This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी एल ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 7 ]

No. 7]

नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 6 फरवरी 12, 2005, शनिवार/माघ 17- माघ 23 , 1926 NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 6 FEBRUARY 12, 2005 , SATURDAY/MAGHA 17- MAGHA 23 , 1926 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

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

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( रक्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 3 फारञ्जरी , 2005

पुलिस स्टेशन में दर्ज अपराध मामला सं. 15/05 और उक्त अपराध ( 1 ) से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों तथा पूर्वोक्त मामलेके संबंध में उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उसी तथ्य अथवा तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराध के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं० 228/15/2005 - ए.वी.डी. - 11 ]

शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Departmentof Personnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 3rd February , 2005

S. O. 463. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 का.आ. 463.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार के गृह ( एससी.ए ) विभाग की अधिसूचना जी.ओ.एमएस . सं. 15 दिनांक 28-01-2005 द्वारा प्राप्त आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार की सहमति से अनंतपुर टाउन में पेनुकोंडाके विधायक श्री पारिताला रविन्द्रा की हत्या के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 147, 148 ,448 , 324, 307 और 302 सपठित धारा 149 और 120 - बी और भारतीय आयुध अधिनियम, 1959 ( 1959 का अधिनियम सं. 54 ) की धारा 25 ( 1 बी ) , 27 तथा विस्फोटक पदार्थ अधिनियम , 1908 ( 1908 का अधिनियम सं. 6 ) की धारा 3 एवं 5 के अधीन अनंतपुर जिला में अनंतपुर II टाउन 311 GI/2005

(1319) 1320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

National, Mr.Hideki Ishino on 3-2-2003 at Hampi (Hospet), Bellary under Section 120 -B read with 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860 ) and any other offence, committed in the course of the same transaction, or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/106/2004-AVD. -IIJ SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी, 2005

of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Andhra Pradesh vide Home ( SC.A) Department Notification G.O. Ms NO . 15 dated 28th January, 2005, hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction ofthe members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh for investigation into the case of murder of Shri Paritala Ravindra, MLA Penukonda in Anantapur Town registered in Crime No. 15/05 of Anantapur II Town Police Station in Anantpur District under Sections 147,148,448,324,307, and 302 read with Sections 149 and 120 -B of the India Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and Section 25 ( 1B) , 27 Indian Arms Act , 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959) and Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Act No. 6 of 1908) and attempts , abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the said offence (s ) and any other offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of same fact or facts in relation to the aforesaid case .

[No. 228/ 15 /2005 -AVD. - II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी, 2005

का.आ. 465.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों काप्रयोग करते हुए झारखंड राज्य सरकार के गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 6/सीबीआई -1002/ 2005/ 465 दिनांक 3-1-2005 द्वारा प्राप्त झारखंड राज्य सरकार की सहमति से बगोदर विधानसभा क्षेत्र से सीपीआई ( एमएल ) के विधायक स्वर्गीय महेन्द्र प्रसाद सिंह की हत्या के संबंध में जिला गिरिडीह में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 147 , 148 , 149 , 302 , 427 , 435 , आयुध अधिनियम की धारा 27 और विधिविरुद्ध क्रियाकलाप ( निवारण ) अधिनियम, 1967 की धारा 13 के अधीन सरैया पुलिस स्टेशन मामला सं. 16 दिनांक 16-1-2005 तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से अद्भूत उक्त उपराधों से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्न, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्र तथा किसी अन्य अपराध(ों ) के अन्वेषण के लिए दिल्ली पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण झारखंड राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं० 228/11 /2005 -ए.वी.डी.- II ]

शुभाठाकुर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th February , 2005 का.आ. 464.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कर्नाटक राज्य सरकार की दिनांक 02-09-2004 की अधिसूचना संख्या एच.डी. 97 पी.सी.आर. 2004 के द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से हम्पी ( होस्पेट ) बेल्लारी में दिनांक 03-02-2003 को जापानी राष्ट्रिक श्री हिदेकी इशीनो के साथ की गई धोखाधड़ी के संबंध में भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा , 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम संख्या45 ) की धारा 420 के साथ पठित धारा 120 - बी में दर्ज मामले की जाँच के लिए और उक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों की जांच के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों के कार्य क्षेत्र एवं अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण कर्नाटक राज्य पर करती है ।

[सं० 228/106/2004- ए.वी.डी.- II ]

शुभा ठाकुर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th February , 2005

S. O. 465. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Jharkhand , Home Department vide Notification No. 6/CBI - 1002/2005/ 465 dated 3-1-2005 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Jharkhand, for investigation of Saraiya P.S. CaseNo. 16 dated 16-1-2005 u/s 147/148/149/302/427/435 IndianPenal Code, 27 Arms Act and Section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 in the district of Giridih regarding murder of Late Mahendra Prasad Singh, CPI (ML) MLA from Bagodar Assembly constituency , and abetment , attampts and conspiracy and any other offence(s) in relation to or in connection with the said offences committed in the course of the same transaction or as ing out of the same facts .

S. O. 464. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of1946), the Central Government with the consent of State Government of Karnataka, vide Notification No. HD 97 PCR 2004 dated 02-09-2004 , hereby extends the powers andjurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Karnataka for investigation into the case of cheating of a Japanese

[No. 228/ 11/2005-AVD . -II] SHUBHA THAKUR, Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1321

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23 , 1926

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग)

मुख्य आयुक्त, उत्पाद तथा सीमा - शुल्क , पुणे क्षेत्र का कार्यालय पुणे, 31 दिसम्बर, 2004

संख्या: 2/2004 सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टैरिफ ) का.आ. 466.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली द्वारा दिनांक 1-7-94 को जारी की गई अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94सीमा शुल्क ( नॉन टैरिफ ) के अधीन मुझे प्रदत्त अधिकारों को कार्यान्वित करते हुए, मैं, बी. एस. गानू, मुख्य आयुक्त, केंद्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क तथा सीमाशुल्क, पुणे क्षेत्र पुणे एतद्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य के गाँव- वडकी, तालुका: - हवेली, जिला- पुणे 412308 को सीमा अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 9 के अधीन तथा प्राइवेट बाँडेड वेअरहाउस स्थापना हेतु, वेअरहाउसिंग स्टेशन के रूप में घोषित कर रहा हूं।

[फा. संख्या VIII/48-40/सीसीयू/पी-ज़ेड/04 ] बी. एस. गानू, मुख्य आयुक्त MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS Pune, the 31st December, 2004 No. 2/2004 Cus. (N.T.)

S. O. 466. In exercise of the powers conferred on me by Notification No. 33/94-Cus (NT) , dtd . 1-07-94 of the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue, New Delhi , I hereby declare village ' Wadki ' , Tal . Haveli , Distt . Pune-412 308 , in the state of Maharashtra to be a Warehousing Station , under Section 9, of the Customs Act , 1962 (52 of 1962) , for setting up Private Bonded Warehouse.

