

"Whether the demand of the Madras Port United Labour Union for redesignation of DiplomaHolders in the Chennai Port Trust as Junior Engineer Gr.II / Gr.I and for revision of pay scales is justified?"

holders, the Port Trust management in the conciliation has stated that the Indian Port Association has recommended for the same and the matter is pending with the Govt. Since the implementation of Indian Port Association recommendation is unduly delayed, this issue was raised inthe Chennai Port Trusts board meeting on 18-2-2001 and it was resolved by resolution No. 192 that the Govt. be requested to give approval for implementation of the recommendation contained in Indian Port Association committee. But even the Board's resolution has no desired results and therefore, the non -implementation of the above mentioned recommendation till now is arbitrary and against the law. The total financial implementation also come down fromRs . 3.21 crores to Rs . 2.65 crores per annum which is proposedtobe met by abolition of 208 class III/IV posts. Hence, no additional expenditure incurred for cadre- structuring and revise the pay scales ofdiploma and degree holders of major ports and also Chennal Port Trust in particular. But, Chennaf Port Trust have failed to clicit my positive response regarding the above mentioned proposal so far. Therefore, the inordinate delay is arbitrary and against the law and natural justice and also violation of Article21 ofthe Constitution because right to social justice isalso a fundamental rights . Therefore, the Petitioner Union prays that an award may be passed in their favour as prayod for.

2.After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D.No.99 / 2002 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through theiradvocates and filed the Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively. On the side of the I Party/Union, a petition was filed before this Tribunal to implead the Secretary , Union of India, Ministry of Shipping & Transport, New Delhi as 2nd Respondent in this dispute and the same was allowed by this Tribunal vide J.A. 59/2003. Thereafter the I Party Union filed the amended Claim Statement impleading the Secretary , Ministry of Shipping & Transport, New Delhi as 2nd Respondent and the 1st Respondent /Management also filed their additional Counter Statements.

3. The allegations in the Claim Statement and Additional Claim Statement of the Petitioner Union are brieflyas follows :-

4. As against this the Respondent in the Counter Statement contended that the Indian Port Association have constituted a committee on restructuring of cadre of diploma/degree engineers and this Committee after hearing theviews of all the Degree/Diploma Engineers Association functioning in various ports and also the port management, had submitted its report in the year 1996. In the said report under Chapter 8 para 3.4/3.5 the Committee have recommendation for redesignation and also refixing the scales of pay . The Committee's report is only recommendatory in nature and the recommendations contained in the said report should be examined by the Govt.before implementation ne per their letter and theGovt. is now examining the recommendations contained in the Committee's report in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and its final orders are still awaited . Therefore, the claim ofthePetitioner Union that pay revision w.e.f. 1-1-97 wasbased on the recommendation ofthese two Committees has no relevance. Further, the Petitioner is confusing between cadre restructuring for diploma and degree engineers in Major Ports and cadre restructuring for Class I and II Officers . Hence , for all these reasons the Ist Respondent prays that the claim may be diaminod The Petitioner Union has raised this demand on the II Party/Management that the degree/diploma engineers in the categories of Special Mechanics, Supervisor Grade I and Supervisor Grade II in the Electrical, Mechanical and Engineering Departments be redesignated as Junior Engineer Grade I and Grade II as recommended by the Committee appointed by Indian Port Association. The said recommendations have been forwarded to the Ministry for its approval during 1996, but no decision has been taken by the Ministry till date. When the I Party Union issued strike notice dated 24-11-2000 against the II Party/ Management for revision ofpay and allowances for diploma

5. After amending the Chains Statement of t PetitionerUnion, which includes the Semetary, Ma Shipping & Transport as 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent in the additional CounterStatement has alleged that the cadre restructuring could be implemented by the Port Trust management only prospectively and not THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

4048

retrospectively from 31-12-96. Further, the 1st Respondent made similar allegations as that of made in I.D. No. 82/2002 .

6. The 2nd Respondent has filed Counter Statement and has raised same allegations as made in I.D. No. 82/2002 .

7. As against this , the I Party/Petitioner Union has filed a reply statement alleging that the reasons given by the Respondents for not giving retrospective effect are not reasonable . Further it is alleged that the settlement does not speak about any additional cost to the Port Trust . Though the 2nd Respondent contended that the cadre restructuring proposal was under consideration of the Govt. the Port Trusts including the Chennai Port Trust have been instructed not to wait for the final decision of the Central Govt. regarding cadre restructuring proposal . Even the High Court in its decision in W.A.No. 12/51/2000 dated 26-6-2001 and the review petition to Writ Appeal held clearly thatdiploma holders are entitled to promotion on the basis of common seniority in pursuance of decision as per the guidelines provided by the Central Govt. It also held that the matter is pending for a long time, the Port will be well advised to finish all these exercises within six months from thedate ofjudgement. Therefore , the Petitioner Union prays for an order to the Respondent/Management to implement redesignation and pay fixation pertaining to diploma holders retrospectively as the Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case .

8. In these circumstances , the points for may determination are--

(1) " Whether the demand made by the Petitioner Union for re -designation of diploma holders as Junior Engineers Grade II/I and for revision of pay scales isjustified ?"

(ii) " To what relief they are entitled?"

Point No. 1 :-

9. In this case, on the side of the Petitioner Union 12 documents were marked as Ex . Wl to W 12 and on the side ofthe Respondent 3 documents were marked as Ex.Ml to M3 and no one was examined as a witness on either side .

10. The Petitioner's contention in this case is that the diploma engineers , belonging to class III employees consisting of Special Mechanics , Supervisor Grade 11 and Supervisor Grade I are in the Electrical and Mechanical departments . It is the further contention of the Petitioner that for all these categories , the incumbent must be in a possession of Diploma in Mechanical /Electrical/Electronics/ Automobile Engineers of State Board of Technical Education . It is the further contention of the Petitioner that the two posts namely Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II though they have same responsibilities, but the said two posts have different scales of pay and as such the principle of equal pay for equal work will apply to the above

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] two categories ofposts . Further, it is the contention ofthe Petitioner that in all the Central Govt . institutions and also in some Ports in India, Diploma Engineers are called as Junior Engineers . In the wage settlement under Section 12(3) of Industrial Disputes Act dated 6-12-94, there was a clause that the problems in respect of class IV and III employees can be locally discussed and settled . The Ministry of Surface and Transport also instructed the Indian Port Association by letter dated 20-7-95 to re-examine the problems of degree/diploma engineers and to submit . their report. In view of the said letter, the Indian Port Association formed a Committee consisting of Chairman, Member Secretary and Two Members . The Indian Port Association Committee made its recommendations for re- designating the psots of Special Machinics and Supervisor Grade II as Junior Engineer Grade II and for designating the posts of Supervisor Grade I as Junior Engineer I and also they have recommended to revise the scales accordingly . But , even though the Indian Port Association has recommended for re -designation and also re -fixing of scales of pay of diploma holders , the said proposal has not been implemented till now. Therefore, the Petitioner Union has issued a strike notice under section 22 of the Industrial Disputes Act , demanding re - designation of Special Machanics and Supervisor Grade II as Junior Engineer Grade II and supervisor Grade I as Junior Engineer Grade I and also revising their pay scales on 18-11-2000 . In which , conciliation was also made , but it was ended in a failure. But, even in that conciliation , the Port Trust has accepted that the Indian Port Association has recommended for re- designation and re -fixing the pay of diploma holders and they are awaiting for the sanction of the Ministry and thererfore , they cannot implement the same immediatley . Onbehalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that it is well within the power of Port Administration to implement the recommendations of Indian Port Association and therefore , they have raised the dispute before this Tribunal .

11. As against this , the Ist Respondent contended that in the Ist Counter Statement contended that it cannot be said that the two posts namely Special Machinics and Supervisor Grade II in Electrical and Mechanical Departments are having the same responsibilities . It is contended that Special Mechanics were appointed mainly for operation of the various sophisticated equipment and for doing quality maintenance jobs on sophisticated equipments , whereas the Special Mechanics are not entrusted with Supervisory duties , though their qualification ofSpecial Mechanics may be the same as that ofthe Supervisor Grade II . But,Ifind this contention ofthe 1st Respondent has no substance because, on behalf of the Petitioner Union, it was contended that even for the supervisory staff posting for operation and maintenance for every day's work, charge handed over to the Special Mechanics by the Supervisors and again it was handed over by the Special Mechanics to the Supervisor Grade II

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

4049 and this work was done as a day to day work and as such it cannot be said that Special Mechanics are not entrusted with supervisory duties. Thefore , I find no substance inthe contention of the leamed counsel for the Respondent.

12. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings reported in 1982 3SCR 298 RANDHIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. wherein the Supreme Court while considering the Driver/Constable in Delhi Police Force under Delhi Administration has given a finding that " the Petitioner and other driver constables are getting lesser pay than the drivers in Railway Protection Force and other Govt. institutions , therefore, they made representation to the authorities wherein they stated that theirpay scales should be the same as the drivers ofheavy vehicles in other departments, and as their claimsfor better scales of pay did not meet with success , the present application has been filed by the Petitioner for the issue ofWrit under Article 32 of the Constitution . "

14. The counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings in W.A. No. 1251 of 2000 by the DivisionBench oftheMadras High Court , wherein the Division Bench of the Madras High Court while considering the Assistant Engineers of Diploma Holders held that " the persons/ Petitioners concerned promotion will be granted to them aftermaking a common seniority list ofAssistant Engineers who are graduate engineers and who are diploma holders also andfurther held that diploma holders are entitledto promotion on the basis ofcommon seniority in pursuance ofthe decision as per guidelines provided by the Cental Govt. and the matter is pending for a very long time, the Portwillbewell advised tofinish all these exercises within sixmonthsfrom today. " He further argued that in the same circular , the Ministry has also issued guidelines to implement the re -designation and also re - fixing of their scales ofpay but still the Port Trust has not implemented the same because they are awaiting the santion of the Govt . and also from the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, the counsel for the Petitioner prays that an award may be passed in favour of the Petitioner Union as prayed for.

15. As against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that no doubt the Indian Port Association has recommended in their report that diploma holders ' re-designation and re -fixation of their pay were to be made. But the said report is only on recommendatory capacity and the matter is pending with the Ministry and the Ministry has not sanctioned the financial burden and therefore, they have not implemented the recommendations ofthe Indian Port Association and further contended that even assuming for an argument sake that the Govt. will implement the recommendations of Indian Port Association , itmust be only prospectively and not retrospectively .

13. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Supreme Court has held that equal pay must be given for equal work and the counsel for the Petitioner relied on the ruling 1986 ILLJ 134 DHIRENDRA CHAMOLI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. , wherein the Supreme Court while considering the employees engaged as casual worker on daily wage basis and not paid the same salary and allowances as Class IV employees, the Supreme Court held that the argument envisaged in the Counter Affidavit is that since there are no sanctionedposts to which regular appointments can be made, the casual employees employed by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and perquisites as class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned posts. But, while raising the argument, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that the persons engaged by Nehru Yuvak Kendras perform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis against sanctionedposts. Ifthat be so , it is difficult to understand how the Central Govt. can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions ofservice as class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar on the part of the Central Govt. to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that they will be paid only dailywages and therefore , they cannot claim more. This argument lies till in the mouth ofthe Central Govt. for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class. and a welfare state committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument " and upholding the contention of the Petitioner, the Supreme Court has held that they are entitled to pay as that of class IV employees.

2052 G1 /2004-27

16. But, as the learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that the Indian Port Association has recommended this restructuring and re-designating the posts even in the year 1996 and still the Govt . is considering the proposal without passing any final orders . I find, there isno valied reason for rejecting the request of the Petitioner Union. Further, on behalf of the Petitioner Union , it is contended that there are about 149 Special Mechanics, 29 Supervisor Grade II and 109 Supervisor Grade I are there and the incumbents of posts have been getting minimum basic of Rs . 5500 and Rs . 6170 and therefore , even if the recommendations were effected , the financial commitment will be only marginal and in such circumstances , I find there is no point in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that still the Ministry is considering theproposal and the matter is pending with the Ministry of Finance. It is well established that while the qualification and also the responsibility of two cadres namely Special Mechanics and Supervisor Grade II are the same , therefore. I find the re-designation requested by the Petitioner Union 4050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

is a valid one. Further, the Indian Port Association has also recommended for re -designation and also for re - fixing the salary of the above categories . Under such circumstances , the prayer of the Petitioner Union is to be accepted and I further find that the inordinate delay on the part of the Port Trust and also the Ministry of Shipping is arbitrary and violation ofprinciples of natural justice.

17. Again, the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that even assuming for an argument sake without conceding that the salary in new scales will be fixed under Rule 22 (a) ( i ) and ( ii ) and they further contended that as soon as the sanction is obtained from the Ministry of Shipping the Respondent will issue necessary orders and it will take effect only prospectively . But no reason was stated by the Respondent for giving the prospective effect, since it is a long pending and sine the Indian Port Association has recommended for re -designation and restructuring of pay scales of the diploma holders , 1 find the orders should be effected retrospectively and not prospectively . Hence, I find this point in favour of the Petitioner Union.

Point No. 2 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

18. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the Respondents have to implement the demand of the Petitioner Union for redesignation and for refixation pertaining to Diploma Holders in the Respondent/ Management retrospectively from 1-1-1997 . Ordered accordingly. No. Costs .

19. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected andpronounced by me in the open court on this day the 5th April, 2004. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :-

Oneither side

: None

Documents Marked :

For the I party/Claimant:--

Ex. No. Date

Description

W1 08-12-00 Xerox copy of the letter from the Respondent to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) regarding Strike notice issued by Petitioner Union.

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] W2 02-03-01 Xerox copy of the minutes of conciliationproceedings .

W3 23-04-01 Xerox copy of the letter from the Respondent to Pititioner Union.

W4 27-06-01 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner Unions to Secretary, Ministry of Surface Transport, New Delhi .

W5 01-04-02 Xerox copy of the letter from Indian PortAssociation to Director, Ministry ofShipping, New Delhi .

Nil

Xerox copy of the statement showing financial impact on upgrading diploma & degree holder Engineers .

W7 Nill

Xerox copy of the port -wise financial impact on Upgrading diploma & degree holder engineers in various Revised pay scales .

W8 Nill

Xerox copy of the statement showing incidental as percentage ofbasic pay.

W9 Nill

Xerox copy of the proposal for cadre restructuring of Degree/diploma engineers of majorports.

W10 Nil

Xerox copy ofthe statement showing total number of posts in difference class IV/III posts to be abolished for saving.

W11 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement showing total emoluments per month in Class III/ IV revised pay scales.

W12 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement showing number of live posts of diploma/ degree engineers and eligible for proinotion.

For the II party /Management :-

Ex. No. Date

Description

M1 24-12-02 Xerox copy of the letter from the Ministry of Shipping to Chennai Port Trust.

M2 24-01-03 Xerox copy of the letter from the Ministry of Shipping to Chennai Port Trust.

M3 28-05-03 Хегox copy of the letter from the Ministry of Shipping to Chennai Port Trust.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4051

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आपाड़ 26,9926

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1704-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स हिलसन एण्डदिनशों लि. , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/77 का 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31011 /11/2003- आई. आर. (जी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2004 S.O. 1704.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/77 of 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of M/ s . Hillson & Dinshaw Ltd. , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-04.

[No. L- 31011/11/2003-IR (B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 2 AT MUMBAI

Present:

Justice S. C. Pandey : Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT . 2/77 OF 2003 Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. Hillson & Dinshaw Ltd. The ChiefExecutive, M/s. Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. , Marshall'sBuilding, 2nd Floor, Shoorji VallabhdasMarg, Mumbai -400 038 .