[F. No. VIII/48-40/CCU /PZ/04 ] B. S. GANU, Chief Commissioner केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 467.- सर्व साधारण की जानकारी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार आयकर, नियमावली, 1962के नियम 2 ड के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 (23छ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2005-2006 से कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2020-2021 तक ( दिनांक 8-11-2019 तक) अर्थात् भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण के साथ निष्पन्न दिनांक 9-10-2001 के रियासत करार में यथा विनिर्दिष्ट 17 वर्ष 6 माह की अवधि के लिए अथवा उससे पहले उपर्युक्त करार की शर्तों का उल्लंघन होने की स्थिति में नीचे पैरा ( 3 ) में उल्लिखित उद्यम/ उपक्रम के अनुमोदनं को नवीकृत करती है ।

2. यह अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है कि-

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

(ii ) केन्द्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि उद्यम/ उपक्रम -

(क) आयकर अधिनियम, 1962 के नियम 2 ङके स्पष्टीकरण ( ख ) में यथा परिभाषित पात्र कारोबार को जारी रखना बंद कर देता है ; अथवा (ख) खाता बहियों का रख - रखाव नहीं कराता है तथा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 ङके उपनियम (6) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित किसी लेखाकार द्वारा ऐसे खातों की लेखा परीक्षा नहीं कराता है ; अथवा

(ग) आयकर नियमावली 1962 के नियम 2 ङ के उप नियम ( 6 ) द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करता है ।

3. अनुमोदित उद्यम/उपक्रम है:-

मैसर्स जी. एम. आर. तामबरम टिनडीवनम एक्सप्रेसवेज प्रा. लि. 6-3-866/1/जी-2, ग्रीनलैन्डस् बेगमपैट, हैदराबाद- 500016 को तामबरम-टिनडीवनम सैक्शन में तमिलनाडु राज्य में एम. एच. 45 पर किमी 67/00 से किमी 121/00 से 4 लेन तथा दोहरे कैरिजवे तथा उसे मजबूत करने के लिए मौजूदा 2 लेजों कोचौड़ा करने तथा किमी 28/00 से किमी 67/00 तक मौजूदा 4 लेनों को मजबूत करने की उनकी परियोजना के लिए । (फा. सं. 205/61/2001 - आ.क.नि.- II ) ( खंड- I ) । [अधिसूचना सं. 17/2005/फा. सं. 205/61 /2001- आ.क.नि.- II (खंड-I ) ]

रेनूजौहरी , निदेशक (आ.क.नि.- II ) CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES New Delhi , the 27th January , 2005 S. O. 467. It is notified for general information thatapproval to the enterprise/ undertaking , listed at para (3) below has been renewed by the Central Government for the purpose of Section 10 (23G) of the Income -tax Act , 1961, read with rule 2E of the Income -tax Rules , 1962 with effect from the Assessment Year 2005-06 to Assessment Year 2020-2021 ( upto 08-11-2019) i.e. for a period of 17 years 6 months as specified in the concession agreement dtd . 09-10-2001 entered into with the National Highway 1322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

Authority of india , or earlier, in the event of violation of the terms of the agreement aforesaid.

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

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

(a) ceases to carry on the eligible business as defined in Explanation (b ) to Rule 2E of IT Rules , 1962; or

(b) fails to maintain books of account and get such accounts audited by an accountant as required by sub -rule (6) of rule 2E of the Income -taxRules , 1962 ; or

(iii) the enterprise mentioned in Para 3 below starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility after developing it in terms of Section 80 -IA(4) ( i ) (c) of the Income-tax Act , 1961 and in accordance with the concession agreement dated 09-10-2001 entered into with the National Highway Authority of India , failing which the approval shall be withdrawn .

3. The enterprise/ undertaking approved is- M/sGMR Tambaram Tindivanam Expressways Pvt . Ltd. , 6-3-866/ 1 / G2 , Greenlands , Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016 for their project of strenthening of existing 4 lanes from Km . 28/00 to Km . 67/00 and widening of the existing 2 lanes from Km . 67/00 to Km. 121/00 to 4 lane dual carriageway and strengthening thereof in Tambaram -Tindivanam section on NH 45 in the State of Tamil Nadu on build , Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis (F. No. 205/61 / 2001-ITA- II (Vol.1)).

[Notification No. 17/2005/F . No. 205/61 /2001 /ITA. II (Vol. 1) ]

RENU JAUHRI, Director (ITA - II) नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2005

(आयकर )

का.आ. 468.- सामान्य जानकरी के लिए यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा अधोलिखित संगठन को उसके

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नाम के सामने उल्लिखित अवधि के लिए आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( I ) के खंड ( II ) के प्रयोजनार्थ " संस्था " श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है:-

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

(ii ) अधिसूचित संगठन प्रत्येक वित्तीय वर्ष के लिए अपनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान गतिविधियों की वार्षिक विवरणी प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 मई को अथवा उससे पहले सचिव वैज्ञानिक और औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग ' टेक्नोलॉजी भवन ' न्यूमहरौली रोड, नई दिल्ली-110016 को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

(iii) अधिसूचित संगठन केन्द्र सरकार की तरफ से नामोदिष्ट निर्धारण अधिकारी को आयकर की विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने के अतिरिक्त अपने लेखा परीक्षित वार्षिक लेखों की एक प्रति तथा अपने अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों, जिसके लिए आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( I ) के अन्तर्गत छूट प्रदान की गई थी, के संबंध में आय एवं व्यय खाते की लेखा परीक्षा की भी एक प्रति संगठन पर अधिकार क्षेत्र वाले ( क) आयकर महानिदेशक ( छूट ) आयकर भवन , १ वां और 10 वां तल , सेक्टर-3 , वैशाली, गाजियाबाद, ( ख ) सचिव , वैज्ञानिक एवं औद्योगिक अनुसंधान विभाग, तथा ( ग ) आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को प्रत्येक वर्ष 31 अक्टूबर को अथवा उससे पहले प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

क्रम सं. अनुमोदित संगठन का नाम अवधिजिसके लिए अधिसूचना प्रभावी है 1. नेशनल एक्करेडिशन बोर्ड फार टेस्टिंग एण्ड कैलिबरेशन 2-9-2000 से 31-3-2003 लेबोरेटरीज ( एन.ए.बी.एल )

डिपार्टमेंट आफ साईंस एण्ड टेक्नोलोजी, टेक्नोलोजी भवन, न्यूमहरौली रोड, नई दिल्ली ।

टिप्पणी: ( i ) उपर्युक्त शर्त ( i ) " संघ " के रूप में श्रेणीबद्ध संगठन पर लागू नहीं होगी ।

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

[ अधिसूचना सं. 18/ 2005/फा.सं. 203 /31 / 2003 - आयकर नि. II ]

निधिसिंह, अवर सचिव 1323

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January , 2005 (INCOME TAX)

S.O. 468. It is hereby notified for general information that the organisation mentioned below has been approvedby the Central Government for the period mentioned below, for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 , under the category " Institution " subject to the following conditions :-