And

Their Workmen

The President,

Transport andDock Workers Union ,

P. D. mello Bhawan, CarnacBunder, Mumbai -400 038.

Appearances:

: Shri S.D. Doss, FortheEmployer

Representative .

Forthe Workmen

: Shri R.M. Murthy, Representative.

Mumbai, dated the 20th May, 2004

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour byits OrderNo. L-31011/11/2003 - IR (B -II) , dated 31-10-03 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sth- section- 1 and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . Hillson and Dinshaw Ltd. , Mumbai In retrenching the services of S/Shri S.S. Singh, S.V. Surve, and T.S. Patil , Peons w.e.f. 1-11-2002 is justified or not? If not, what relief these three -workers are entitled?"

2. Ajoint application dated 16-01-2004 has been filedon behalfofthe parties (Ex-5) on 16-01-2004. It has been stated that the matter has been settled out ofCourt. Thepartieshave filed the evidence of Settlement showing that the workmen have been paid the amounts as per receipts attached to Exhibit-5.

3. Both the parties desire that this Tribunal should disposeofthis reference by stating that the dispute has been settled out ofCourt.

4. Accordingly this award is passed stating that owing to subsequent events, the dispute does not survive and reference is accordingly disposed of.

S. C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

का. आ . 1705.-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/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्मा एल.सी.आई.डी.- 164/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, को केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40025/16/2004- आई. आर ( डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi, the 22nd June, 2004

S.O. 1705. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID- 164/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom. Deptt. and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 22-6-04.

[No. L-40025/ 16/2004- IR (D.U. ) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer 4052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT :

Shri E. Ismail , B. Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of April , 2004

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . L.C.L.D. 164/2002 Between:

Sri Md . Razab Ali,

S/o . Fakir Mohammad,

....Petitioner R/ o Venkatadripet (V) , Stn . Ghanpur Mandal , Warangal District .

AND

1. The Divisional Engineer , Railway Electrification Project, (Telecom) , Chennai -600 024 .

2. The Telecom District Manager, Warangal.

3. The Chief General Manager ,

Telecom, A.P. Circle,

Door Sanchar Bhawan , Abids,

Hyderabad.

Respondents APPEARANCE :

Forthe Petitioner

: Sri P. Suresh Kumar Advocate,

For the Respondent : M/s . S. Udayachal Rao , S. Lavanya Lakshmi , S. Vikramaditya Babu & S.Mujib Kumar , Advocates .

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec . 2A (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 and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 164/2002 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. In spite of several adjournments given from 20-3-2003 for enquiry of the Petitioner for 15 adjournments including 29-4-2004 the petitioner has not turned - out. In spite 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. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed , Transmit .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (іі)) Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 29th day ofApril , 2004.

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for : Witnesses examined for the Petitioner theRespondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NL

Documents marked for the Respondent NL

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1706.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 78/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/98 /95- आई. आर. (बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2004

S.O. 1706.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 78 / 95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emolpyers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004.

[No. L - 12012/ 98/95 - IR (B -II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy . ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT NEWDELHI

PRESENT:

Shri S. S. Bal : Presiding Officer

L.D. NO . 78/95

Workman Shri Prem Chand, Attender, S/o . Shri Suraj Bhan , R/o . Mohalla Kanoonga, District Rewari (Haryana)

Versus [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4053 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

Assistant General Manager ,

SyndicatęBank,

6, Bhagwan Dass Road,

Sarojini House,

NewDelhi .

.....Management

AWARD

entries of Rs . 50/- each in the account No. 1092 of Ms. Manju Bala. However, he did not admit the second entry ofRs. 100/-dated 24-11-88 in the account of Sri Ram and he did not recollect if he issued new pass book to Ms.Manju Bala fictitiously mentioning therein the balance ofRs . 1250/-instead of actual amount of Rs . 1050/-.

The Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour by its Order No. L- 12012/98/95-IR (B - II) , dated 25-07-95- has referred the following industrial disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication:

4. Shri K.L.N. Joshi Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charges against Shri Prem Chand Workman were proved and consequently the penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority and thus he was dismissed from service of attender vide order dated 12-6-93.

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, New Delhi in dismissing Sri Prem Chand, Attender from service w.e.f. 12-6-93 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled?"

5. 1 have heard Shri T.C. Gupta counsel for the workman as well as Shri Rajesh Mahendroo Advocate counsel for the Management . Shri T.C. Gupta learned counsel for the workman assailed the enquiry as illegal andunfair, improper as the proceedings were not explained to the workman for the same were recorded in English and that the complainants were not examined and that he (the workman) was not afforded sufficient opportunity to adducehis evidence in defence . The learned counsel for the Management refuted the above contentions .

2. Thereafter the workman Sri Prem Chand Attender and Management filed claim statement and written statement respectively. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman Prem Chand was employed with the respondent bank as attender w.e.f. 1-3-73 to 24-6-93 and that during the period of his employment at Bawal branch subscribers S/Shri Sri Ram, Noor Karan and Manju Bala gave to him money/sums on different dates during the period 16-7-88 to 28-12-91 for depositing in their respective accounts . Sri Ram gave Rs . 100/ - on 16-7-88 and Rs . 300/- on 28-12-91 on two occasions while Shri Noor Karan gave money on different dates between 1-3-88 to 4-5-90 Rs . 2000/- , Rs . 1000/, Rs . 5000, Rs. 700/-, Rs . 600/- and Rs . 650/- and Ms. Manju Bala gave Rs . 50/- each on occasions from 30-7-87 to 28-12-89 . However , he (Prem Chand attender) did not deposit their afore said money/ sums in the bank as requested by them but he made fictitious entries in their respective pass books of the abovesaid amounts/sums given to him by them. He was also alleged to have issued a new fictitious pass book of C.D. Account No. 1092 in the name of Ms. Manju Bala falsely showing/ mentioning balance account therein of Rs . 1250/- instead ofRs . 1050/- . Itwas also alleged against him that he failed to pay overdue interest in respect of two cheques of Rs . 1600/- dated 27th November, 1990 and of Rs . 100/-dated 12-11-90 issued from his account and discounted the same from Rewari and Bawal Branches of the Mgt. Bank . The said cheques were initially dishonoured but he remitted the amount of the same without making payment of the overdue interest.

3. The aforesaid subscribers made complaints against him but he failed to give any satisfactory explanations about the said allegations . Hence an enquiry was conducted on the aforesaid allegations/ charges . During the course of enquiry he (workman Prem Chand) partially admitted before the E.O. that he made fictitious entry ofRs . 300/ - in the pass book of Sri Ram on 16-7-88 and also made fictitious entries in the pass book ofNoor Karan in his S.B. Account No. 4464 of Rs . 2140/- on 6-1-1990 and of Rs . 1000/- on 4-5-1990 and 7 fictitious

6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the above contentions and perused the enquiry proceedings and the record meticulously . The perusal shows that the enquiry proceedings were conducted on four dates namely on 29-1-92 , 10-3-92, 17-6-92 and 14-7-92 and the workman participated in the enquiry proceedings without any demur. According to the management he failed to adduce evidence in his defence at Rewari Branch on 14-7-92 though venue was fixed as per his convenience . The proceedings recorded on 14-7-92 are not legible and as such in my view the claim of the management that the workman did not attend the enquiry proceedings on 14-7-92 and produce his evidence in defence at the Rewari Branch of the Bank is not supported from the proceedings on record and as such I have no option but to conclude that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the workman to produce his evidence and examine his witnesses in defence , In view of this I was inclined to hold that the enquiry is vitiated but this circumatance looses significance in the face of his own admissions made in his claim statement and during enquiry. In his claim statement he mentioned at page 4 that in advertantly made fictitious entries in the respective pass books of the said subscribers Sri Ram and Noor Karan, without malafide intentions merely to show his financial dealings with the above customers i.e. Sri Ram andNoor Karan . His defence that he made these entries in the respective pass books of the said customers in order to show his dealings with them does not appeal to reasons for, the entries in the pass books of account holders are only made to indicate that the Account holders/ subscirbers have deposited the amount in the Bank . The entries to show the dealings or to show that money has been lent to some other individual are not made in the [PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 4054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

Case No. CGIT -31/2001

Reference No. L- 17012/03/2001 IR (B- II)

Shri Jitendra Sharma,

S/ o Sh. C.L. Sharma,

R/o 3/493 , Aravali Vihar,

Housing Board , Kala Kuan ,

.....Applicant

Alwar(Rajasthart )-301001

Versus

The Sr. Divisional Manager ,

LICofIndia,

Bhawani Singh Road,

JeevanPrakash Building ,

Non-applicants

Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302006

Present:

pass book. Entry to acknowledge debt is always made/ written separately . His partial admission in the written statement that he inadvertantly made fictitious entries in the respective pass books and duing the entire proceedings before the Enquiry Officer go to show that he made fictitious entries in the respective pass books of the aforesaid three customers without depositing their amounts in the Bank. Statement of MW 1 and MW2 proves/ go to show that the amount was not deposited in the pass books of the subscribers. Thus it is proved that he made fictitious entries in the pass books of the aforesaid subscribers and misappropriated their amounts entrusted to him for depositing in the Bank . He has not denied that he did not discount aforesaid cheques and not paid the overdue interest ; thus the charges against him, in my opinion stand established , and the enquiry report in my viewdoes not suffer from any legal infirmity .

Presiding Officer : Sh. R.C. Sharma

Sh. Suresh Kashyap

Forthe applicant:

Forthe non-applicant : Sh . Anurag Aggarwal

19-5-2004

Dateof award:

AWARD

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman. He has infact not only misappropriated amount of the three subscribers mentioned above but also slured the name of the bank and punishment awarded to him commensurates with his conduct. The action of the Management in dismissing the workman Prem Chand Attender from service is legal and justified. I.D. is answered accordingly .

S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer

Dated: 10-6-2004.

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D' of sub - section 1 of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has referred the following industrial disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :--

"Whether the action of the management of L.I.C. ofIndia in terminating the services of Sh. Jitendra Sharma S/o Sh. Chiranji Lal Sharma w.e.f. 4-3-2000 and recruiting another workman in his place was legal and justified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ? " का. आ. 1707.-- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.आई.सी. ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -17012/03/2001- आई. आर. ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2004

S.O. 1707. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31 / 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 21-6-04.

[No. L- 17012/03 /2001 - IR (B -II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

2. The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded that his name was sponsored by the employment exchange to the non -applicant management , who was selected to the post of Assistant after going through the interview and was appointed on 2-12-99 on the permanent post of the Assistant for an indefinite period. He uninterruptedly workedupto 3-3-2000, but on 4-3-2000 he was terminated from the service . He has further alleged that a letter was gotwritten from him under coercion obtaining his consent towork for specified term of 85 days, which amounts to be unfair practice . The workman has further averred that the management had not published the seniority list of the employees in violation of Rules 77 & 78 under the Act . It is also the case of the workman that since his termination, one Sh . Tekchand Yadav was appointed by the management without offering him an opportunity of employment . Thus , the workman has alleged that the non- applicant mangement has violated the provisions under Sections 25 - F and 25 - H of the Act and he has urged that histermination order may be declared to be improper and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Stre 4055 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

illegal and he may be reinstated in the service with its continuityandback-wages.me

The 1d. representative further contends that the workman had worked upto 3-3-2000 which is proved on thebasis of the copies ofattendance register Ex. W-6 to Ex. W-8. One more fact he has highlighted on this point is that on 3-3-2000 the workman had prepared the voucher on 3-3-2000Ex.W-9 for payment ofbonus to one agentwhich bearshis own signature. Therefore, his submission is that the workman had continuously worked from 2-12-99 to 3-3-2000, whose service was terminated in violation ofthe provision under Section 25- F of theActi 3. Thenon-applicants, in their counter , have denied the facts as alleged by the workman and have statedthat the workman was employed for a specified period of85 days and his termination as a result of non-renewal of contract of employment between him and the management onits expirydoes not amount to retrenchment which falls under the provision of Section 2 (oo ) (bb) of the Act . They have specificallypleaded that he has worked from2-12-99 to 24-2-2000 with the management and have denied any violation of the provisons under Sections 25 -F and 25-H oftheAct. They have admitted that Sh. Tekchand Yadav wasemployed after the termination of the workman but on the basis of the need of the work who worked with the management w.e.f. 9-3-2000 to 3-5-2000 only for a specified period of 85 days and after the expiry of the term of the contracthis service too automatically came to an end.

9. Per contra, the Id. representative for the non- applicants contends that the workman was employed for a specific period, who in his cross -examination has admitted the letter Ex. M - 1 and that no written contract was executed by the parties . He has also assailed the photocopies of the attendance register on the ground that they do not bear the signatures of the management authority and are fake . According to his contention, the voucher Ex . W-9 is an unfilled document which cannotbe reliedupon and can be prepared at any time tuck m 4. On the pleadings ofboth the parties, the following points fordetermination were framed

10. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions and now I proceed to examine them.

(1) आया प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 2 (ओओ ) ( बीबी ) के अंतर्गत आने के कारण छंटनी के तहत नहीं आती ?

(ii) आया प्रार्थी की सेवा समाप्ति औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 25 - एच व औद्योगिक विवाद ( केन्द्रीय ) नियम, 1957 के नियम-77 , 78 का उल्लंघन कर की गई ?

(iii) प्रार्थी क्यासहायता प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?

5. In the oral evidence, the workman has submitted his affidavit, who was cross -examined on behalf of the non-applicants and in the defence, the counter - affidavits of Sh. SK Gupta, Assistant Branch Manager and Sh. Rajendra Kumar , Assistant Administrative Officerhave been filed, who were cross -examined on behalf of the workman.

11. The workman's case is that on 2-12-99 ho wan selected to the post of the Assistant who uninterruptedly workedup to3-3-2000 and whose service was terminated on4-3-2000 without following the mandate under Section 25-H of the Act. As against it , the management's case is that the workman was employed on contractual basis for a specified term of 85days who performed from 2-12-99to 24-2-2000. The undisputed facts are that the name ofthe workman was sponsored by the employment exchange and that the interview was conducted by the management for selection of the candidates. It has also been shown.on behalfofthe non- applicants that to discharge the pending work of the office , these appointments were made fora specific period.

6. In the documentary evidence , the workman has placed on record as many as 10 documents , whereas on behalf of the management, letter Ex. M- 1 , allegedtohave beenwritten by the workman has been submitted.

7. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record. The point- wise discussion follows as under:-

Point No. I

8. The Id . representative for the workman contends that the workman was appointed by the management as Assistant on 2-12-99 who continuously worked upto 3-3-2000 and on 13-12-99 a letter (Ex. M- 1) was gotwritten from the workman to show that he was appointed for a stipulated period. His contention is that Section 2(00)(bb) ofthe Act requires that there should be a contract, whereas the letterEx. M - 1 does not fulfil the requirements under the aforesaid Section and cannot be termed as a contract.

12. The workman to substantiate his claim that he was appointed to the permanent post for an indefinite period could not bale to produce the copy of the appointment letter. To prove that he had worked up to 3-3-2000 under the employment of the management, he has reliedupon the copy of the attendance register Ex. W- 8which pertains to the month of March, 2000. It bears the initials of the workman up to 3rd of March, 2000. On a perusal of the attendance register, it appears that it does not bear the signature of the concemed management: authority. The management witness MW- 2 , Shri Rajend Kumarhas admitted that the attendance register Ex. W- 5 bears his signature but for rest of the attendance registers, he has deposed that his signatures are not genuine but are forged one. Thus, on the basis of the attendance register Ex . W-8, it cannot be presumed that the workman had worked up to 3-3-2000.

4056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA- 26, 1926

13. Then it has also been contended on behalf of the workman that voucher Ex. W - 9 was prepared by the workmen. On a glance at Ex . W - 9 voucher, it appears that itdoes not bear the signature of the workman and the seal of the management put upon it bears the date only but neither it contains the particulars of the payment , nor the signature of the concerned official who had prepared it. Therefore, the plea of the workman is not fotified on the basis of this document.

14. On the other hand , on behalf of the non- applicants , it has been shown that the workman was appointed for a specified period of 85 days who has wilfully accorded his consent for acceptance of this employment vide his letter Ex . M- 1 dated 13-12-99 . This letter is in the handwriting of the workman wherein he has given his consent for employment of 85 days .

15. On behalf of the workman , this letter has been assailed on the ground that it was got written from him after putting him under the threat of the termination, but this fact has not been even corroborated by the documents filed on behalf of the workman himself. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that he has not complained before the higher authorities of the threat which was given to him . Similarly , he has placed on record the copies ofhis application Ex. W - 1 and the rejoinder Ex . W-3 which he had submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner while raising the industrial dispute before him . But both these documents do not contain any averment of the workman indicating that a letter was got written from him by the management under coercoin. Therefore, the plea adopted by the workman before this Court appears to be an afterthought version and is not trustworthy. On the strength of this letter Ex . M - 1 , it appears that the workman was employed by the non - applicant management on a specified terms of 85 days to discharge the pending work of the office and on the expiry of the specified term , his appointment automatically came to an end . Thus , the termination of the workman falls under the purview of Section 2 (oo ) (bb ) of the Act which does not tantamount to retrenchment . Accordingly , this point is answered in favour of the non - applicants and against the workman. Point No. II

16. On behalf of the workman , it has been contended that after the termination of the workman , one Shri Tekchand Yadav was appointed by the management to the said post without offering an opportunity of employment to the workman . The non - applicant's case is that Tekchand Yadav was also employed for a specific term of 85 days and after the termination of this term , his contract was not renewed. They have specifically averred that Tekchand Yadav is not working with the management now.

17. The workman in his cross - examination has admitted that he has not submitted the appointment letter

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] of Tekchand Yadav and he has admitted that he is not even familiar with him. He has stated that he had seen his appointment letter, but has further admitted that appointment letter was only shown to him by Tekchand which he had not gone through . On this point, the testimony of the workman is contradictory and cannot be reliedupon.

18. Thus, neither the appointment letter of the fresh hand employedby the management after the termination of the workman could be brought on the record by the workman, nor the positive and reliable evidence has been adduced on his behalf to establish that the management has not followed the provision under Section 25 -H of the Act. Accordingly, the workman has failed to prove this factand this point is decided against him and in favour of the non-applicant management.

Relief

19. For the foregoing reasons , the workman could not be able to establish his claim , which deserves to be dismissed. Consequently , the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of the non- applicants and it is held that the order of the management terminating the service of the workman w.e.f. 4-3-2000 is just and legal . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1708.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.आई.सी. ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17011 / 18/2002- आई. आर ( बी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd June, 2004

S.O. 1708.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/ 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman which was received by the Central Government on21-6-04.

[No. L - 17011 / 18/2002 -IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

4057 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

ANNEXURE

Maharashtra, Tuticorin branch forRs . 500/-through F & A BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 18th May, 2004

Present: K. Jayaraman,

PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 15/2003

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofSub-section ( 1 ) and Sub -section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of LIC of India and their workmen)

BETWEEN

: 1 Party/Claimant

TheGeneral Secretary

Insurance Corporation

Employees Union Tirunelveli .

AND

TheManagement

: II Party/Management

LIC of India, Divisional Office, Tirunelveli.

Appearance:

For the Claimant

: M/sD. Geetha , M. Murugan

&Veda Ramya, Advocates

For theManagement : Mr. P. V. Raghavan, Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification Order No.L - 17011 / 18/2002 - IR(B - II) dated 10-12-2002 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the punishment imposedby the LIC of India, to withhold one increment permanently on Shri S. Baskaran isjustified? If not, what relief is he entitled to ?"

2. After the receipt ofthe reference, it was taken on file as I.D.No. 15/2003 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

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

department, Madurai Divisional Office . But the said cheque wasdishonoured by the bank for insufficient funds dated 10-11-97. So, the concerned employee was served with charge sheet dated 16-10-98 for misappropriation of funds under Regulations 21 and 24 read with Regulation 39(1 ) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960 and was imposed with punishment under Regulation 39( 1 )(b) of LIC of India (Staff) Regulation, 1960. Actually, the concerned workman has deposited Rs . 500/- through his colleague Sri Shanmugavel in his bank account at Tuticorin. For the said action of withdrawing Rs . 500/- the concerned workman was issued with charge sheet alleging that the concernedworkman knowingly gave a wrong declaration in the encashment voucher that he had sufficient bank balance to cover the amount of cheque for its due encashment. Further, he was charged that he has failed not maintaining absolute integrity and acted in a manner detrimental to the interest of the corporation . The enquiry was conducted on the said charge on 22-10-98 . When the enquiry was posted on 9-2-99 the concerned workman attended the enquiry. The permission to have an assistance ofdefence helper was rejected by the Enquiry Officer . The Enquiry Officer even before questioning the charges , called the Presenting Officer to mark the documents in proof of the charges and after marking , he started questioning the delinquent about the charges . The Presenting officer did not examine any witness on behalf ofthemanageement and failed to substantiate the charges. The enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of principles of natural justice and LIC of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960 and hence the same is liable tobe set aside for the grounds that no witness was examined by the management to prove the charges, the PresentingOfficer straight away cross examined the delinquent before the delinquent employee presented his case in chief , without submitting the case of the management, without examining the witnesses on behalf of the management , the Enquiry officer and Presenting Officer started examining the delinquent employee . The entire charge and the enquiry that followed was done after imposing the punishment on the delinquent employee . The findings of the Enquiry Officer submitted in his report is not based on evidence on records and the same is perverse and liable to be set aside . The management imposed the penalty of one increment permanently under the regulation is not valid legally. The chargesheet indicates the proposed punishment before the completion ofenquiry which indicates the pre-determined mind of the management . The appeal filed by the Petitioner was also rejected. Hence, the Petitioner Union prays that the action of the Respondent/ management in imposing the punishment on Sri S. Bhaskaran is illegal and hence the same is liable to be set aside and an award may be passed in favour of the concerned employee .

The Petitioner Union espouses the cause of the concerned employee Sri S. Baskaran , who is working as Record Clerk in the Respondent Corporation at Tuticorin branch. He was appointed under the Respondent/ Management on 16-6-89 . The LIC employees were given. the facility of encashing their self- cheque in any of the LIC office up to certain limits . Making use of this facility, the concerned workman while he was at Madurai , encashed cheque No. 835617 dated 5-11-97 drawn on Bank of

2052 GI /2004-28 [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

(ii ) " to what relief the concerned employee is entitled?"

Point No. 1 :-

6. The charges framed against the concerned employee namely Sri S. Bhaskaran , Record Clerk of the LIC of India, Tuticorin branch is that he has knowingly given a wrong declaration in the encashment voucher that he has sufficient balance on the date of encashment to cover the amount for its cheque for due encashment and thus , he has misappropriated the funds of the Corporation to the extent of Rs . 500. Before going into the case , we have to know the facts of this case . In LIC, the employees were given a facility of encashing their self-cheques in any of the LIC offices upto a certain limit. Making use of this facility, the concerned employeewhile he was working in Tuticorin, encashed a cheque bearing No. 835617 dated 5th November , 1997 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra , Tuticorin branch for Rs.500 through F & A Department , Madurai Divisional Office, Before encashment of the cheque, the Corporation obtained a declaration in the encashment voucher that he has sufficient bank balance to cover the amount of cheque for its due encashment . In this case , the cheque given by the concerned employee before the F & A department , Madurai Divisional Office was dishonoured by the bank for the reason of insufficient funds. So he was served with charge sheet under Regulation 21 and 24 of 39(1 ) (b) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960 and he was imposed with punishment ofwithholding one increrment permanently .

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement alleged that it is true that concerned employee has encashed the cheque bearing No. 835617 dated 5-11-97 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra , Tuticorin branch for Rs . 500 the F & A department LIC of India, Madurai Divisional Office on 5-11-97 and the said cheque was dishonoured for the reason of insufficient funds . The concerned employee knowingly gave the wrong declaration in the encashment voucher that he had sufficient bank balance to cover the amount of the cheque on the date of encashment to cover the cheque amount and thus he has misappropriated the funds of the Corporation to the extent of Rs . 500. Therefore. he was called upon to give an explanation for the lapses on his part . Not satisfying with his explanation , an enquiry was ordered to be conducted and the Enquiry Officer sent a letter dated 5-10-98 to the concemed employee with regard to the enquiry on 22-10-98 and also stated that if the concerned employee requires assistance of a defence assistant, he may obtain necessary permission from the Disciplinary Authority , but the concerned employee has not availed of the opportunity given to him . After several adjournments of hearings , the Enquiry Officer again sent a letter dated 6-11-98 informing him that the enquiry will be held on 20-11-98 . Even on that date , he failed to attend the enquiry. Therefore, the enquiry was adjoumed for 20-11-98 . Similarly, the enquiry was postponed to 9-12-98 , 16-12-98, 07-01-99 , 09-1-99 and finally to 9-2-99 . The concerned employee attended the enquiry and on that date again he requested permission to avail the services of the defence assistant . But , since he was given ample opportunity for engaging a defence assistant, it was refused on that date . Since the entire enquiry is based on records and in view of the admission of the charges by the concerned employee , there was absolutely no necessity to examine any witness in this case. Further, the concerned employee has inspected all the relevant documents Therefore, the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is fair and proper and after following the usual procedure, the penalty was imposed by an order dated 10-9-99 , The concerned employee's appeal dated 20-12-99. to the Appellate Authority was also rightly rejected,. Even the employee's memorial submitted to the Chairman has also met with the same fate . The entire matter was on record and relevant papers were filed as exhibits and were made available to the employee . Therefore, it is false to allege that no full opportunity was given the employee to defend himself. The charge sheeted employce has not denied the charges but only sought to justify his lapses . Therefore , the punislıment imposed by the management is legal and justified. Hence for all these reasons the respondent's pray may be dismissed with costs .

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are: -

7. On behalf of the Petitioner Union, it is contended that no witness was examined by the management to prove the charges before the domestic enquiry and the Presenting Officer just presented the documents in the enquiry and he has not substantiated the charges by any witness , Further , the Enquiry Officer has allowed the Presenting Officer to straight away cross examine the delinquent even before the delinquent presented his case in chief. Without submitting the case of the management , and without examining any witness on behalf of the management, the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer started examining the delinquent in cross examination, which is in total violation of principles of naturaljustice . Further, the entire charge and the enquiry was done after imposing the punishment on the delinquent employee and even before the enquiry , the management has conducted the preliminary enquiry and imposed the penalty of withdrawing the facility of encashing personal cheques and also deducted Rs . 530 including interest from the salary of the concerned employee . After imposing these penalties , the management has conducted the enquiry for asecond time and issued charge sheet and conducted the enquiry again amounts to double jeopardy putting the employee to face enquiry twice for the same charges . Therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is not based on any evidence on record and therefore , it is perverse (i ) whether the punishment imposed by the Respondent/Management against Sri S. Bhaskaran is legal and justified ? " 4059 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

substantiate the misconduct does not satisfy the requirement ofholding an enquiry in accordance with rules and it would not satisfy the statutory requirements "

relying on all these judgements , the learned counsel for thePetitioner argued that the request for the assistance of a lawyer has been rejected by the Enquiry Officer and no witness was examined and nothing was substantiated before the enquiry and therefore , the punishment imposed by the departmental authorities is void, ab initio and therefore, the enquiry has to be set aside .

and liable to be set aside , Further, in a similar case of a sub-staff ofTuticorin branch , the Chairman modified the punishment by withholding one increment for one year alone whereas the concerned employee was punished with withholding of one increment permanently and this amounts to discrimination between similarly situated persons . Even though the concerned employee asked permission to have an assistance of defence helper, in the domestic enquiry his request was rejected without any ritham. Under such circumstances , the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is against the principles of natural justice and it is perverse and therefore , it is liable to be set aside. Further , the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied ontherulings reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 SUR ENAMEL AND STAMPING WORKS LTD . Vs. WORKMEN, and 1967 II LLJ 392 MEENGIAS TEA ESTATE VS. ITS WORKMEN, and also 1998 I LLJ 1057 THE SPECIAL OFFICER KANCHEEPURAM CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR (APPEALS) , MADRAS AND ANOTHER . In the first judgement cited above , the Supreme Court has held that "the enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless-

(i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him;

(ii) the witnesses are examined ordinarily in the presence of the employee in respect of the charges;

( iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross examine the witnesses;

(iv) he has given fair opportunity to examine the witnesses including himselfin his defence ifhe so wishes on any relevant matter;

(v) the Enquiry Officer records his findings with reasonsfor the same in his report".

8. But, as against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry is not a Court and the proceedings before him are not analogous to the proceedings before the criminal court, and since the provisions of Evidence Act do not apply to such an enquiry, the Enquiry Officer is not bound by the strict principles of Law of Evidence and in this case, the matter relating to dishonour of cheque given by the concerned employee to the LIC of India branch and all these allegations are borne out by the documents and the copies of these documents were given to the concerned employee and therefore, there is no necessity to examine any witness on the side of the management to substantiate the allegations because, the concerned employee has admitted the allegations that he has given the cheque which was dishonoured by the bank due to the reason of insufficient funds in his bank account , Under such circumstances , there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the documents marked are only the documents issued by the concerned employee. He further argued that the Enquiry Officer has sent a letter on 5-10-98 to concerned employee informing him that he proposed to conduct the enquiry on 22-10-98 and in that letter itself, the Enquiry Officer advised the concerned employee that if he requires assistance of a defence helper, he may obtain necessary permission from the Disciplinary Authority . However , on 22-10-98 the concerned employee was not present, but he informed through a telegram that he was sick and unable to attend the enquiry and therefore , the Enquiry Officer adjourned the enquiry to 6-11-98 . The concerned employee failedto attend the enquiry even on 6-11-98 , hence the enquiry was again adjourned to 20-11-98. Even on 20-11-98, the concerned employee failed to attend the enquiry, therefore, once again the concerned employee was informed about the adjournment to 9-12-98 . But , similarly it was again postponed to 16-12-98 and 9-1-99 and finally to 9-2-99. Only on 9-2-99 , he gave a letter to the Enquiry Officer , wherein he has requested for permission to avail the services ofdefence helper and praying for adjournment of the enquiry . But, the Enquiry Officer rightly rejected his request because even on 5-10-98 itself, he has informed the concerned employee to obtain necessary permission from the Disciplinary Authority as per the provisions for the assistance of a defence assistant . Under such circumstances , it is not a valid contention that his request and the counsel for the Petitioner argued that in this case, nothing has been done as stated in the Supreme Court's direction and therefore , the enquiry alleged to have been conducted against the concerned employee is a farce on andtherefore, it is liable to be set aside by this Tribunal . In the second cited case , the Supreme Court has held that "if no evidence is tendered at the domestic enquiry in support of the charges made against the concerned workman and certain questions put to concerned workman by way ofcross examination, the officers who were alleged to have been assaulted by the concerned workman also sitting as Enquiry Officer and cross examining the concerned workman and the concerned workmanwas not given any opportunity to cross examine them at the domestic enquiry, it is not an enquiry at all". In the third judgement, the High Court has held that "merely recording the statement ofdelinquent employee without the management making an attempt to [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 4060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

Documents Marked:-

For the I Party/Claimant : . Nill

Forthe II Party/Management :--

Date

Ex. No.