(i) The organization shall maintain separate book ofaccounts for its research activities ;

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

(iii) The notified organization shall submit, on behalf ofthe Central Government, to ( a) the Director General of Income Tax (Exemption) , Aayakar Bhawan, 9th and 10th Floor , Sector 3 , Vaishali , Ghaziabad, (b) the Secretary , Department of Scientific & Industrial Research, and (c) the Commissioner of Income tax/Director of Income tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction over the organisation, on or before the 31st October each year, a copy of its audited Annual Accounts and also a copy of audited Income & Expenditure Account in respect of its research activities for which exemption was grantedunder sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of Income Tax Act, 1961 in addition to the return of income tax to the designated assessing officer S. No. Name of the organisation approved

Period for which notification is effective 1. National Accredition Board for Testing and Caliberation Laboratories (NABL) Department of Science & Technology, Technology Bhawan , New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi . 2-9-2000 to 31-3-2003 Notes: (1) Condition ( i) above will not apply to the organization categorized as " Association " (ii) The notified organization is advised to apply in triplicates as well in advance for further renewal of the approval, to the Central Government through the Commissioner of Income tax/ Director of Income tax (Exemptions) having jurusdiction . Three copies of the application for renewal . of approval should also be sent directlyto the Secretary , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research .

[NotificaionNo. 18/2005 /F. No. 203/31 /2003 -ITA- II ] NIDHI SINGH , Under Secy .

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 59.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4) के अनुसरण में दूरदर्शन महानिदेशालय ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय) केनिम्नलिखित अधीनस्थकार्यालयों, जिनके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केन्द्र, धर्मशाला

2. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, सुजानपुरः

3. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, धर्मशाला

4. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केन्द्र, बिलासपुर

5. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, बिलासपुर

6. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, कोरबा

7. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, रायगढ़

8. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, सक्ति

9. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, चम्पा

10. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, खरोत

11. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केन्द्र, रामपुर

12. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र , मुरादाबाद

13. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, रामपुर

14. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र , सम्भल

15. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, अमरोहा

16. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति प्रेषित्र, काशीपुर

[फा. सं.ई -11017/4/2002- हिन्दी] समय सिंह कटारिया, निदेशक ( राजभाषा) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 28th January , 2005 S. O. 469.-In pursuance of Sub -rule (4) of Rule 10 oftheOfficial Language (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rule , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following subordinate offices of DG : Doordarshan (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) , more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi .

1. Doordarshan Dharamshala . Maintenance Centre.

2. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Sujanpur .

3. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Dharamshala .

4. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre , Bilaspur.

5. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Bilaspur.

6. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Korba .

1324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

7. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Raigarh .

8. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Sakti .

9. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Champa ..

10. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Kharod.

11. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre, Rampur.

12. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Muradabad .

13. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Rampur.

14. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Sambhal .

15. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Amroha .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] hereby appoints the officer mentioned in.column ( 1) ofthe Table givenbelow, being an officer equivalent to the rank of a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be estate officer for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on estate officer by or under the said Act within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the said Table.

TABLE

Public Premises

Designation of

theOfficer

16. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Kashipur .

[F. No. E- 11017/4/2002 -Hindi ]

S. S. KATARIA, Director (O.L. ) परमाणु ऊर्जा विभाग मुंबई, 25 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 470.-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत दखल से बेदखली) नियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) के खंड 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित सारणी के कॉलम ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारी, जो सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी की श्रेणी के समकक्ष अधिकारी है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है और जो उक्त सारणी की कॉलम संख्या ( 2 ) में निर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों के संबंध में उनके क्षेत्राधिकार में आनेवाली स्थानीय सीमाओं में उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा या उसके तहत सम्पदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा अधिरोपित कर्तव्यभार का निष्पादन करेंगे ।

सारणी

अधिकारी का पदनाम

सार्वजनिक परिसर की श्रेणियाँ तथा स्थानीय सीमाएं या क्षेत्राधिकार (1)

(2)

अतिरिक्त प्रबंधक ( कार्मिक ) , तुरमडीह माइंस , यूसीआईएल, पी ओ: सुंदरनगर, जिला सिंहभूम ( पूर्व ) , झारखंड-832102

तुरमडीह एवं बंदूहुरंग माइंस, पीओः सुंदरनगर, जिला- सिंहभूम ( पूर्व ) , झारखंड में यूरेनियम कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, के स्वामित्व वाले या उनके द्वारा पट्टे पर लिए गए परिसर जो तुरमडीह परियोजना के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में है ।

[संख्या 10/8 ( 17 )/2004-पीएसयू/777 ]

जी. एम. नायर, अवर सचिव (1)

(2)

Additional Manager

(Personnel) , Turamdih MinesUranium Corpora- tion of India Limited , PO: Sundernagar, District Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand-832102 .

Premises belonging to or taken on lease for the Uranium Corporation ofIndia Limited at Turamdih and Banduhurang Mines , PO: Sundernagar, District Singh- bhum (East ) , Jharkhand , which are under the adminis- trative control at Turamdih Project.

[F. No. 10/8( 17) 2004 -PSU/777 ] G. M. NAIR, Under Secy.

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यविभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2005

का.आ. 471.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के खंड ( च ) के अनुसरण में डॉ. एस. एम. बालाजी कोडॉ. सी. भास्कर राव जिनका कार्यकाल दिनांक 31-1-2005 को समाप्त हो गया है, के स्थान पर दिनांक1-2-2005 से केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में नामित किया गया है ।

2. अतः , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के साथ पठित धारा 3 के खंड ( च ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार , स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्यविभाग) की दिनांक 24 जनवरी , 1984 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 430 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 3 ( च ) के अंतर्गत ' नामित' शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम सं. 3 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्: -

1-2-2005 3. डॉ. एस.एम. बालाजी

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

नामित केन्द्र सरकार

30, कविंगर भारतीदसन

रोड, तेझामपेट,

चेन्नई-600018

Mumbai , the 25th January , 2005

S. O. 470. 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

[सं. वी. 12013/1/2004-पीएमएस ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव 444 1325 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माष 23, 1926

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(P.M.S. Section)

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2005 (DepartmentofHealth)

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2005

S.O. 472.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section(2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:-

S.O. 471. Whereas , in pursuance of clause (f) of Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), Dr. S. M. Balaji has been nominated as a member by the Central Government to the Dental Council of India with effect from 01-02-2005 in place of Dr. C. Bhasker Rao whose termhas expired on 31-01-2005.

2. Under the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 17, in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to Bangalore University, Bangalore the following entries in respect of NSVK Sri Venkateshwara Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore shall be inserted:-

XV. NSVK Sri Venkateshwara Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore

2. Now, therefore in pursuance of clause(f) ofSection 3 read with sub -section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby makes the following amendment inthe notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health ), No. S.O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984, namely :-

BDS (Bangalore)

(1) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 17-9-1996)

Against serial No. 3 under the heading ' Nominated u/s 3 (f) of the Dentists Act , 1948 the following entries shall be substituted, namely:

[No. V- 12017 /23 /94- PMS ] A. K. SINGH , Under Secy.