Description

M1 16-7-98 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Petitioner

2-9-98

Xerox copy ofthe order appointing EnquiryOfficer

5-10-98

Xerox copy of letter from Enquiry Officer to concerned employee

M4 10-10-98 Xerox copy of letter from E.O. to branchmanager.

M5 14-10-98 Xerox copy of certificate of posting for letter date 5-10-98

M6 22-10-98 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

M7 22-10-98

for defence assistance has been rejected by the Enquiry Officer. Since the enquiry was based on records and in view of the admission of the charges by the concerned employee , there was absolutely no necessity to examine any witness in this case . Further, the concerned employee has inspected all the relevant documents produced before the enquiry. Further , in the departmental enquiry , there is not rigid rule and further , examination of witness is not essential in each and every case . Since the charge sheet framed against the concerned employee is based on records and the documents produced are given only by the concerned employee and since the concerned employee has not denied these documents, the Enquiry Officer based his findings on these records . Further, in this case , the concerned employee has not raised any murmur about the fair and impartial manner in which the enquiry has been conducted. In this case , full and fair opportunity was given to the concerned employee to dofond himself . Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the enquiry held by the Enquiry Officer is vitiated and is void ab initio .

Xerox copy of the letter from E.O. to CSE

23-10-98

Xerox copy of certificate of posting forabove

M9 24-10-98 Xerox copy of acknowledgement card.

6-11-98

M10

Xerox copy of enquiry proceedings.

6-11-98

M11

Xerox copy ofthe letter from E.O. to CSE

M12

Xerox copy of enquiry proceedings .

20-11-98

M13

Xerox copy of letter from E.O. to CSE

20-11-98

M14 9-2-99 Xerox copy of enquiry proceedings .

M15 Nil

Xerox copy ofexhibits

M16 9-2-99 Xerox copy of letter from CSE το Ε.Ο.

9-2-99

M17

respondent Xerox copy of letter of CSEto

M18 16-2-99 Xerox copy of enquiry report 9. I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent because in this case a benefit was given to the employees of LIC of India in which Corporation has obtained a declaration in the encashment voucher that he had sufficient bank balance on the date of encashment to cover the amount of cheque for its due encashment . But , even though the concerned employee has contended that he has no knowledge of English and he has only signed his name in English and he has signed the declaration as usual , I find there is no substance in the contention of the concerned employee because he has served in the institution for a very long time and he has encashed his cheque for various times and therefore , under such circumstances , the explanation given by the concerned employee is not satisfactory. Further, it is a minor punishment imposed by the respondent to the concerned employee and in such circumstances , I find the punishment imposed by the management against the concerned employee is legal and justified.

21-7-99

M19

Xerox copy of show cause notice Point No. 2:-

20-8-99

M20

Xerox copy of reply to show cause notice

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the concerned employee is entitled?

10-9-99

M21

Xerox copy of order of Disc . Authority

M22 20-12-99

10. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief as claimed by the Petitioner Union. No costs .

Xerox copy of appeal preferred by CSE

3-3-2000

M23

Xerox copy of order of appellate authority.

(Dictated to the P.A.. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 18th May , 2004.)

M24 31-5-2000

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Respondent Xerox copy of memorial by CSE to Witnesses Examined : --

M25 2-9-2000

None

On either side :

Xerox copy of the order of management on memorial.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4061

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

AWARD

नईदिल्ली, 22 जून , 2004

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Notification Order No. L - 17011 / 17/2002- IR(B- II) dated 10-12-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का. आ. 1709.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल ०आई० सी० ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2003) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the penalty imposed by the LIC of India, Divisional Office, Tirunelveli on Sri P. Muthuraman by reducing his pay by three stages vide order dated 31-3-1999 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot, what reliefhe isentitledto?"

[सं. एल-17011 /17/2002- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the22nd June, 2004

2.After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 14/2003 and notices were issued to both the parties andboth the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

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

S.O. 1709. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government here by publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of LIC of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on21-6-2004.

[No. L- 17011/17/2002 -IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday, the 18th May, 2004

Present: K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 14/2003

[Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( I ) and sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of LIC of India and their workman]

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary,

:IParty/Claimant

Insurance Corporation

EmployeesUnion Tirunelveli.

AND

TheManagement:

: IInd Party/ Management

LIC of India, Divisional Office, Tirunelveli .

APPEARANCE :

Forthe Claimant

M/s. D. Geetha,

M. Murugan & Veda Ramya, Advocates

Forthe Management : Mr.P.V. Raghavan, Advocate

ThePetitioner Union is espousing the cause ofthe concerned employee Sri P. Muthuraman, who is working asRecord Clerk in the Respondent company LIC of India, Tirunelveli Division from 28-1-85 . On 5-8-97 he was served with a charge sheet alleging that he remained absent from his duties in an unauthorised manner without obtaining prior permission for specified periods and secondly he refused to accept the official communications on many occasions . For the alleged charges, the concemed employee submittedhis reply on 11-8-97. But not satisfying with his explanation , the Respondent/Management has ordered an enquiry on the said charges . But the Enquiry Officer appointed by the management, conducted the enquiry in violationofprinciples of natural justice and in violation of LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. The concerned employee was not given reasonable opportunity to substantiate his case. No witness was examined by the management to prove the charges . The Presenting Officer just presented the documents in the enquiry and did.not substantiate the charges by any witness . The relevance of the documents submitted by the Presenting Officer was also not substantiated . The Enquiry Officer allowed the Presenting Officer to straight away cross examine the delinquent employee, even before the delinquent employee. Live presented his case in chief. The entire charge and the enquiry that followed was done after imposing the punishment to the delinquent. The findings of the Enquiry Officer inhis report is not based on any evidence on record and is perverse. The management imposed the penalty of reduction in basic pay by three stages permanently in the time scale and further ordered the period of absence from 19-4-97 to 4-8-97 to be treated as dies non. The proposed punishment is entirely different from getting the view of the delinquent employee about the enquiry report . Therefore, the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and is not valid in law and therefore , the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the penalty imposed by the departmental authorities are arbitrary , unreasonable and violative ofprinciples of natural justice . Hence for all these reasons, the Petitioner Union prays to set aside the 4062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

punishment and pass an award in favour of the concerned employee.

4. As against tlus , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that it is true that the concerned workman Sri P. Muthuraman was charge sheeted on 5-8-97 for his unauthorised absence from 19-4-97 to 4-8-97. Even for the letter dated 6-5-97 sent by the Respondent/ Management directing him to report for duty immediately, the same was returned to the office undelivered . Though the employee has sent a reply on 11-8-97 , the Disciplinary Authority considered his reply and found that the concerned employee has admitted the charges has given reasons for his unauthorised absence which, did not sound convincing, hence , he ordered for an enquiry . The enquiry was conducted on six days and the defence assistant and thePresenting Officer submitted their written brief. After going through the entire case , the Enquiry Officer has given hisreport dated 7-12-98 finding the employee guilty of the charges. After carefully considering the enquiry report and accepting the same, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 23-1-99 to the concerned employee proposing to impose a penalty of reduction in the basic pay by five stages perinanently under Regulation 39 (1 ) (d) of LIC of India ( Staff) Regulations , 1960. Even in the explanation , he has not denied the charges that he had not obtained prior sanction of leave , but he has stated that he sent an inland letter dated 24-4-97 and therefore, it is for the employee to establish with concrete evidence that he had in fact sent such a letter which he had failed to do so . The treatment of period of absence from 19-4-97 to 4-8-97 as dies non amounts to double punishment is false because non -payment of remuneration for the period of absence will not amount to penalty as principles of ' No work-No pay' applies . Therefore , the penalty imposed by the Respondent/Management against the concerned employee is legal and justified and therefore , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i) " Whether the penalty imposed by the Respondent/ Management against Sri P. Muthuraman is legal and justified?

(ii) " To what relief the concerned employee is entitled? "

Point No. 1 :-

6. In this case , the charges framed against the concerned employee Sri P. Muthuraman , Record, Clerk, whose cause the Petitioner Union is espousing , are thathe has absented from duty from 19-4-97 without obtaining any prior permission of the competent authority or any intimation thereafter in writing or any leave letter, secondly, even after the registered notice dated 6-5-97 sent by the Managerdirecting him to report for duty immediately, the same was returned to the office undelivered . In this case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the concerned employee namely Sri P. Muthuraman has absented from

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] duty from 19-4-97 to 4-8-97 . On behalf of the Petitioner Union, it was contended that the enquiry conducted against the concerned employee was not just and proper and no witness was examined by the management to prove the charges and the Presenting Officer just presented the documents in the enquiry and did not substantiate the charges by any witness and also the relevance of the documents submitted by the Presenting Officer was also not substantiated. Further, the concemed employee was not permitted to engage a counsel even after his request . In the enquiry , the Presenting Officer has straightaway cross examined the delinquent even before the delinquent employee presented his case in chief and further , the procedure followed by the Enquiry Officer is in violation of principles of natural justice and the findings given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse and liable to be set aside. On the Petitioner side, no document was filed and no witness was examined. On the other hand, on the side of the Respondent/Management Ex . M 1 to M14 namely enquiry proceedings were marked.

7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the entire charges and the enquiry was done after imposing the punishment on the delinquent and even before the enquiry, the Respondent/ Management has conducted the preliminary enquiry and treated the leave taken by the delinquent as leave on loss of pay . This decision was taken at the Divisional Office level and the same was entered inthe leave register . While so , the management for the 2nd time issued charge sheet and conducted the enquiry again amounts to double jeopardy , putting the concerned employee to face the enquiry twice for the same charges. But, I find no substance in this contention because the treatment of period of absence from 19-4-97 to 4-8-97 by the concerned employee as dies non will not amount to double punishment and the non -payment of remuneration for the period of absence will not amount to penalty because the principles of no work no pay applies in this case. Therefore, I find there is no point in the first contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner .

8. The next contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report without basing the case on any evidence on record and the same is perverse and liable to be set aside . He further argued that the Enquiry Officer has arrived at the conclusion that the charges are proved without any evidence on the side of the management and no witness wasexamined on the side of the management and he put some questions to the concerned employee and has come tothe conclusion that the charges framed against him were proved. Further, the Presenting Officer has filed certain documents andwithout examining any witness and without marking documents and without any substance in the contention of the Respondent/Management, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges have been proved and therefore , the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer is against the principles of natural justice and he relied on the rulings reported in AIR 1963 SC 1914 4064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

1947 and under such circumstances , the discretion given under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 cannot be invoked . As such , I find the concerned employee has unauthorisedly absented for duty from 19-4-97 to 4-8-97 and after due enquiry the Respondent/Management has come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the concerned employee has been proved and imposed the punishment. Under such circumstances , the Tribunal cannot interfere with the punishment imposed by the Respondent/Management on the concerned employee . As such , I find this point in favour of the Respondent/ Management.

Point No. 2 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the concerned employee is entitled?

12. In view of my foregoing findings that the penalty imposed by the Respondent/ Management on the concerned employee Sri P. Muthuraman is legal and justified, I find the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief as claimed by the Petitioner Union . No Costs .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 18th May, 2004) .

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :--

Oneither side :

None

Nil

Documents : Marked

For the II Party/ Claimant :

For the II Party /Management:

Ex. No. Date Description

M1 05-08-97 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Petitioner

M2 11-08-97 Xerox copy of the reply from concerned employee to Respondent M3

2-05-98 Xerox copy of the order appointing EnquiryOfficer

M4 Nil

Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

M5 series(7)

Xerox copy of the management exhibits marked in enquiry M6 series(6) Xerox copy ofthe defence exhibits marked in enquiry

M7 07-12-98 Хегox copy of the enquiry report .

M8 23-01-99 Xerox copy of the show cause notice

M9 19-02-99 Xerox copy of the reply to the show cause notice

M 10 31-03-99 Xerox copy of the order of Disciplinary Authority

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Ex. No. Date Description

M11 25-08-99 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority

M12 29-06-2000 Хегox copy of the order of Chairman on Memorial

M 13 11-11-98

submissions of presenting Officer Xerox copy of the written M14 21-11-98 Xerox copy of the written submissions of defence assistant. नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1710.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/69 का 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 /92/2003- आई.आर. ( बी.- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2004 S.O. 1710. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 2/69 of 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. 2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004.

[No. L- 12011/92/2003 - IR (B - II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

JUSTICE S. C. PANDY, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO. CGIT-2/69 OF 2003 Employers in relation to the Management of Canara Bank

TheGeneral Manager,

CanaraBank, 14th Floor, Maker Tower 'E' , CuffeParade, Colaba, Mumbai -400 005 4065

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AND

THEIR WORKMEN

TheWorkingPresident

CanaraBank Karmachari Sena, CanaraBank, Warden House , Fort, Mumbai -400001

APPEARANCES :

FortheEmployer

: SriDas, Representative

Forthe Workmen

: Absent

Mumbai, dated the 12thMay , 2004

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government under clause (b) of Sub section 1 of Sub -section 2(A) of. Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short). The terms ofreference are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank, Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Parshant Suresh Sawant w.e.f. 6-6-2002 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. It appears that on 9-1-2004 an application has been filed by the workman which is authenticatedby Shri S.K. Kolte, Working President, Canara Bank Karamchari Sena stating that the workman does not want to pursue the reference.

3. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the workman no useful purpose can be served by issuing fresh notice to the workman . This reference is disposed of by stating that the dispute referred to this Tribunal does not survive because the workman does notwant to prosecute it. Accordingly, this reference isdisposedof.

JUSTICE S. C.PANDEY, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

का. आ. 1711.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 199/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/165/99-आई.आर. ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 22nd June, 2004 S.O. 1711. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby püblishes the Award (Ref. No. 199/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- 2052G/2004-29

Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral Disputes between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-6-2004.

[No. L- 12011 /165/99 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD

PRESENT:

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer

Dated the 16th day ofApril, 2004 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 199/2002 (Old L. D. No. 13/2000 transferred from Industrial Tribunal- I, Hyderabad

BETWEEN:

Petitioner The Joint Secretary,

Andhra Bank Award Employees Union 506VFloor, Taramandal Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004.

AND

TheDy. General Manager ,

AndhraBank, Head Office, 5-9-11, Secretariat Road,

.....Respondent Saifabad, Hyderabad-500004.

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/s G. Vidyasagar, K. Udaysri, P. Sudheer Rao &

D. Madhusudan, Advocates .

For the Respondent : M/ s S. Udayachal Rao , S. Lavanya Lakshmi , S.Vikramaditya Babu&

S.Mujib Kumar , Advocates AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L- 12011/ 165/99- IR (B.II ) dated 23-2-2000 referred the following dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Indus- trial Tribunal - J , Hyderabad between the management of Andhra Bank and their workman . In view of Government of India Ministry of Labour's Order No. H- 11026/1/2001 - IR(C.II ) dated 18-10-2001 this case has been transferred to this Tribunal bearing No. 13/2000 . The reference is,

SCHEDULE

"Is the management of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, justified in terminating Smt . T. Chinna Lakshmamma, Part-time Sweeper from services after utilizing her services for several years ? If not , what relief is the disputant concerned is entitled to ?" 4066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Reference No. L- 17012/ 10/2001 - IR (B - II) This reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 199/2002 and notices were issued to the parties.

Sh. Mangi Lal,

S/ o Sh . Bodha Ram, R/o Chobey Ka Mohalla,

TehsilBehror,

....Applicant

Alwar(Rajasthan)

Versus

The Zónal Manager,

2. In spite of several adjournments given from 23-7-2003 for Petitioner's cross examination for 13 adjournments including 16-4-2004 the petitioner has not turned -out . There is nothing on record to support the case ofthe Part-time Sweeper. Therefore, the reference is ordered against the petitioner and it is held that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ,

Accordingly a ' Nil ' Award is passed , Transmit .

RegionalOffice,

Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) -302006

Non-applicant Dictated to Kum . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of April , 2004.

PRESENT:

E. ISMAIL , PresidingOfficer Shti . R.C. Sharma, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

FortheApplicant

: Sh. S.P. Singh

Forthe Non -applicant :Sh. Pradeep Singh Witness examined for the

Witness examined for the Petitioner

:24-5-2004

DateofAward

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

AWARD

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub -section 1 of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (herein after referred to as theAct ) has referred the following industrial disputes foradjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2004

"Whether the action of the management ofNew India Assurance Co. Ltd. in terminating the service of Shri Mangi Lal is legal and justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to?""

2.Afterhearing both the parties on the preliminary issue of the fairness of domestic enquiry , this Court vide its order dated 17-12-2003 has held the domestic enquiry to be improper and unfair.

का. आ. 1712.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यूइंडिया एश्योरेन्स कं. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/10/2001 - आई.आर. ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd June, 2004

3. On 8-3-2001, the non - applicant petitioned before this Court that since the domestic enquiry conducted. against the workman was declared to be improper and unfair, he want to lead the evidence in support of the charge before the Court . The non -applicant has , therefore , sought the permission of the Court to lead his evidence .

S.O. 1712. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.49/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-6-2004 .

4. Contesting the application, on behalf of the workman it has been urged that the employer can make a request before the Court for leading the evidence only before the closure of the proceedings , which he has not made in his written statement and, therefore, he is not entitled to lead the evidence . Alternatively, it has been pleaded that in the event of permitting the employer to produce the evidence , the subsistence allowance may be granted in favour of the workman .

[No. L- 17012/ 10/2001 -IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

5. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

CASE NO . CGIT -49/ 2001

6. TheId . representative for the non - applicant contends that the non - applicant could not make a request in his written statement for producing the evidence in support of the charge levelled against the workman in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4067

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

event ifthe enquiry is found to be improper . After the said orderofthe Court, the non-applicant has now moved before this Court, who may be permitted to adduce the evidence .

12. The decision in the aforesaid case was rendered byaBench offive Hon'ble Judges . Hon'ble Justice Hegde whileaddressing for Hon'ble Justice Bharucha and himself has followed the view as laid down in the case of Sambhu NathGoyal Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. reported in 1984(1) SCR 85 and has observed as below :-

"The rights which the employer has in law to adduce additional evidence in a proceeding before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal either under Section 10 or Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act questioning the legality of the order terminating the service must be availed ofby the employer by making a proper request at the time when it files its statement of claim or written statement or makes an application seeking either permission to take certain action or seeking approval of the action taken by it. "

13. Thereafter, Hon'ble Justice has expressed the view as under:---

7. Arguing contra, the ld . representative for the workmanvehemently contends that the non-applicant now cannot be permitted to lead the evidence since no such request couldbe made on his behalf in the written statement. In support of this contention, the ld. representative has referred to AIR 2001 SC 2090 (Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt . Laxmi Devemma & Anr. ) . The Id. representative has further submitted that by a majority judgment, it has been decided that if no request has been made on behalf of the employer prior to the closure ofthe proceedings , then subsequently the employer cannot be permitted to lead the evidence . On the other hand, the ld. representative for the non-applicant submits that in view of the majority judgment the aforementioned authority supports the submission of the non -applicant and the discretion lies with the Tribunal . Thus , both the parties have placed their reliance upon AIR 2001 SC 2090 .

8. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the judicial pronouncement cited beforeme.

"For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the law laid down by this Court in the case of Shambu Nath Goyal V. Bank of Baroda and others , 1984(1) SCR 85 is the correct law on the point. "

14. Hon'bleJustice Shivaraj V. Patil while writing the judgment for Hon'ble Justice Khare and himself has expressed in the beginning as below:-

"After going through the draft judgment prepared byN. SantoshHegde, J. , we respectfully agreed with the same.Having gone through the draft judgment preparedby Y.K. Sabharwal J. , received later, we feltthenecessityof adding the following few lines." . 9. This Court vide its order dated 17-12-2003 has held the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman as unfair and improper . The non -applicant could not incorporate the request in his counter- statement that in the event of terming the domestic enquiry to be improper, he should be permitted to lead the evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the workman . It was only after the pronouncement of the order on 17-12-2003 that an application behalf of the non -applicant was moved before this Court on 8-3-2004 seeking an opportunity to adduce the evidence to prove the charge levelled against the workman.

10. Both the Id. representative have placed their reliance upon the decision rendered in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt . Laxmi Devemma & Anr. cited in AIR 2001 SC 2090 wherein a question came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court as to the entitlement of the employer in the law to adduce the additional evidence in a proceed- ing before the Labour Court under Sections 10 or 33 of the ID Act questioning the legality of the order terminating the service must be availed of by the employer by making a proper request at the time when it files the written statement .

15. But Hon'ble Justice Patil has further added that "the question as to at what stage the management should seek leave of the Labour Court/Tribunal to lead evidence/ additional evidence justifying its action is considered in thedraft judgement ofHegde, J. and not the power of the Court/Tribunal requiring or directing the parties to produce evidence if deemed fit in a given case having regard to thefacts and circumstances of that case. As per Section 11 (1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short the 'Act') a Court/Tribunal can follow the procedure which it Thinks fit in the circumstances of the case subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Under Section 11(3) , Labour Court/Tribunal and other authorities mentioned therein have the same powers as are vested in a civil court, under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of certain matters which include enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath and compelling the production of documents and material objects."

16. Furthermore , this judgement expounds the principle as below:-

11. Now , the question which emerges out for consideration before this Court is as to whether in view of theafore-citedpronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the request made on behalf ofthe non -applicant to lead the evidence can be allowed even if this plea was not set out in the counter statement by him that in the event of the treating the enquiry as bad by the Tribunal , he should be permitted to adduce the evidence to prove the charge imputed against the workman.

"We reiterate that in order to avoid unnecessary delay and multiplicity of proceedings , the management [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] 4068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

incorporate such a request in his written statement, he cannot be permitted to lead the evidence is wholly mis- conceived and is accordingly repelled.

has to seek leave of the court /tribunal in the written statement itself to lead additional evidence to support its action in the alternative and without prejudice to its rights and contentions . But this should not be understood as placing fetters on the powers of the court/ tribunal requiring or directing parties to lead additional evidence including production of documents at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice . "

21. That takes me to the determination of the question as to whether in the present case on its facts and circumstances, the non -applicant can be permitted to adduce the evidence , who has not sought such permission inhis counter-statement prior to the pronouncement of the order dated 17-12-2003 of this Court whereby the enquiry was held to be improper . This prayer on behalf of the non- applicant has to be examined on its own merit and bona fidesand the fact whether it is made to delay the proceedings and that no prejudice would be caused to the workman if it. isallowed.

17. Thus , as per this judgment, a duty is cast upon the employer to seek the leave of the Court in his counter statement to lead the evidence to establish the charges against the workman, but it does enable the Court to permit the parties to lead the evidence at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on facts it is deemed to be proper .

18. In the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Justice Y. K. Sabharwal while dissenting with the views expressed byHon'ble Justice Hegde , Hon'ble Justice Sabharwal has expressed his views as quoted below:-

22. On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the workman , who was a cleaner (safaiwała) employed by the non- applicant management, was chargesheeted on 27-3-96 with the allegation of remaining on unauthorised leave and after the completion of the enquiry , his service was terminated on 29-5-2000 . The non - applicant management prosecuted him for remaining unauthorized leave for a period of 370 days and it was also shown on behalf of the management that the workman participated only on one occasion during the course of the domestic enquiry but even then the enquiry was prolonged and it was concluded almost after the length of about four years and two months since serving the chargesheet on the workman. Such a negligent conduct on the part of the management is further reflected from the fact that even after declaring the enquiry unfair vide order dated 17-12- 2003, the application on behalf of the non-applicant seeking thepermission to adduce the evidence was moved on 8-3- 2004 after seeking the adjournments from the Court . Thus , theprayer to lead the evidence could not even be made by the employer soon after the pronouncement of the order and it casts the shadow of a reasonable doubt on the bona fide of the employer . This factor can also be looked that the imputation against the workman is of lesser gravity in its nature.

"Invarious decisions rendered by this Court, it has been held that such a request can be made before the proceedings are closed (before ) the Labour Court/ Tribunal . There is no compelling reason to limit the exercise of discretion hy the Labour Court /Industrial Tribunal to examine such a prayer on its own merit and decline it if not considered to be bona fide and made to delay the proceedings and to wreck the morale of the workman and compel him to surrender, to use the language of, Shambhu Nath Goyal's case (supra) . Ordinarily such a request when made immediately after the decision of the preliminary issue deserved to be allowed as held in Shankar Chakravarti's case prior to its collaboration by Justice Desai in Shambhu Nath Goyal's ease. If such a request is made soon after the enquiry is held to be invalid and the Labour Court holds it to be bona fide and further holds that no prejudice would be caused to the workman , there is no reasons still to shut the employer when it has been rightly held , time and again , that the employer has the right to adduce the evidence before the Labour Court in case of no enquiry or invalid enquiry . In such proceedings pleadings do not deserved to he strictly construed ."

19. Thus , on a careful perusal of the judicial

23. On a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case available on the record, in my considered opinion, it would not be just and proper to allow the employer to lead the evidence in support of the charge before this court. Accordingly , the request made on behalf of the employer to produce the evidence is declined.

pronouncement supra, it is manifestly clear that the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid pronouncement by the 3 : 2 majority has laid down that on declaring the domestic enquiry as improper by the Tribunal , if the request could not be embodied in the counter- statement on behalf of the employer to adduce the evidence and if the request is made soon after the pronouncement of the order, then such an urge on facts of the each case can be considered and the employer may be permitted to lead the evidence to substantiate the charge.

24. Since the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman has been declared as improper and unfair and the management has not been permitted to lead the additional evidence in support of the charge levelled against the workman, in consequence, the reference is to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman and against the management and it is held that the termination ofthe service of the workman Sh. Mangi Lal is illegal and unjustifed. The workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service with its continuity and with 50 per cent of the back- wages .An award is passed in these terms accordingly .

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 20. In the light of this principle propounded by the majority judgment supra , the contention canvassed on behalf of the workman that if the employer has failed to 4069 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 जून, 2004

ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referredto as the act) has referred the following industrial disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-

"Whether the action of the management ofLIC of India, Jaipur in terminating the services of the workman Smt. Gulab Devi w.e.f. 1-5-1997 was justified ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ?"

का. अस. 1713.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एल ० आई०सी० ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट के ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -17012/24/2001-आई. आर ( बी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd June, 2004

S.O. 1713. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of LIC ofIndia, and their workmen, which wasreceived by the Central Government on 15-6-04.

[No. L- 17012/24/2001 -IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

2. Theworkman in her statement of claim haspleaded that she was appointed as waterman by the non-applicant management in the year 1976 who was intially paid the wages of Rs . 60 per month which was subsequently increasedto the tune ofRs . 100 per month w.e.f. the month ofAugust, 1990. It has been averred on her behalf that as per the rules of the non -applicant establishment, she is covered under the category ofthe part - time employee, who waspaid thewages upto 30-4-97 and on 1-5-97, her service was terminated in violation of the provision under Section 25-F of the Act. It has been further stated that she had completed over 240 days in the preceding calendar year to hertermination, that at the time ofher termination, thejunior employeeste her were retained by the management, whose services were even later on regularized and after her termination, the fresh hands have been recruited by the management. Thus , the management has violated the provisions under Section 25- G and 25 -H of the Act. Assailing her termination, she has urged that her termination may be declared as illegal and she may be reinstated in the service with its continuity alongwith consequential benefits.

CaseNo. CGIT-54/2001

Reference No. L- 17012/24/2001 - IR (B- II)

Applicant

Smt. Gulab Devi R/oP-81 , LaxmanColony, ShyamNagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

Versus

1. The Sr. Divisional Manager,

LIC of India Ltd. , Bhawani Singh Road, JeevanPrakash, Jaipur (Rajasthan)-302001

2. The Branch Manager,

Non-applicants

LIC of India Ltd. , D.A.B. , Near MLA Quarters, GopinathMarg, Jaipur.

PRESENT:

Sh. R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

: Sh. R.C. Jain

For theApplicant

3. Resisting the claim of the workman, the non- applicants intheir written statement have pleaded that the workman was employed on contractual basis for filling the frinking water in the pitclires on the payment of wages of Rs . 60/- per month and after providing the water cooler in theoffice, she was paid the wages for filling the drinking water only in the three pitchers a day and that her wages subsequently increased to the sum of Rs. 100 per month w.e.f. the month ofAugust, 1990. The nor applicants have also pointed out that the workman had instituted a writ petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur which was turned down by its order dated 10-10-95 and a DB special appeal was preferred against the said order which was also dismissed on 22-8-97 . It has also been stated that the Act is not applicable to the present case which is governed by the rules framed by the department and the non-applicants have specifically denied that the the workman had aver werked for over 240 days with the management. Further, the non-applicants have also denied that the management had retained the junior employees to the workman at the time of her said termination and that the new recruitments were made thereafter.

:

AmiragAggarwal

Forthe non-applicant

17-5-2004

Dateofaward

4. On the pleadings of both the parties, the following points for determination were framed:-

AWARD

1. Whether the applicant was appointed as waterman in the year 1976 by non-applicant 1.The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferredunder Clause ' D ' of Sub -section 1 ofSection 10 4070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] establishment on the initial salary of Rs. 60 p.m. , which was increased as Rs. 100 p.m. since August, 1990 ? BOA

2. Whether the applicant has not been paid her salary since May , 1997 and the non -applicant establishment on being annoyed by agitating the proportionate salary admissible to her, has terminated her service on 1-5-1997 and that at the time of her termination, she was working under the control of non -applicant no. 2 ? BOA

9. The Id. representative for the workman contends that the workman had been in employment from the year 1976 to 30-4-1997 and this fact is proved on the basis of the documents Ex . W- 1 to W- 3 , which are the letters of the non- applicant management . His contention is that it is also undisputed that she had worked from 1976 to 1994 and the management witnesses have admitted this fact. Theld. representative adds that prior to the said termination, the management has not followed the provision contained under Section 25 -F of the Act . His further contention is that payment of wages was made to her through the vouchers, which the management has not produced on record despite the order of the Court. On these grounds , the Id. representative contends that the workman is entitled to the reinstatement .

3. Whether the applicant has completed 240 days of her service in non- applicant establishment and while terminating her service , the non -applicant has not followed the provision under Section25 (F ) oftheAct ?

BOA

4. Whether the personsjunior to the applicant are still working with the non -applicant establishment whose services have been regularized and that after termination of the services of the applicant, new workmen have been recruited by non - applicant establishment whereby it has violated the provisions under Sections 25 ( G) & 25 (H) of the Act ? BOA

5. Whether the termination order dated 1-5- 1997 of the applicant is improper and illegal ? BOA

10. Per contra, the ld. representative on behalf ofthe non-applicant contends that in the year 1983 , the workman was engaged on contractual basis and the payment of wages was made to her through vouchers , whereas the regular employees are paid their salaries through the salary bills. Theld. representative relying upon the evidence of the management witnesses submits that their testimony is reliable and it has been proved on the basis thereof that the workman was employed by the management on the contractual basis and after the termination of the specified term, her termination comes to an end which is thus not covered by the definition of the retrenchment.

6. Whether the applicant is entitled for her reinstatement in the service with full back -wages and all consequential benefits admissible to her ? BOA

7. Whether the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 are non - applicable to the present case? BONA

8. Whether the applicant has not presented her demand before the non- applicant Corporation and on this account, the conciliation proceeding and the reference under consideration is liable to be dismissed ? BONA

9. Relief.

5. The workman, in support of her case , has submitted three documents . On behalf of the non- applicants , the order dated 10-10-95 of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur has been filed .