Central 01-02-2005 Government

नईदिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

3. Dr. S. M. Balaji , Nominated 30,Kavinagar Bharathidasan Road, Teynampet , Chennai -600018 .

[No. V- 12013/1 /2004-PMS ] A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

का.आ. 473.-दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

(पी.एम.एस. अनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

2. राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , बैंगलोर से संबंधित दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग 1 में क्रम संख्या 49 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियोंके अन्तर्गत एन एस वी के श्री वेंकटेश्वर डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल, बैंगलोर के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतःस्थापित -की जाएंगी:-

का.आ. 472.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

XXXVI एन एस वी के श्री वेंकटेश्वर डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल, बैंगलौर

(आर जी यूएच एस ) बैंगलोर

(i ) बैचलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी (यदियह 30-10-2003 कोअथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) बी डी एस 2. बैंगलोर विश्वविद्यालय , बैंगलोर से संबंधित दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग I में क्रम संख्या 17 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के अन्तर्गत एन एस वी के श्री वेंकटेश्वर डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल , बैंगलोर के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतःस्थापित की जाएंगी:-

[सं. वी-12017/23/94- पी एम एस ] ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 2nd February , 2005 XV एन एस वी के श्री वेंकटेश्वर डेंटल कालेज एंड हास्पिटल, बैंगलोर

बीडीएस ( बैंगलौर )

(i ) बैचलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी (यदियह 17-9-1996 कोअथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

S.O. 473. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of1948) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

[सं. वी-12017/23/94- पी एम एस ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव

2. Under the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 49 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the ২ 1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS ) , Bangalore the following entries in respect ofN VK Sri Venkateshwara Dental CollegeandHospital , Bangore shall be inserted:-

XXXVI. NSVK Sri Verkateshwara Dental College and Hospital, Bangalore

का.आ. 475.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

BDS , (RGUHS ) , Bangalore

(1) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 30-10-2003)

[No. V- 12017/23/ 94- PMS] A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

2. राजीव गांधी स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, बैंगलोर से संबंधित दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग I में क्रम संख्या 49 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियोंके अन्तर्गत मराठा मण्डल्स डेंटल कालेज, बेलगाम के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतःस्थापित की जाएंगी:-

XXXVII मराठा मण्डल्स डेंटल कालेज , बेलगाम का.आ. 474.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों के अनुसरण में, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, उक्तअधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

बीडी एस (आर जी यूएच एस ) बैंगलोर

( i ) बैचलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी (यदियह 9-10-2004 को अथवा उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[सं. वी-12017/16/94- पी एम एस ( खण्ड V) ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव 2. कर्नाटक विश्वविद्यालय, धारवाड़ से संबंधित दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग 1 में क्रम संख्या 35 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के अन्तर्गत मराठा मण्डल्स डेंटल कालेज, बेलगाम के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतःस्थापित की जाएंगी: -

New Delhi , the 2nd February , 2005 III मराठा मण्डल्स डेंटल कालेज , बेलगाम

( i ) बैचलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी बीडी एस, कर्नाटक

(यदि यह 9-5-1996 को अथवा

उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

S.O. 475. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation withDental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part -1 of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:--

[सं. वी -12017/16/ 94- पी एम एस ( खण्ड V ) ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 2nd February , 2005

2. Under the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 49 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) , Bangalore , the following entries in respect of Maratha Mandal's Dental College Belgaum shall be inserted thereunder :-

XXXVII. Maratha Mandal's Dental College, Belgaum S.O. 474. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following amendments in Part - 1 of the Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

BDS , (RGUHS) Bangalore

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 9-10-2004)

[No. V- 12017/ 16/94 -PMS ( Vol.V) ]

A. K. SINGH , Under Secy.

2. Under the existing entries of column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 35 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to Karnataka University , Dharwad , the following entries in respect of Maratha Mandal's Dental College , Belgaum shall be inserted thereunder :-

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

III . Maratha Mandal's Dental College , Belgaum

BDS , Karnataka

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 9-5-1996)

[No. V- 12017/16/94-PMS (Vol.V) ]

A. K. SINGH , Under Secy .

का.आ. 476.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 (1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में, प्रो . ( श्रीमती ) शमीम जहां रिजवी, जे.एम, डिकल कालेज, अलीगढ़ को अलीगव मुस्लिम विश्वविद्यालय इस अधिसूचना के ज द्वारा होगी तारीख में रतीय आयुषिरिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप् नि चत किया है ।

রও [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (11 ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माब 23, 1926

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्यमंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 138 में निम्मलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त अधिसूचना में " धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अधीन निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 42 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी , अर्थात्:-

अलीगढ़ मुस्लिम विश्वविद्यालय " 42. प्रो. ( श्रीमती ) शमीम जहां रिजवी, जे . एम . मेडिकल कालेज, अलीगढ़ ( उ.प्र. )

[ सं. ची-11013/ 2 /2004- एम.ई. ( नीति -1 ) ]

पी. जी. कलाधरण , अवर सचिव पादटिप्पण: मुख्य अधिसूचना दिनांक 9-1-1960 का.आ. 138 के तहत भारत के राजपत्र में प्रकाशित हुई थी । New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2005 S. O. 476. Whereas , in pursuance of clause (b ) of Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Council Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956) Prof. (Mrs. ) Shameem Jahan Rizvi , J. N. Medical College, Aligarh has been elected by the Court oftheAligarh Muslim University to be a member of theMedical Council of India with effect from the date of issue of this notification .

1327 तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार् पाईपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाईपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें ठक्त पाईपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछायें जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री दीपक नंदी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई-मांगल्या पाईपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना, भारत पेट्रेलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , 1 - सी, बालमंदिर कालोनी, होटल पिंक पैलेस के पास, सवाई माधोपुर -322001 ( राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील: सवाई माधोपुर जिला: सवाई माधोपुर राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में क्र.सं. ग्राम का नाम

सर्वे संख्या

4 12

4157

0.0135 1. पाँचोलास

Now, therefore , in pursuance of the provision of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the thenMinistry ofHealth number S. O, 138, dated the 9th January, 1960 namely:-

Inthe said Notification, under the heig, 'Elected under clause (b ) of Sub -section ( 1 ) of Sect . 3 , for serial number 42 and the entries releting thereto the following entries shall be substituted, namely:

Aligarh Muslim University "42. Prof. (Mrs. ) Shameem Jahan Rizvi J. N.Medical College, Aligarh (UP)

[No. V- 11013/2/2004-ME (Policy -1) ]

P. G. KALADHARAN , Under Secy.

Footnote: The Principal notification was published in the Gazette of India, vide S.O. 138 dated 9-1-1960