11. The ld. representative for the workman has laid much emphasis on the award dated 9-5-2003 passed by this Court and has argued that by this award, it has already been decided that the workman is the part -time employee ofthe Corporation . But in that case, controversy ofpaying part-time wages to the workman as per NIT award dated 1-1-82 was involved in the reference, whereas the present reference deals with thejustification of the termination of the service ofworkman and the controversy in issue has to be adjudicated on the basis of the materials and evidence adducedby both the parties on record. Therefore , the core question which falls for the determination is as to whether the workman was employed by the non -applicant management as a waterman who had completed 240 days inthepreceding calendar year to the date of her termination andwhether her termination was made without following the mandate under Section 25 -F of the Act ?

6. In the oral evidence , the workman has submitted her affidavit , who was cross - examined on behalf of the non - applicants . On behalf of the non - applicants , the counter -affidavits of Sh . Purushotam Lal Sharma , Administrative Officer, Smt . Renu Bala Saxena , Higher Assistant and Sh. Kailash Chandra , Assistant have been filed, who were cross - examnined on behalf of the workman.

7. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record. The point - wise discussion follows as under:-

Point Nos . 1 , 2 , 3 & 5

8. The facts pertaining to all these points in issue being identical are discussed together .

12. The workman in her affidavit has stated that she hadworked continously w.e.f. the year 1976 to 30-4-97 . In her cross -examination, she has stated that the duty offilling thedrinking water was assigned to her and she has denied that she was paid the wages for filling the drinking water for per pither. To substantiate the claim of the workman , the letters Ex . W - 1 to W-3 belonging to the non -applicant management have been brought on the record . The letter Ex. W- 1 is addressed by the Manager (P& IR) to the Branch Manager which states that the workman is filling the drinkingwater and in doing so , she is devoting two hours daily with the management. This letter was written in the year 1987. The second letter Ex. W-2 was addressed by the 4071 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (il) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

of Sh. R.K. Sharma on behalf of the management was producedbefore the Court that these documents are not available with the management . No reasonable ground could be shown for the non-production of these documents and hence, the non-production of the vouchers pertaining to thepayment of wages to the workman by the management will leadstodrawing of an adverse inference in establishing the case of the workman. The oral evidence adduced on behalfofthe management to establish that the services of the workman was hired on contractual basis is indefinite and feeble innature inasmuch as even the specified term of the agreement could not be disclosed on behalf of the management. Thus, on an analytical examination of the documentaryaswell the oral evidence adduced by both theparties on the record, the workman has been able to establish the fact that she had completed 240 days of employment with the non- applicant management and that the management had violated the provision contained under Section 25 - F of the Act insasmuch as no notice or wages in lieu ofnotice and cosmpensation were paid to her as required under Section 25 -F of the Act. Thus, her termination on 1-5-97 amounts to retrenchment.

Branch Manager to the Sr. Divisional Manager of the Corporationwhich was sent along with the application of theworkman recommending to increase her remuneration to a reasonable rate and which says that she is devoting two hours for the said work. By the letter Ex. W-3 , itappears thatthe rate ofher wages was increased to the tune ofRs. 100/-per month. This letter was written on 3-7-90 . Thus, all these three letters echo that the workman was employed by the management to fill the drinking water and that she was devoting two hours a day. MW- 1 , Sh. PurushotamLal Sharma, Sr. Assistant has admitted in his deposition that the workman was initially employed in the year 1983 , who was paid the wages through the vouchers and that she had worked from the year 1983 to 30-4-97 as a waterman. Thereafter, improving his version , he has deposed that he had seenher working as a waterman w.e.f. the year 1985. Although in response to a question put up to him , he has deposed that she had not completed 240 days with the management, but he has further explained that he has said so on the ground that she was not working full time with the management. Thus , on the basis of the documents Ex. W-1 to W-3 and on account of the admissions madeby MW- 1, Sh. Purushotam Lal Sharma, these facts are proved that the workman was employed by the non -applicant management as a part -time waterman who had worked up to 30-4-97 with the management. Thus, in the preceding calendar year to her termination i.e. from 30-4-96 to30-4-97, she was working with the management and had completed over 240 days under the employment of the management.

15. The Id. representative in support of his contention has invited my attention towards the decision cited in 1991 ( 1 ) LLJ Rajasthan 501 wherein the Hon'ble court has held that the part-time employee shall also be taken as workman and which fortifies the contention advanced on behalf of the workman. The observation of theHon'ble Court is reproduced as below:-

"Aplain reading of the definition makes it abundantly clear that in order to render a person 'workman' what is required is that he should be employed in any industry to do any manual, skilled or unskilled etc. work for hire : The definition as given in the Act does not make any distinction between a full -time employee and a part -time employee. It does not lay down that only a person employedfor full-time will be takento be aworkman andthatonewho is onlya part -time employee should not be taken to be a workman. What is required is that the person should be employed for hire to discharge the work manual ; skilled or unskilled etc. in an industry. If this test is fulfilled, a part-time employeewill also be a workman as is a full-time emplyee."

13. As against the aforesaid evidence , on behalf of the management the case set forth is that the workman was employed on the contractual basis to fill the drinking water in the water pots. Firstly, the management witness Sh. Purshotam Lal Sharma has admitted in his oral evidence that no written agreement was executed for engaging her onthe contractual basis . Thus , no documentary evidence on behalf of the management could be produced in support of this submission. Only the oral evidence has been adduced, which is in contradiction with documents belonging to the management itself, i. e. the letters Ex. W- 1 to W-3 . The case of the management is that the workman was paid the wages for per pitcher for filling the drinking water therein. In contrast, the letters of the management Ex. W- 1 to W -3 denote that the management had engaged her for filling the drinking water who devoted two hours per day , which means that she was employed by the management as a part - time employee. It is also noticeable thatthe letters Ex . W- 1 to W-3 have been admitted by the management witnesses in their cross-examination: MW-3, Sh.Kailash Chandra, Assistant has deposed that he used toprepare the payment vouchers for the payment ofwages to the workman, which have not been placed on the record.

16. On the other hand, theld. representative has also referred to 1997 (8) SCC461 and AIR 1994 SC 1343. On aperusal of the facts of these rulings , it is manifest that they pertain to the discharge of a probationer from the serviceand the facts thereof are not applicable to the case at hand. Then the Id. representative on behalf of the management has too contended with force that the workman's case has been rejected by the Hon'ble RajasthanHigh Court vide order dated 10-10-95 delivered in Smt . Gulab Devi V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India& another and a photocopy thereof has been placed onthe record.

14. On 2-8-2002, an application was moved onbehalf of the workman to call upto the management to produce the vouchers w.e.f. the year 1976 to April, 1997 and after hearing both the parties , the non -applicant management was required to produce these material documents on 11-9-2002before the Court. But on 28-10-2002 , an affidavit 4072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3( H)] 17. The facts of the referred case are that the workman had urged before the Hon'ble Court for regularization of her service and the Hon'ble Court has observed as below :

ofthe ID Act in the present controversy. In support ofhis contention, the ld . representative has relied upon the order dated 10-10-95 ofthe Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court passed inSmt. Gulab Devi Vs. LIC andAIR 1982 SC1126.

23. In Smt. Gulab Devi Vs. LIC, the order dated 10-10- 95 at para 3 of the order, the Hon'ble Court has observed that " it is also stated the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 was amended in 1981 and the rules were framedunder Section48 (2)(cc) read with Section 2(cc) and theprovisions of the ID Act are not applicable. " " I have considered over the matter . By the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Beni Gopal (supra) the provisions of the Act excluding the application of ID Act have been held to be intravires. From the said decision it is clear that the service conditions have to be regularized on the basis of rules and regulations framed under the Act . "

24. Then, the Hon'ble Court has further observed asbelow:-

18. The decision proceeds further to state as below :-

" The LIC Staff Regulation, 1960 have been framed under which the procedure has been given for direct recruitment and even for temporary staff regulation 8 has contemplated that no person appointed under sub - regulation ( 1 ) shall only by reason of such appointment be entitled for regularization. "

"The decision of the Apex Court in the case of M. Venigopal V/s . Divul . Manager , LIC of India, AIR 1994 SC 1343 has been relied upon wherein in para 14 itwas observed that "The amendments introduced in S.48 of the CorporationAct have clearly excluded the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act so far theyare inconflict with the rules framed under S.48 (2)(00). The result whereofwill be that termination of the service ofthe appellant shall not be deemed to be a ' retrenchment ' within the meaning of S. 2(00) , even if sub -sec. (bb) had not been introduced in the said section. Once S. 2(00) is not attracted there is no question of application of S. 25-f on the basis of which thetermination of the service ofthe appellant can be held to be invalid . "

25. In AIR 1982 SC 1126, the Hon'bleApex Courthas expressed its views as under:-

19. Thus , the Hon'ble Court has rejected the prayer ofregularization made on behalf of the workman with an observation that the provisions of the LIC Act, 1956 exclude the application of the ID Act and , therefore, the claim for regularization ofthe service ofthe workman was disallowed. Thus, the referred case pertains to the regularization of the workman , whereas the instant case deals with the retrenchment of the workman . The issue of exclusion of the provision of the ID Act to the present case will find mention under the relevant issue of the jurisdiction ofthe ID Act over the instant controversy .

"In Sub -section (2) of S. 48 of the principal Act a new Sub -Cl . (cc) was inserted with retrospective effect from June 20, 1979. Cl. (cc) relates to " the terms and conditions of service of the employee and agents of the Corporation including those who became employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act . "

20. In view of the matter, the contention canvassed on behalf of the non - applicant does not find assistance from the afore - stated decision . As a result of the above discussion , the workman has succeeded in establishing her case that she was employed by the non- applicant management as a part - time waterman and that she had completed 240 days of employment in the preceding year to her termination and whose service was terminated in violation of the provision under Section 25 - F of the Act . Accordingly , these points are answered in this manner in favour of the workman and against the non - applicant management .

Point No. 4

21. Theld. representative for the workman does not press this point .

26. Then, at Para 8 , the Hon'ble Court has observed that "The contention that Article 14 is infringed arise on the provision of Sub -sec. (2C) of Sec . 48 that any rule made under cl. (cc) of Sub -sec . (2) of that section touching the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Corporation shall have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is true that after rules are made regarding the terms and conditions ofservice, the right to raise an industrial dispute in respect ofmatters dealt with by the rules will be taken away and to that extent the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act will cease to be applicable. "

Point No. 7

27. For the purpose of convenience, the relevant Section 48 ofthe LIC Act, 1956 is reproduced as below :-

Section 48 (1 ) The Central Government may , by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act .

(2) In particular , and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any ofthe following matters, namely:-

22. The Id . representative for the non - applicant contends that under Section 48 (2) (cc) of the LIC Act, 1956 the Corporation has been vested with the powers to frame rules with regard to the service conditions and under Section 2-C, the rules framed as such would have an overriding effect. The Id . representative , therefore , submits that the Corporation has framed the Staff Regulations in this regard which have the overriding effect and exclude the jurisdiction 4073 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17, 2004/ आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(cc) the terms and conditions of service of the employees and agents of the Corporation, including those who became; employees and agents of the Corporation on the appointed day under this Act;

No. 1 of 1981, Clause 2(cc) will be deemed to be revoked and in support of his submission, he has drawn my attention towards the decision cited in 2004 (100) FLR Karnataka 532 where in the Hon'ble Court has observed asunder:-

2(C) The provisions of clause (cc) ofSub -section (2) and Sub -section (2B ) and any rules made under the said clause (cc) shall have effect, and any such rule made with retrospective effect from any date shall also be deemed to have had effect from that date , notwithstanding any judgement, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority and not with standing anything contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or any other law or any agreement, settlement, award or other instrument for the time being in force."

"It is well-settled that, repeal lexically means 'to revoke or annual ' . A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that the normal effect of a repealing statute is to obliterate it as if it has never been passed and the Statute must be considered as a law that never existed Kollapur Cane Sugar Works. Vis. Union. The subordinate legislation and notifications issued under the repealed Law would also meet the same fate unless they are continued. under the reenacted law or continue to be operative in view ofsection 24 of the General Clauses Act. "

33. Thus , the contention put forth on behalf of the workman is strengthened by the Repealing (Amendment ) Act, 1988 and the decision supra and the workman has been able to establish that the staff regulations framed by the management have no application to the present controversy.

28. The provision under Section 48 (2 ) (cc ) was insertedby the Act No. 1 of 1981 w.e.f. 20-6-79 . It is on this ground that the ld. representative on behalf of the non- applicant has argued that since the staff regulations have been framed by the non - applicant management pursuant to Section 48(2)(cc) regarding the service conditions ofthe employees of the Corporation, therefore, in view of the provision contained under Section 2 (C) they exclude the provisions of the ID Act . Thus , the ld. representative for the non-applicant urges that the workman was appointed under regulation 8 and her case is governed by these regulations framed by the management which exclude the jurisdiction of the ID Act, over the present controversy.

34. On a care full survey of the aforementioned verdicts, it is obvious that the fact of introducing The Repealing (Amendment) Act, 1988 could not be brought into thenotice of their Lordships . As such, in view ofthe existence of the Act, 1988 and under the changed legal position on the point, the facts of the referred case are not applicable to the instant case. The contention advanced onbehalfofthe non -applicant the staff regulations farmed bythe Corporation exclude the provisions ofthe ID Act is thusunstainable and is repelled. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the workman and against the non- applicant.

Point No. 8

35. It has not been pressed on behalf of the non- `

applicant .

Points No. 6 & 9

29. Refuting the contention advanced on behalf of the ld. representative for the non - applicant the ld. representative for the workman contends that the Amendment Act No. I of 1981 where by the provision under Section 48 (2 )(cc ) was inserted has been repealed by TheRepealing and Amending Act, 1988. His submission is that since this provision has been repealed, the rules made there under would have no effect on the present case and it would be governed under the provisions of the ID Act . In support of his contention, theId. representative has placed on record " The Repealing and Amending Act, 1988" .

36. For the foregoing reasons , the claim of the workman deserves to be allowed.

30. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the referred citations and " The Repealing and Amending Act, 1988."

31. Section 2 of the Repealing and Amending Act, 1988, reads as under:-

37. The workman has stated that since her termination she is out ofemployment. It has not been shown on behalf of the management that during the period of enforced unemployment ofthe workman, she was gainfully employed. Hence, the workman is entitled for the back- wages.

"Repeal of certain enactments . The enactments specified in the First Schedule are hereby repealed to the extent mentioned in the fourth column there of. "

38. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the workman and against the non-applicant and it is held that the action of the non- applicant management in terminating the service of the workman Smt . Gulab Devi w.e.f. 1-5-97 is unjustified and that she is entitled to be reinstated in service with its continuity and with 50 per cent back-wages. The award is passed in these terms accordingly.

R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 32. At page 74 of First Schedule, it has been shown that the " the LIC (Amendment) Act, 1981 is repealed as a whole." It supports the contention of the ld. representative for the workman that the Act No. 1 of 1981 by which the Clause (cc) to Section 2 of Section 48 was inserted has been repealed. The Id. representative for the workman has further argued that on account of the repealing the Act

205295 / 04-30 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ ASADHA 26 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2004

compassionate grounds to Smt. KapoorwaBhuini (Trammer , W/o Late Maruwan Bhuia) is just & legal?"

का. आ. 1714.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -II धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 221/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. It appears from the record that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union appeared and filed written statement. If the attitude ofthe concerned workman/union is considered there is reason to believe that the workman/union side is not interested to proceed with hearing ofthe case further . I do not find any reason to adjourn the casesuo moto under such circumstances .