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2005

का.आ. 477.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन 311 G1/05-2

3853

0.0961

3854

0.0432

0.0792

3855

3855/4406

0.0238

3855/4401

0.0072

3855/4248

0.0067

3850

0.3240

3862

0,0020

3849

0,1008

0.1944

3864

0.0741

3865

3866

0.0072

3867

0.3384

3872

0.2448

3665

0.3290

3665/3978

0.1080

3658

0.0720

3877

0.0576 4 1328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 2

4 पाँचोलास-जारी

3879

0,0432

पाँचोलास-जारी

3107

0.0792 3517

0,3240

3110

0.0288 3880

0,0020

3111

0.0108

0.0252

3518

0,0612

3113

3519

0,0370

3116

0.0468 3520

0.0252

3119

0.0864 3521

0.0393

3120

0,0020 3458

0,1440

3121

0.1080 3459

0.2784

3127

0,0040 3460

0.1296

3128

0.1080 3480/4082

0.0060

3129

0.0108 3480

0.0576

0.0504

3130

3466

0.1296

0,0630

3135

3479

0.0381

0,0504

3131

3478

0.0540

3133

0.0288 3476

0.0360

3134

0.0144 3475

0.0648

3136

0.0144 3474

0.0432

0.0288

2316

3473

0.0216

0,0648

2319

3472

0.0216

0,0360

2322

3471

0.0720

2323

0,0020 3467

0.0493.

0,0432

2324

0.0504

3331/4081

0.0792

2326

3332/4080

0.0504

0.0040

2325

3334

0.0504

2344

0,0648 3335

0,0288

0,0648

2345

3254/4075

0.0144

0.2016

2378

3254

0.0288

0.0576

2387

3254/4074

0.0040

0.0088

2391

3336/4073

0,0020

0.0161

2392

3336/4072

0.0432

0,0072

2398

3336/4071

0.0720

0.0216

2397

3253

0.0468

0.0432

2401

3252

0.0864

0.0360

2413

3250

0.0040

2415

0.1296 3251

0.0648

2416

0.1440 3243/4057

0.0720

0.0144

2420

0.0540

3243/4056

2423

0,1008 3242

0.0456

2422

0,1800 3173

0.1440

0.3240

2431

3174

0.0216

0.0140

2228

3097

0,0504

0.0216

2211

3098

0.0792

0.0108

2207

3099

0.0936

2209

0.3024 3168/4055

0.0144

0.0936

2176

3106

0.1080

2186

0.1986 10

TT [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12; 2005 /माब 23 , 1926 1

2 पाँचोलास-जारी

पाँचोलास-जारी

0.0072

2185

2153

0.0576

2155

0.1224

1329 3

4 321

0.0432 322

0.0576 84

0.0556

2. खांजना डूंगर

0.0144

2158

2154

0,1008

2152

0.0216

2121/4282

0.0072

2149

0.1080

2148

0,1800

2147

0.0576

2146/3945

0.1224

2143/4275 .

0.0936

2144

0.1080

2144/4274

0.0216

2145

0.0576

3. जुवाड़

2127

0.3960

118

0.1008

119

0.8280

0.3456

120

0.0720

138

139

0.0720

182

0,2412

184

0,1080

185

0.1080

464

0.0216

462

0,0360

186

0,0072

186/622

0.0072

220

0,0020

461

0.1440

221

0.0069

0.0864

461/603

456/619

0.1368

236

0.0288

237

0.1800

237/587

0.0936

250

0.0792

267

0.0020

0.0504

266

0.0504

265

270

0.1008

0.0020

271

269

0.0315

31.9

0.0871

0.1965

0.0360

320

0,0720 56

0.0623 54

0.0216 57

0.0216 58

0.1080 59

0,0504

0.0720 78

0.0020 63/1864

0.1008

0.1620 64

0.0144

0.0360 62/1997

796

0.1280

0.2454 795

801

0.2631

0.0962 811

0.0144 794

793

0.1965 792

0.0175 791

0.1443

0.1333 789

0.1434 782

769

0.0351 764

0.0591 765

0.0424 766

0.0662 767

0.0051 768

0.0097 752

0.0741 699

0,0605

0.0420 698

703

0.0278 704

0.0402 705

0.0050

0.0575 706

714

0.0252 715

0.0252 742

0.0470 744

0.0180 743

0,0497

00175 745

0.0239 747

495

0.0788 493

0.0238 492

0.1703 491

0.0193 1330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

2 2

490

0.2055

5. बोरीफ-जारी जुवाड़-जारी

485

0,0116

489

0.0518

479

0.1122

0.1252

245

0.0406

478

6. गम्भीरा

328

0.0227

0.0954

256/2468

256

0.1117

0.0847

257

0.0933

260

327

0.1146

0.0020

326

0.0313

318

320

0.0046

0.1224

319

316

0.1768

0.0676

315

314

0.0050

0.2194

298

0.0180

295

299

0.1254

293

0.1646

0.1709

292

0.2448

290

0.0317

360

0.0360

359

361

0.0144

0.0020

781

7. जीनापुर

475

0.0020

0.0244

4. नीमलीकलां

106

105

0.0613

104

0.1822

110

0.0316

103

0.0048

0.0950

111

0.0020

102

0.0889

113

0.2022

114

117

0.1957

0.0197

118

0.0396

0.0900

0.0288

0.1296

0.1584

8. बम्बोरी

0.0560

0,2412

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

4 3

0.0221

0.2594 15

0.1598 4

0.1224 5

0.0072

0.0144 3390

0.2090 3391

3387

0.0872 3385

0.0823 3383

0.0260

0.0406 2836

2850

0.0201 2851

0.0116

0.0288 2849

0.0042 2840

2841

0.072

0.0532 2848

0.073 2842

0.0544 2847

0.0576 2846

0.0654 2845

0.2034 2833

0.0811 2832

0.0044 2651

2650

0.0031 2649

0.0020

0.0936 212

172

0.1368

0.1656 164

162

0,1368

0.1440 161

0.0720 160

159

0.0792

0,2736 99

0.1224

0.3456 97

0.1656 53

0.2952 41

0.4104 40

0.0216

0.0072 36

0.3528 32

0.0144

0.2232 1

0,0288 15

0.0432

HI [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माब 23 ; 1926 1

0.1584

8. बम्बोरी-जारी

10. जटवाड़ा खुर्द-जारी

0.1584

0.0576

0.0432

0.2088

0.1800

0.0720

0.0648

9. खेरदा

0.0720

0.1800

11. ठींगला

0.0020

0.0864

0.0648

0.0576

0.0020

0.0144

0,1800

0.1080

0.1944

0.1728

10. जटवाड़ा खुर्द

0.0144

139

0.0216

140

0.1440

138

0.1080

136

0.0108

137

0.0108

0.0576

126

128

0.0216

127

0,2016

0.0288

123

117

0.1080

115

0.1152

12. करमोदा

0.0216

197

0.0072

198

0.0144

.199

0.0864

200

0.0864

201

0.0020

0.0576-

202

203

0.0360-

0.1296

204

0.0576

221

223

0.0576

0.0097

220

224

0.0216

1331

4 3

225

0.144

0.0792 226

0.0504 233

0.0576 234

235

0.0720 241

0.0114

0.0108 242

0.1152 254

0.1172 253

0.1080 251

0.0094 246

0.0127 247

246

0.0464

0.3600 244

0.0432 218

0.2448 212

0.0576 213

214

0.0020 205

0.0144 206

0.0144

0.1167 198

0.0392 200

0.4288 142

0.0326 130

0.1355 128

100

0.0020 105

0.1024

0.1581 102

0.1093 98

0.1123 155

0.2886 158

157

0.0470

0.0360 1262

1273

0.0864

0.0070 1272

1274

0.0144

0,0684 1275

1276

0.0288

0.0108 1278

0.0252 1288

1289

0.0504

0.0504 1290

0.1008 1291

1296

0.0648 1297

0.0216 1298

0.0720 1332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

1 2

0,0720

1424

13. करमोदा- जारी

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

4 1792

0.002

13. करमोदा- जारी

1418

0.0864

0.0020

1417

1419

0.0720

1421

0.0050

1420

0.0900

1410

0.1152

1409

0.0144

1406

0.0864

1407

0.1152

1408

0.0020

1387

0.0432

1388

0.0504

1389

0.0504

1383

0.0360

1382

0.0050

0.0288

1391

0.1008

1381

1377

0.0288

1376

0.0360

1375

0.0792

1365

0.0144

0.0360

1373

1366

0.0216

1367

0.0216

1368

0.0144

1369

0.0288

1786

0,0100 1787

0,0020 1784

0,0288 1785

0.0216 1833

0.0360 1783

0,1440 1762

0.0432 1748

0.0020 1764

0,0020 1763

0.0288 1775

0.0216 1765

0.0072 1766

0.0216 1776

0.0020 1774

0.0080 1773

0.0360 1772

0.0288 1768

0.0288 1771

0.0100 1769

0.0072 1770

0.0648 1777

0.0270

0.0070 1091

0.0288 1090

1828

0.0020

0.0151 51

13. लोधीपुरा

1370

0.0072

1371

0.0072

1589

0.0450

1694

0.0648

1690

0.0288

0.0030

1691

1806

0.0864

1807

0.0504

1803

0.0720

1802

0.0216

1823

0.0864

1825

0.0504

1799

0.0720

0.1116

1798

1797

0.0144

1796

0.0792

1829

0.0792

0.0020

1830

0.0152

0.0153 11

0.1412 34

0.0233 9

0.0500 15

0,0500 17

0.0420 5

0.1022 19

0.0100 20

0,1059 23

0.0360 21

0.1299

0.0144 1

0,0100 50

0.0050 33

0.0100 18

0,0020 6335

0.2088

14. सूरवाल

1793

0.1728

6334

0.0087 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (11 ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माथ 23, 1926

16. मखोली-जारी

6333

0.0210

14. सूरवाल-जारी

6332

0,0720

6331

0,0260

0.0396

6330

6329

0.0738

6328

0.0720

5473

0.0227

0.0583

5441

5443

0.0020

5442

0.1273

5438

0.0215

0.0762

5436

5430

0,0428

5431/7369

0.0529

0.1677

5431/7360

5432

0,0198

5428

0.0010

5427

0.1251

5427/7368

0.0745

5426

0.0696

0.0405

5422

0.0448

5424

0.0288

6338

0.0178

2412

15. धनोली

0,0619

2413

0.2152

2418

17. चकेरी

0.1763

2420

0.0100

2432

0.2011

2449

0.1196

2447

0.1459

2448

0.3176

2490

0,0184

2488

0.0626

2494

2495

0.0197

2501

0.0438

2443

0,0020

179

0.0144

16. मखोली

173

0.0792

172

0.1872

153

0.1224

0,0360

154

155

0.0360

156

0.0648

157

0.0216

145

0.0043

1333 3

4 144

0.0144

0,1008 158

135

0.0576 136

0.0576

0.0576 137

138

0.0576 119

(0,1224

0.0648 114

0,0792 111

0.1440 110

0,072) 103

0,0180 104

0,2232 71

0.2232 69

0.0020 53

0.0288 55

0.1224 54

0,0864

0,0936 49

0,0072 44

0.1656

0,2376 29

0.0252 28

0,0010

0.0010 180

0.0010 178

1259

0.1296

0,0072 1261

0.0576 1262

0.0144 1284

1282

(0.0864 1283

0.0216 1281

(0,0432 1305

0.0288 1306

0,1008

0.0072 1307

0.0720 1314

1315

0.0504

0,0072 1313

1317

0.0360 1327

0.0504

0.0216 1326

1331

0.0216

0.0432 1324

1332

0.0072

0.0360 1333

0,0360 1334 1334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

1352

17. चकेरी जारी

0.0216

[PART II-SEC. 3 (H )

4 3

757

0.1728

17. चकेरी-जारी

0.0576

1351

1348

0.0216

1347

0.0288

0.0214

1367

1358

0,0020

0,0072

1369

0.0072

1370

1373

0.0288

1374

0.1080

1375

0.0288

1376

0.1080

1381

0.0360

0,0072

1382

0.1656

1392

0.0072

1391

1393

0.1440

0.0576

1397

0.0720

1398

0.1440

1411

0.0576

1410

0.0144

1412

1413

0.0792

0.0040

1423

1422

0,1008

0.1656

1419

0,0072

1420

1421

0.1944

755

0.2160

0,0072 368/2988

368

0.0216 217

0.0040 367

0.0288

0.0360 366

365

0,2016

0.0432 358

0.2160 357

0,1008 265

266

0.0216 284

0.0432 283

0.1080 270

(0,0720 271

0.1080 276

0.0144 277

0.00072

0.0144 275

0.0040 278

274

(0.216)

(0.18(X) 273/2189

0,0648 273

0,00072 333

334

0.2160

0.0216 335

0,0648 259

0,2684 197

18. रइथा कलां

0.0216

1432

0,0792

895

(0,00072

1348

0.00072

888

0.1656

889

808

0,1080

0.0288

807

0.0216

809

0,2304

108

785

(0.1224

786

0.1008

767

0.0288

0,0432

750

0,0504

751

0,0040

752

754

0.0288

759

0.0216

758

0.0936

0,0108 187

0.1116 183

0.0086 184

0,2232 149

0,0072 160

147

0.01000 148

0.0180 146

(), (0936 145

0.0468 144

0.0586 138

0.0072 134

0.2376 118

0.2592. 107

0.0792 104

0.02萬

0.0288 103

0.0144

0.0864- 98 1335 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माभ 23, 1926