[सं. एल-20012/182/2001- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

3. Accordingly , I render a ' No Dispute Award ' in thepresent industrial dispute.

New Delhi , the 23rd June , 2004

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2004

S.O. 1714 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 221 / 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, II Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-6-04.

का. आ. 1715.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन मिलिट्री एकेडमी 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 15/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [No. L- 20012/ 182/2001 -IR (C-I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

[सं. एल-14012/36/2002- आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th June , 2004 ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Reference No. 221 of 2001 .

PARTIES:

S.O. 1715.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Military Academy and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on25-6-2004.

Employers in relation to the management of Kustore Area of M/ S.B.C.C.L . Ltd. AND Their Workmen .

[No. L- 14012/36/2002- IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer, PRESENT:

ANNEXURE

SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate .

PRESENT:

Forthe Employers

None.

Forthe Workman

Industry: Coal.

State: Jharkhand .

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer L. D. No. 15/2003 Ref. No.. L- 14012/ 36/2002- IR (DU) dated 21.10.2002

Dated, the 11th May, 2004 AWARD

BETWEEN:

Sri Mukhesh Shrma, S /o J.P. Sharma R/o Panditwari , P.O. Prem Nagar Dehradun

AND

By Order No.L - 20012 / 182/2001 - IR(C- I) dated 10-8- 2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, referred the following dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal: ----

The Commandant . Indian Military Academy, P.O. Rangar Walla, PremNagar , Dehradun

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . BCCL in not giving employment on [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

4075 AWARD

Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L- 14012/36/2002 - IR(DU) dated 21-2-2002 referredthe following issue for adjudication;

"Whether the action of Indian Military Academy management in terminating the services of Sri Mukhesh Sharma S/o Sh. Jai Prakash Sharmaw.e.f. 1-7-2002 isjust fair and legal ifnot forwhat relief he is entitled to?"

through Employment Exchange but was engaged for causal nature ofwork and there is no sanction post in the regular establishment. The services of casual labour are required purely on contractual basis as and when required . The workerwas employed for casual nature of work. His services weredischarged as the same were no longer required. It is also stated that the I.D. Act 1947 is not applicable to the petitioner . The employer has denied the details of employment given by the worker in his statement of claim andhas stated that the worker worked as casual labour in the following manner:

Year

Period

1999

15-7-99 to 11-12-99

2000

10-1-2000 to 24-6-2000

2000

27-7-2000 to 13-12-2000 The worker Sri Mukesh Sharma has filed the statement of claim alleging that he was employed in the Indian Military Academy on the post of waiter w.ec.f. 28-7-98 and he has been discharged without any priornotice on1-7-2000 illegally. Arbitrarily and against the provisions ofthe I.D. Act. 1947. The worker there after send a show causenoticeto the Commandant. Indian Military Academy by Registered post on 14-1-2002 which was duly acknowledged by the concerned dealing assistant. The Commandant of Agency kept silence over the notice for about 3½ months . The Commandant, Indian Military Academy was requested to cancel the illegal discharge and also requested the worker be allowed to work on the post ofwaiter within a period of 10 days . The worker has furnished the details of continned work under Commandant, MilitaryAcademy as under,

Yearofwork

Period ofwork

Totaldays

1998

28-7-98 to 1-9-98

1999

23-1-99 to 3-6-99

156

1999

16-7-99 to20-9-99

2000

1-1-2000 to30-6-2000

182

It is also stated that he was engaged for 24 days in a month for 8 hours daily excluding summer/winter vacation so far as the breaks are concerned the employer has stated that they were caused on account mandatory vacation period of the Academy and the worker was not giving artifical break as alleged by the workman. In this connection it is stated that Academy is authorised to avail 60 days summer/winter vacation as per Govt . Rules . During vacation period services of casual labours were not required. Hence the break given to the workman was genuine and not artifical . The employer has stated that the direct recruitment in the Academy is carried out as and whenvacancies are released by the Army HQ/Govt . or this purpose Employment Exchange and Solder Board are requested to sponsor names as also vacancies are advertised in the News Paper as per Govt . Instructions.All- the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange/ SolderBoard and candidates who apply directly from the open market on the basis of advertisment are considered for employment by a properly constitutedboard ofofficers. The casual labourers are also permitted to compete alongwith other candidates in case they apply against regular vacancies for which employment process in progress . The application was employed through Employment Exchange. He was engaged for casual nature ofwork and was discontinued whenever his services no longer required . Lastly it has also been submitted by the opposite party that Indian Military Academy provided educationonMilitary Science and Military training tothe gentlemen cadtes therefore this Academy does not come under the purview of the I.D. Act. 1947.

Theworker's allegations is that the aforesaid details goesto show that Commandant, Indian Military Academy has granted engagements with intermitend breaks and it clearly shows that the employment continued to subsist duringthe entire period from 1998 to 2000 and as such the interruption can not have any effect on the continuity of theapplicant in service. The employer has not serve upon the applicant one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for his discharge and if the period of that notice hasbeen expired on in lieu of that the worker has also not beenpaid the average wages for the said period of notice. The workman has not been paid the retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days averagepay for every complete year of continuous service oranypart there of in excess of six months. It is also stated inthe statement of claim that the employer has arbitrarily continued the juniors in the Academy in the service. The worker has further prayed that he may be reinstated with full backwages w.c.f. 1-7-2000 on the post ofwaiter and he should be regularised from the date of his retrenchment on the permanent post of waiter together withthe cost.

The representatives of parties were present on 18-11-2003 and they were directed to file affidavit in support ofthe case at CGIT, Lucknow by registered post and 31-12-2003 was fixed for cross examined but on the date fixednone appeared for the worker and therefore next datewas fixed 8-4-2004 on that date worker did not turn-up andtherefore on 8-4-2004 the Presidng Officer orderedthe case proceed to ex -parte against the worker and the next datewas fixed on 10-6-04 . On 10-6-04 also the worker did not turned up and Major Ramesh Chandra was heard on behalfoftheAcademy.

Lt. Col. S. S. Bist, Establishment Officer filed Written statement onbehalf of the employer denying the claim of theworker. The employer has alleged that the worker is not. industrial ornon industrial worker. He was not employed

2052 Gi/2004-31 [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 4076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

thathe worked for 441 days from 1998 to 2000 does not helphim.

The employer has filed the affidavit of Major Ramesh Chandra , Eastablishment Officer ( Civilian of the office of Commandant of Indian Military Academy ) . Following documents have also filed on behalf of the employer:

1. Letter of Commandant, Indian Military Academy, dated 25-11-99 regarding strength return and gentlemen cadets . Paper No. 17/12.

2. Report on gentlemen cadets from 16th July, 98 to 10-6-2000 paper No. 17/13 .

It is also proved that the worker is not duly appointed as regular worker. Employer has proved that the worker was a casual labour. It is also proved that the casual employees were engaged during training term of 5 months on daily wages. The learned representative of the opposite party has argued that it is not a case of artificial breaks but the break is necessiated as a result of non availability of work for the daily wage employee and therefore he could not be engaged.

3. Strength report of Indian Military Academy dated 20-6-2000 paper Nos . 17/14 , 17/15.

4. Strength return of IMA dated paper Nos . 17/16, 17/17.

5. Indian Military Academy parade of gentlemen cadets 1-10-01 paper No. 17/18 .

6. Photo copy of the judgment of CAT, Allahabad dated 18-11-97 passed in W.P. No. 930/97 Deepak Kr . Sharma and others Vs. Union of India paper No. 17/24.

From the evidence on record I am of the opinion that breaks in service are not artifical break as the worker has tried to state in the statement of claim . MajorRamesh Chandra has also proved that strength of gentlemen candets for pre- commission training increased beyond authorised strength of 1200GC during 1999 , 2000 and 2001 . On the increase of strength the services of casual employees were utilized to help the permanent staff to cope up with the extra work load. They were engaged purely for domestic services and they never carried any activity with a motive to make any monetary gain for this Academy. They were hired on daily wages .

7. Photo copy ofjudgementdt. 27-11-97 ofHon'ble High Court in Civil W.P. No. 39737/97 Satish Kumar Vs. State of U.P. Paper No. 17/25.

8. Photo copy of judgmentdt . 16-12-97 passed by

In the circumstances narrated above the dis- engagement of the worker Mukesh Sharma is not unjustified or illegal . The issue is therefore answered against the workman in favour of the employer.

the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad in W.P. No. 42116/97 Kailash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. paper No. 17/26 .

9. Photo copy of judgmentdt. 1-12-99 of Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad in Civil W.P. No. 11867/98 Kailash Chandra , Deepak Kr. Sharma Vs. Union of India Paper No. 17/27.

10. Photo copy ofjudgmentdt. 15-9-03 passed in civil W.P. No. 777/01 by Hon'ble High Court of Uttaranchal , Nainital in A.K. Sharma and Madan Lal Vs. Indian Military Academy , Dehradun.

It has also been argued by Major Ramesh Chandra that Indian Military Academy is not an industry but his academy imparting pre- commission training covering education onMilitary Science and Military training to the Gentlemencadets . This academy is affiliated to Jawaharlal Nehru University Delhi for conducting graduation examinations and award of degrees to the cadets ofArmy Cadet College Wing; and affiliated to H.N. Bahuguna Garwal University Srinagar for award of Post Graduate Diploma in Military Studies and Defence Management to passing out course gentlemen cadets . This academy does not carry on any activity by co -operation between employer and his workmen for production supply or distribution of goods or service . This academy does not fail under the jurisdiction of the I.D. Act .

The issue is whether Sri Mukesh Sharma was terminated w.e.f. 1-7-2000 if so whether his termination is fair and legal . The worker has not come forward to prove that he was terminated w.e.f. 1-7-2000 . On the other hand Major Ramesh Chandra has proved by his affidavit A2-17 that the worker has worked from 1-1-2000 to 30-6-2000 for 127 days he has also proved that the worker has worked from 16-7-99 to 20-9-99 for 60 days . The table for the work of the worker is as follows :

1. 28-7-99 to 1-9-98

36days

2. 23-1-99 to 3-6-99

110days

MajorRamesh Chandra has also argued that it is the soverign function of the Govt. which deals to the pre commissioned training to the officers of the Army and therefore the institute or the Indian Military Academy is not included in section 2 of the I.D. Act. 1947 whcih defines industry . The worker has not come forward to rebut the argument forwarded on behalf of the Academy.

3. 16-7-99 to 20-9-99

60days

4. 1-1-99 to 30-6-99

127days

Therefore I also come to the conclusion that activities ofAcademy is not covered in the I.D. Act and I also come to the conclusion that the worker Mukhesh Sharma is not a industrial worker so as to attract the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947. On the discussions above I come to the conclusion that the issue is answered affirmatively and worker is not entitled to any relief whatsoever .

State : Lucknow

17-6-2004

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer Thus in the preceding 12 calendar months before the termination of the worker , the worker worked only for 187 days . The worker has to prove that he worked for 240 days during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination . The worker has not been able to prove that he continuously worked for 240 days in preceding 12 calendar months . The worker's mere allegation 4077 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26 , 1926

नईदिल्ली, 25 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1716.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, न ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 182/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

compelled to refer the matter for re - conciliation proceedings which failed and so the case has been referred. That the management has been withholding the rights ofthe workman for over fourteen years and violating the principles of natural justice . It is submitted that the workman is not only entitled for the fruits of promotions since 1983 , but also has got right to recover the arrears of differences of salary between that of the beldar and the painter . He is further entitled to such other perquisites or benefits , which are extended to painters employed by the management.

[सं, एल-42011 /36/96- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th June , 2004

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , most of the paragraphs have been denied but it has been admitted that the applicant passed the departmental trade test for his promotion to the post ofAsstt. Carpenter only as such his claim for promotion asfull Carpenter is incorrect and hence denied .

S.O. 1716. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 182/ 97) 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 25-6-04 .

That the management is not withholding the rights ofpromotion of the worker as till to-day the Beldars who had alredy qualified the departmental trade test and had the seniority of 1972 have only been promoted to the post ofAsstt. Painter while the seniority of the applicant is of 17-6-1983.

[No. L-42011/36/96- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Ithas been admitted that the worker has qualified the Trade Test for promotion to the post of Asstt. Painter but since all the Asstt . Categories have been merged with full categories and further promotions of the Asstt . Categories have been kept under abeyance till further orders . Because of this merger , the workman applicant could not be given promotion.

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIR. N. RAI

L. D. NO. 182/97

IN THE MATTER OF : -

SHRI RAM BALI VERSUS

MANAGEMENT OF C.P.W.D.

That the workman has filed rejionder. In his rejoinder he has denied for want of knowledge that Assistant categories and full categories have been merged. It is stated that merger of two categories can not be a ground for not promoting a person who is eligible for the same . Since he has been declared eligible for promotion , he should be given promotion . It has been further stated that much junior persons have been promoted whereas the case of the workman has been witheld with malafide intention .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L-42011/36/ 96 -IR(DU) Central Governmentdt. 27-10-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the management of C.P.W.D. in denying to offer the post of Asstt. Painter to Shri Ram Bali Beldar w.e.f. 17-06-1983 is just and fair ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record . The management witness has admitted that he has passed departmental trade test but he is not senior enough to have been taken in the Assistant Category. No other person junior to him has been promoted. The departmental test should not have been taken . The post of Asstt . Painter and Painter has been merged . Because of this only a person cannot be deprived ofhis legitimate right . He is working since 1983 . It is almost 20 years back the test was taken and the workman has not been promoted. As such , the case of the workman is a genuine case . Unfair labour practice should not be had recourse to .

The claimant has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman has been working with the management since 17-06-1983 in the post ofBeldar.

The award is replied thus: -

The action of the management of C.P.W.D. in denyingto offer the post of Asstt . Painter to Shri Ram Bali , Beldar w.e.f. 17-06-1983 is completely neither just and nor fair .

That the workman was declared successful in the trade test for the post of Painter held by the management in the year 1983. Howerver , he was not promoted despite the fact that he moved a number of applications and representations for the same . Therefore , the workman was 4078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26 , 1926

The workman deserves to be promoted to the Post ofAsstt. Painter w . e. f. 17-06-1983 without any back wages.

The award is given accordingly .

DT. 10-06-2004

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 25 जून , 2004

का. आ. 1717.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ईम्प्लाईज प्रोविडेंट फंड आर्गेनाईजेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नं ० II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/93) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/107/92-आई. आर. (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th June, 2004

S.O. 1717. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 68/93 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 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 Employees Provident Fund Org. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 25-6-2004.

[No. L -42012/ 107/92- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. NO . 68/93

Presiding officer : R.N. RAI

in the matter of: -

Shri Ranjeet Singh

Versus

Management of Employees Provident Fund Organisation

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 42012/107/92- IR/DU / CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT. 09-09-1993 has referred the following point for adjudication.

"Whether the action of the management of Employees Provident Fund Organisation in terminating the services of Shri Ranjeet Singh , son of Shri Pachwa Singh , Peon/Messenger w.e.f.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 31-10-1986 is legal and justified? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?

The claimant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim, he has stated that the respondent management is a statutory corporation and as such, it is anindustry.

That the applicant workman was appointed on the post ofpeon/messenger in the office of the Opposite party after having been found suitable for the post on the basis ofinterview.

;

That the applicant workman joined his duty on 10-05-1985 where he worked continuously till 31-10-1985 inthe first phase on daily wages basis. Thus, the workman has continuously done the work for 115 days and subsequently he was again appointed w.e.f. 20-05-1986 to 31-10-1986 on daily wages basis. Thereafter his services were terminated w.e.f. 1-11-1986 without any reason. The termination of the applicant workman comes under the definition of illegal retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Act. The retrenchment is also illegal inview of Section 25 -G and H of the ID Act, 1947.