4 1

18. रहथाकलां जारी

0.0144

4523

0.0504

21. रवांजना चौड़-जारी

0.0216

4521

0.1368 66/1832

0.0216

4522

0.0216

4471

0.0288 62

0.0216

4469

0.0288 61

0.0576

4470

0.1296 44

0.0576

4468

0.0050 45

0.0144

4467

0.0864 58

0.0144

0.0020

4466

0.0216

4443

0.0020 47

0.0288

4447

0,0020 48

0.0504

4131

(0,0086 49

0,0020

4083/5087

0.0144 56

0.0072

4074/5309

0.0576 50

0.0072

0.0020

4083

0.1224

4074

0.0576 3

0.0432

4132

0.0144 4

0.0072

4075

0.0288 2

0.0432

4133

0.0216 1

0.0360

4147

0.0360

4148

0.0576 1637

0.0049

19. रइथा खुर्द

4076

0.0288 1636

0.0025

000072

4077

1631

0.0957

0.0504 1630

0.0246

4071

4149

0,0628

1629

0,1440

0.0050

4164

1628

0.0124

4163

0.1512 1626

0,0029

0.0792

4166

0,0275

20. मीनोमी

4167

0,0792 6/562

0,0983

4174

0,0020 6

0.0839

0,0720

4168

0.1019

4169

0.0072 6/503

0,0020

4173

0,0936 8

0,0020

0,0504

4172

4603/5364

0.1224

21. रवांजना चौड़

4171

(0,0432 4611

0.1224

0.0360

3477

4612

0.0720

0.0576

3415

0.0936

4613

3416

0,0288 4609

0.0020

0.000050

3414/5093

4608

0,0020

0.0030

3412

4614

0.0045

0.0936

3413

4615

0.0504

3411

4616

0.0432

0,0504

3352

0.0144

4625

3410

0.0792 4524

0.1728

3409

0.0020 4520

0,0864

3407

0.0050 4527

0.0020

311 G1 /05-3 1336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

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

4 3355

2456

0.1080

0.0648

21. रवांजना चौड़-जारी

21. रवांजना चौड़- जारी

3356

0.0072

2455

0.0864 3342

0.0288

2411

0.1296 3357

0.0072

2412

0.1728 3358

2413

0.1296

0.1944 3344

0.0072

0.0864

2404

3409

2405

0.0072

0.0864 3369

0.0144

857

0.3960

22. कुस्तला

3391

0.0144

859

0.3024 3390

0.0432

0.1655

866

3386

0.0720

0.2448

868

3385

0,0576

907

0,0552 3382

0.0432

0.0295

908

3383

0.0050

909

0.0432 3380

0,0050

912

0.1280 3381

0.0432

911

0.0126 3379

0.0072

914

0.1213 3378

0.0792

915

0.0820 3377

0.0072

916

0.0216 3376

0.0432

5167

0.2160 3375

0.0432

4166

0.0130 3374

0.0576

5165

0.0288 3373

0.0216

0.0285

5165/5334

3482

0.0576

5164

0.1440 3372

0.0050

5160

0.1140 3590/4998

0.0504

5159/5333

0.0010 3591

0.1872

5136

0.1944 1907

0.0144

5138

0.1506 1925

0.0216

0.1440

5139

1926

0,0072

5127

0.0432 2066

5128

0.0144

0.0864

5129

0,0266 2188

0.1080

2187/5121

5002

0.1728

0.1224

4994

0.3638 2186

0.1080

2185

4997

0.1921

0.1152

4996/5574

0.1440 2191

0.1368

4972

0.0190 2192

0.2088

2193

4960

0.1440

0,1296 2194

4930

0,0432

0.1152

4959

2195

0.0144

0.1800

0.1944

4932

2196

0.2233

4932/5470

0.0144 2201

0.2088

0.0576

4943

2199

0.2304

0.0504

4944

2459

0.0144

4945

0.0720 2458

0.0648

2457

4946

0.0255

0,0936

יזי [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926 1

4947

0.0504

22. कुस्तला-जारी

4948

0.0145

4910

0.0157

4909

0.0166

4830

0.0360

4858

0.1512

4860

0.0648

4861

0.0648

4862

0.0432

4878

0.1152

4871

0.2077

4873

0.0020

4872

0.0020

4901/5545

0.2088

4902

0.1152

4697

0.0288

4469

0.0861

4467

0.1725

4461

0.2350

4462

0.0072

4460

0.1409

4456

0.0864

23. पंचीपल्या

4459

0.1080

4458

0.2016

0.0764

4261

4262

0.0432

4261/5329

0.0144

4260

0.0144

4260/5328

0.0890

4484

0.0065

4258

0.0216

4238/5615

0.0360

4242

0.0681

4241

0.0720

4243

0.0050

0.1235

4247

0.0504

4230

4249/5386

0.1920

4228

0.1063

4006

0.0126

3887

0.0432

4005

0.0186

3889

0.1179

3890

0.2278

0.2789

3896

3895

0.0254

1337

4 3

3897

0.0985 3900

0.0399 3901

0.0141 3902

0.0487

0.1966 3903

0.0304 3904

3906

(0.1072 3855

0.0360 3819

0.0216 3820

0.0160

0.0020 3848

3843

0.0050

0.0072 3842

3838

0.1118 3837

0.0216 3839

0.0864 3841

0.0050 3840

0.0216 3854

0.0144 3834

0.0010

0,0010 3835/5221

508

0,3024 510.