That in the year 1987-1988 , some regular vacancies against the post and category of the applicant workman were declared vacant and same had been filled up on the basis of interview which had been taken on 28-02-1987 and 27-4-88 but the applicant workman was neither called for interview nor his case was considered for the post which is contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 25 -G and 25 -H and 25 - J read with rule 77 and 78 of the Act . Fresh hands Shri Karan Sah, Shri Anil Kumar, Shri Rajender and Undaiveer have been appointed in place of the applicant workman w.e.f. 08-04-1987 without giving any opportunity of re- employment to him.

That the termination of services ofthe workman w.e.f. 1-11-1986 is very abrupt, arbitrary , illegal and with the motive/view to avoid the benefit of continuity or regularisation on the post as the vacancies existed for which recruitment have been made later on . There was work for the applicant workman and he ought to have been given preferences and called for interview as his name was sponsored by the employment exchange two times. The employment exchange did not send his name on the third time because two times, his name has already been sent by the employment exchange.

The respondent management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that hewas daily wages workman and he has filed this ID after a lapse of five years so he cannot claim reinstatement.

Ithas been stated that the respondent management is not an industry and the provisions of the ID Act, 1947 are not applicable in the case of the respondent management . The employer is directly under the control of Central Board of Trustees which has been constituted under the Employee's Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act , 1952. As such the respondent management does not comeunder the purview of industry. The workman applicant 4079 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17 , 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

was a dailywages workman. He was paid Rs . 14/- per day andhis services came to end at the close of every day.

Themanagement further submitted that the workman worked in 1985 for 115 days and in 1986 for 106 days. His services were not further required so his services were terminated. He has not completed 240 days so he cannot get the benefit of Section 25 (F) of the I.D. Act. The respondent is bound by the Government of India's instructions which specifically state that the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange should only be considered for appointment. The rest of the statement of claim has been denied and it has been emphatically stated that hewas a daily wages workman and hence he does not deserve to be reinstated.

were taken out of the list of the previous workmen. His name for the third time was not sponsored by the EmploymentExchange so his case was not considered. As such, the management witness has admitted that the workmenapplicant was appointed for two times on the basis ofhis name being sponsored by the employment exchange andhe was not appointed for the third time as the employment exchange did not send his name . It is also evident from the evidence ofMW/ 1 that he was not called for interview as his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. When his name was sponsored for twotimes andhe was appointed then it was not necessary tocall forhis name again from the employment exchange . It was submitted that the employment exchange had already send his name two times so the employment exchage sent the names of those persons whose names were not sent previously.As such his case ought to have considered on the basis ofhis name being sponsored two times by the employment exchage previously.

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe management that the workman was daily wages workman. He waspaid Rs. 14/- per day. He has not completed 240 days workso Section25 (F) is not attracted. The respondent management is not an industry so this court has got not jurisdiction.

Theworkman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder , he has stated that the respondent management is an industry under Section 2(S) of the Act and the petitioner is a workmanandthere is violations ofthe provisions ofSection 25-H and Rule 78 of the Act. He has submitted the list of fresh hands who have been interviewed and appointed from 8-4-1987 onwards . It has also been stated that some of the workman who working with him have also been regularised but a discrimination has been made in the case ofthe workman applicant only.

My attention was drawn from the side of the managementto 1988 LAB.I.C. 1125, 1988 LAB.L.C. 1126, 1988 LAB.LC. 1123, 1990 LAB.LC. 398, 1969-LAB.LC. 189 (ALL. ), 1989 LAB. I.C. NOC 190 (ALL.), 1989 LAB.I.C. NOC 12 (CAT. ), 1990 LAB. L.C. NOC 107 (ORISSA).

Ihave gone through all the citations referredto by the management. These citations relate to 25 (F) so in the facts and circumstances of this case, these citations are not applicable as the workman had not filed his case en the basis of 240 dayswork.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused thepapers on the record. It was submitted from the side of theworkman that the workman has worked in two years i.e. 1985 and 1986 and on both the occasions , his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and after aproper interview, he has been given appointment alongwith the other workmen . The respondent management is an industry. It is a corporation and it is constituted under a statute so it is a statutory body. The workman has filed applications and representations which he has made tothe officers ofthe said department. His case was not considred so at last hewas compelled to file reconciliation proceedings. After the failure of re -conciliation proceedings, the reference has been made by the Govt. to this tribunal .

My attentionwas further drawn to 1981 LAB . I.C. 725, 1990 LAB. I.C. NOC 106 (ORISSA), 1992 LAB. LC. 1813. These citations are regarding Section 2 (oo) (bb ) of the I.D. Act so the citations are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Fromthe side ofthe management, my attentionwas drawn to 1984 FLR. The Hon'ble APEX Court has held thatthe Central Government is the appropriate Govermanent and it has also beenbeen held that the activity carried onunder the Provident Fund Act is being carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government as provided in Section 2(a) of the Act. It was held that besiness carried on by the Provident Fund Organisation is that of an industry and the Central Government is an appropriate authorityunder theAct. So far as the point ofintenstry is concernedby this judgement of the APEX COURT , it becomes quite clear that the respondent management is anindustry. 1994 FLR Page 776 is regarding the delay in the IDAct . The limitationAct is net applicable and incase there was delay of 5 years that was due to the adamant attitude ofthe authorities not to consider the case of the workman applicant so the delay is not intentional. In 1996 Itwas submitted from the the side of the workman thatMW/ I has admitted in his cross -examination that the workmanwas recruited after his name being sponsoredby the Employment Exchange . His interview was conducted and thereafter he was appointed. It has been further stated byMW/ 1 in the cross-examination that 9 employeeswere appointed in 1986 out to them 7were terminated and 2were retained. In 1986, persons who were called again from the Employment Exchange and the workman was also one of them. He was re-appointed for a fixed period. Again in 1987, names of the persons for appointment was again called from theEmployment Exchange but the workman was not one ofthem. We regularised the services of four employees, namely, S/Shri Anil Kumar, Rajpal, Udai Ram andKaran Singh in 1987 on the ground ofeligibility who wereappointed freshly. The workman applicant has filed the list of the workmen appointed with him. It contains the name of Udai Ram and others who have been said to be appointed freshly. It indicates that these four workmen 4080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17, 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

justified. The workman deserves to be re- employed and to get 20% back wages from 8-4-1987.

The award is given accordingly .

Dated:18-06-2004

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2004

;

का. आ. 1718.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रिमांऊट ट्रेनिंग स्कूल एण्ड डिपो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, न० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एल सी ए-14/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2004 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-14025/2/2004- आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th June, 2004 LLR 651 , it has been held that an employer is not bound to recruit persons nominated by the Employment Exchange . According to Section 25 (g ) of the ID Act, when a retrenchment is made , the last person should be retrenched first and in case vacancies arise according to section 25 (h) of the ID Act, the retrenched workmen should be given preference and they should be re -employed . As such, according to 25 (g ) , the workman applicant is a retrenched workman and it is abundantly clear from the evidence of the management witness that fresh hands were taken in 1987. At that time, the case of this retrenched workman ought to have been considered and he should have been re-employed but the management has not followed the provisions as laid down in 25 (G) and (H) . In 1996 (74) FLR 2063 , it has been held by the Hon'ble APEX Court that Section 25 (G ) is confined only to the mode of retrenchment of workmen who are not in countinuous service for one year but 25 (G) prescribes the principles for retrenchment and applies ordinarily the principle of last come first go and it is not in respect of those persons who have been in continuous service for one year . According to Section 25(H) and 25 (G) first come last go principle should be applied as has been enunciated by the Hon'ble APEX Court. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court has also held that in case Section 25 ( F) Act is not attracted atleast 25 (G) should be followed in case of a retrenched employee.

S.O. 1718. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. LCA - 14/ 92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Remount Training School and Depot and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 25-6-04.

[No. L- 14025/2/2004- IR(DU) ] KULDIPRAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE , NEW DELHI L. C.A. No. 14/92

R.N. RAI: Presiding Officer

In the matter of: -

Khazan Singh

Versus

Ministry ofDefence, Sena Bhavan

FINDINGS

en to It has been further held by the Allahabad Hon'ble High Court in 1993 (66 ) Page- 45 that provisions of rules 76-77 and 78 of the ID Act and Section 25 (G) and 25 (H) are mandatory in nature . The workman who has not completed 240 days is entitled to the benefit of these sections and rules . The workman can claim compensation, damages and re- employment . It has been held in LLR 1995 page 505 that 25 (G) and (H) are applicable to casual labour ondaily wages . The Hon'ble APEX Court in FLR 1995 (71 ) 460 has held that in case of daily wages employees , principles of last come first go should be followed. They should be employed and preference should be given the displaced employees . According to the findings of the Hon'ble APEX Court, the principles of first come last go should be followed and the retrenched workman even though they are the daily wager should be re- employed and preference shoud be given to them. It is quite vivid from the above discussions that the respondent management is an industry and the workman is a retrenched workman and fresh hands have been appointed . As such , preference should be given to him and he should be re- employed but the respondent management has violated the law laid down in Section 25 (G) and (H) and rules 76, 77 and 78. As such, the workman applicant deserves to be re- employed with 20% back wages .

The reference is replied thus :---

Theapplicants have filed application under 33 -C(2). It has been stated in the application that the applicants are retired from Beldars and retired as such Beldars from permanent posts on 31-3-1983 on superannuation at the age of 58 years from Remount training School andDepot Saharanpur under the control of Colonel Commandant of theMinistry of Defence, Govt . of India, New Delhi .

The action of the management of Employees. Provident Fund Organisation in terminating the services of Shri Ranjeet Singh, son of Shri Pachwa Singh , Peon/ Messenger w.e.f. 31-10-1986 is neither legal and nor

That at the time of such retirement on and from 31-3-1983 , the applicants were holding the permanent posts 4081 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 17, 2004/आषाढ़ 26, 1926

ofFarmBeldars in regular pay scale ofRs . 196-232 and thetotal ofwages including of all allowances came toRs. 600 the CCS RULES applied to the applicant and even civilian pension rules also applied to the applicants and they belonged to class D Service.

The employeeshave filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder, theyhave denied the paragraphs of the written statement and submitted that the applicants were initially appointed inthe year 1946 at their Mona Depot at Gujarat in Punjab, now in Pakistan, Applicants being civilian employees are not engaged in any sovereign functions as alleged.

All the paragraphs of the written statement are wrong.

That the employers made decutions each month from the wages of the applicants towards the contribution of Provident Fund Account . Each applicant was even paid Rs. 13,000 as Provident Fund and leave encashment, on such retirement on 31-3-1983 .

That on such retirement on and from 31-3-1983 , applicants completed 37 years service as such became entitled to the payment of Gratuity and monthly pension. The amount of gratuity due at the rate of Rs. 600/- per month for 16.5 months comes to Rs . 9900/-. The pension amount per month comes at Rs. 500/- inclusive of all allowances and the total of such non -payment for the period from 1-4-1983 to 20-2-1993, 117 months, comes to Rs . 58,500. Thus total of amount due to each applicant comes to Rs .68,400.00.

That the employers are earning interest on these amounts in the Banks , as applicants are entitled to the payment of 18% interest thereon for the period from 1-6-1983 to 20-2-1992, 115 months comes to Rs. 1,17,300,

Heardarguments from both the sides and perused thepapers on the record. It was submitted from the side ofthe applicants that they have done 37 years of service sothey cannot be said to be temporary till the age of the retirement. They were not defence personnel. They were appointed as casual labourers. They were appointed on the monthly basis and in view of their long work, they shall be deemed to be regularised. It was argued from the side of the workman that Appendix A to CPRO 106/59 stipulates inpara Vthat if for any reason, the appointinent is to be continued beyond 6 months , the individual will not be discharged and re-employed from the same date. Instead he will be allowed to continue in service without any break and will be treated as regular industrial employee from the date of his original appointment as casual employee. In view of this provision , the workman shall be deemed to be regular industrial employees.

The management has filed written statement. It has been stated in the written statement that the claim is not based upon existing rights or benefits which can be computed in terms ofmoney.

That this Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application Under Section 33 -C( 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act as the court under the section merely functions as an execution court and cannot create new rights in favour of the applicants . The establishment of the respondent is not governed under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 since the same is not an industry as it is related to the Army and performing a Sovereign function. They have been appointed as temporary casual Beldar Class- IV Employees under the terms and conditions laid down in CPRO 106/59 and were paid out of annual contingencies in muster roll on monthly rated basis . It is further stated that the post of Beldar was not authorized inpeace establishment till 1986 and furhter not eligible for pension in terms of CCS (Pension Rules) 1972 .

The applicants have been subscribing towards IOF W.P. Funds, where from they have been paid the benefits at the time of superannuation, to which they were entitled to

Itwas argued from the side of the management that they filed this application after retirement and they are no longer in service , as such there is no employer or employee relation between the two . It was argued from the side ofthe management that there is no adjudication regarding their pension and the other rights . They ought to have got it adjudicated upon then only they can move applicationunder Section 33 (c) (2). So far as the demand ofthe applicants is concerned, there is no adjudication regarding the same . They ought to have got the matter referred to under the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 then only their application can be maintained as execution of thedecree. Since there is no adjudication of their rights, no relief can be given to them, 2000 ILLJ and ILLJ SC 1993 page 962 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as their reghts have not been adjudicated upon by any court or tribunal . Though they shall be deemed to be regular employees , even though they are paid from contingencies but so far as the payment ofpension, gratuity is concerned, there is no adjudication regarding the same and there is no settlement with the Government . The employees are workmen. They have not been discharging the sovereign functions .

It is further stated that all the four applicants retired on 31-3-1983 . They were employed purely on temporary basis and they were holding temporary posts till the date of their retirement because the post of Beldar was not authorized in P.E. at that time.

The application is liable to be rejected on the simple ground that the applicants have got no existing right and there is no negotiation or settlement . As such, this court as an executing court cannot give them the relief sought for.

ORDER

Theapplication is rejected.

The individuals were subscribing towards 10 FWP Funds being industrial employee and such employees are not eligible for pension and gratuity. The entire payments have been made to them.

Date: 17-06-2004

R. N. RAI, PresidingOfficer 4082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 17 , 2004/ASADHA 26, 1926

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ] श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 9 जुलाई , 2004

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2004

का. आ. 1720.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किलोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 369 दिनांक 5-2-2004 द्वारा ताम्बा खनन उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 13 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 5-2-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

का. आ. 1719.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 137दिनांक 31-12-2003 द्वारा करेंसी नोट प्रेस, नासिकरोड जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 25 मेंशामिल है, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनोंके लिए दिनांक 15-1-2004 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः अब , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-7-2004 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप-खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 5-8-2004 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । [फा. सं. एस-11017/3/91- आई. आर. ( पी.एल. ) ]

जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव

[फा. सं. एस -11017/11/97- आई. आर. ( पी.एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR

NewDelhi, the 9th July, 2004

New Delhi , the 8th July , 2004

S.O. 1720. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so reuired that in pursuance of the provisions of sub - clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No.369 dated 5-2-2004 the service in the Copper Mining Industry which is covered by item 13 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for aperiod of six months from the 5th February, 2004.

S.O. 1719. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so reuired that in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clause ( vi) of the clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 137 dated 31-12- 2003the service in Currency Note Press, Nashik Road which is covered by item 25 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of thesaid Act , for a period of six months from the 15th January, 2004.

Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a furtherperiod of six months .

And whereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months.

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred bytheproviso to sub -clause (vi) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be apublic utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period ofsix months from the 5th August 2004.

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - clause (vi ) of clause ( n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for aperiod of six months from the 15th July, 2004 .

[F. No. S- 11017/3/91 - IR (PL) ]

[F. No. S- 11017/11/97 - IR(PL)] J. P. PATI, Jt. Secy.

J. P. PATI, Jt. Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt. of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi- 110054.