0.1440

0.0144 511

0,0504 519

529

0,0504 528

0.0432 520

0.0432

0.0216 521

526

0.0010

0.0936 527

0.0144 524

525

0.0216 396

0,0936 395

0.3096 394

0.0864 385

0.1728 384

0.0072 379

0.1944 346

0.0360 343

0.1440 342

0.1008 809

0.0072 341

0,0072 340

0.0144 812

0.0072 1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926 1

0.0144

23. पंचीपल्या-जारी

813

23. पंचीपल्या- जारी

219

0.0072

215

0,2016

214

0.0864

0.0216

911

0.0288

213

0.0288

191

0.0504

190

183

0.1584

0.0288

913

0.0360

914

24. ढूंदरी

0,0360

915

916

0.0020

0.0072

993

0.0504

992

0.0720

991

0.2088

987

983

0.0720

990

0.0020

0.1224

1012/2189

0.0648

1012

1013

0.0072

0.0020

1010/2194

0.0288

1011/2193

0.1080

1010

1008

0.0020

1009

0.0144

0.1152

1029

0.0288

1029/2195

0.0288

1028/2196

1027

0.0936

1026

0.0432

1121

0.0020

1122

0.0216

0.0360

1123

0.0648

1124

0.0288

1125

0.0058

1126

0.0576

1165

1177

0.1224

1196

0.0028

0.1440

1178

0.0144

1179

0,0576

1180

0.0432

1181

0.0432

1186

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

0.0020 1183

0.0720 1184

1207

0,0432 1211

0.1080

0.0576 1212

1210

0.0025

(0.1224 1209

1215

0.0072

0.0576 1216

1217

0.0144 1646

(0,1658

0.0040 1623

0.0364 1645

1625

0.0720 1643

0.0020

0.0570 1644

0.0504 1642

1665

0,0020 1666

0.0144 1667

0.0504

0.0576 1669

0,0360 1674

0.0432 1677/2471

0.0219 1675

0.0050 1677

0.2838 1568

1567

0.0216

0.0792 1562

0.1152 1563

0.0576 1546

0.0047 1545

0.0375 1113

0.0374 1082

0.0215 1081

0.0130 1080

0.0310 1079

0.0263 1075

0.0074 1076

0.0383 1077

0.0020 1078

0,0706 1070

0.0020 1069

0.0360 1071

0.0720 1062

0.0050 1063

0.0346 1064 1339

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005 /माष 23, 1926

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 2

1 1

1058

0.0144

24. दूंदरी-जारी

25. फुसोदा-जारी

0.1795

1059

1120

0.0214

0.0216

1126

0.0050

1127

1128

0.0864

1129

0.0072

0.0575

1132

1151

0.0771

1149

0.1008

0.0144

969

970

0.1224

0,0075

971/2405

970/2400

0.0882

0.0020

933/2398

933/2399

0.0201

933

0.0815

0.0216

934

936

0.0263

935

0,0360

0.0360

937

875

0.1800

876

0.0050

892

0.0400

0,0751-

893

895

0.0180

889

-0,0050

0.0050

890

856

0.0144

845

0.0072

853

0.1070

0.0050

854

899

0.0342

855

0.0072

0.0936

0.0504

164

0.1800

25. फुसोदा

168

0.0216

170

0,0576

161

0.0072

179

0.0020

171

0.0504

0.1008

178

177/1806

0.0072

0,1476

177

174

0.1728

4 3

0,0900 176

0.1656 153

0.0432 151

149

0.1296

0.0072 150

0,0900 147

146

0,0216

0.2448 134/1744

0.0432 132

0,0504 130

0,0360 221

222

0.1800

0.1440 225

0.0054 224

0,0057 228/1750

226

0.0025

0.1584 228

0.0972 397

394/1814

0,2160 394

0.0504

0.0216 394/1815

405

0.0072 407

0.2232 408

0.0144

0.0576 439/1700

409

0.0720 435

0.0020 436

0.0216 411

0.1152

0.1080 434

0.0720 418

419

0,1296

0,0504 802

801

0.0504 800

0.0144 808

0.1728 809

0.0648

0.0050 810

0.0504 812

813

0.0216

0.0020 1290

1289

(0.1224 818

0.1008 817

0.0180 822

0.0144 823

0.0216 1340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926 1

836

0.0072

26. कानसीर-जारी 25. फुसोदा-जारी

837

0.0756

856

0.0108

857

0.0648

858

0.0288

859

0.0612

852

0.0072

860

0.0432

861

0.0020

878

0.0020

0.0576

880

879

0.1512

0.0252

882

920

0.0180

922/1779

0.0216

0.0432

0.0144

0.0216

1020/1776

0.1584

1016

0.0216

1017

0.0504

0,0020

1028

0.0576

1029

1030

0.0864

1037

0.0288

0.0040

1031

1034

0.1224

1033

0.0050

0.0020

1036

0.0288

1035

1056

0.2232

1055

0.0216

1054

0,1800

0.0576

1052

0.0020

922/1708

0.0020

1002/1825

0.1296

511

26. कानसीर

0.1080

515

0.1152

514

520

0.1080

0.0504

520/1521

0.1728

525/1459

490

0.1584

489

0.0504

141

[PART II-SEC . 3 (li) ]

→ 3

4 487

0.0864 488

0.1728 411

0.1008 484

0.0072

0.0936 413

0,0040 412

415

0.1728 416

0.0072

0.2016 429

431

0.0144 433/1513

0.0792 433

0.0792

0.0040 434

299

0.1008

0.0072 301

0.1944 298

0.0144 279

0.1080 104/1374

0.0144 104

107

0.1296

0.0360 106

0.1368 109

0.0144 135

0.0040 108

0.0360 136

0.1008 168

0.0792 167

0.0504 172

172/1371

0.0432 166

0.0144 213

0.0720 214/1324

0.0144

0,0360 214

0.0144 214/1323

212/1322

0.0072

0.0432 212

212/1327

0.0288

0.0040 211

0.0576 211/1328

0,0040 208/1329

0.0864 216

0.0576 Nala

217

0.0040

0.0144 218/1430

243

0.0072

0.1080 239 :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12 , 2005/ माघ 23 , 1926 2

2 26. कानसीर-जारी

238

0.0072

27. बाडोलास-जारी

240

0.0648

237

0.0576

236

0.1224

0.0040

235

559

0.0576

0.1080

560

575/1471

0.0432

575

-0.0720

0.0216

575/1510

0.0864

582

583

0.0216

583/1464

0.0432

584

0.0216

585

0.0144

599

0.1440

571

0.0040

598/1508

0.0020

600

0.1224

601

0,1008

603

0.0648

0.0576

602

602/399

0.0010

0.0863

27. बाडोलास

1636

1645

0.1460

0.0520

1649

1643

0.0576

1651

0.0894

1656

0.0983

1610

0.1424

1609

0.0228

1659

0.0165

1667

0.0732

1668

0.0929

0.0020

1672

0.0736

1674

1673

0.0507

1676

0.0134

1677

0.0568

0.0325

1678

0.0504

1687

0.0462

1686

0.0134

1698

1696

0.0580

1697

0.0786

0.1422

1705

1341 3

4 1714

0.1378 1715

0.0284 1723

0.1296

0.0020 1723/2306

1724

0.0020

0.0770 1730

1731

0.0072

0.0864 1738

0.0540 1737

0.0540 1741

0.0982 1742

0.0789 1743

0.0888 1744

0.0719 1756

1773

0.0920 1757

0.0936 1772

0.0216 1770

0.0216 1771

0.1065 1833

0.0726

0.1389 1852

0.0100 1853

1854

0.1236

0.0888 1855

1846

0,0020

0,0538 1845

0.0159 1859

1872

0.0491 1871

0,0504

0.0324 1873

1870

0.0216 1874

0.1067 1946

0.0343 1945

0.0216

0.0464 1944

1941

0.1584 1952

0.1506 1953

0,0020 1955

0.1368

0.0774 1960

0.0256 1961

1967

0.0774 1966

0.0417 1965

0.0216 1964

0.0144

0.0054 1973/2124 1342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

1 27. बाडोलास- जारी

1973/2123

0.0130

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

498

0.0432

28. कीरपुरा- जारी

1977

0.2284

1978

0.0020

1982

0,0936

1981

0.0610

1980

0.0796

665

0.0918

665/2192

0.0216

664

0.1107

663

0.1008

662

0.1512

674

0.0216

675

0.0805

660

0.0504

659/2228

0.2016

659

0.1368

658

0.0020

658/2292

0.0062

680

0.2124

656

0.1800

656/2238

0.0250

655

0.0504

652

0.1800

653/2145

0.0326

.561

0.1584 28. कीरपुरा

560

0.0050

562

0.0050

559

0.2334

555

0.0576

554

0.1584

529

0.0360

531/985

0.1617

531/984

0.0360

531/957

0.0072

531/955

0.0216

532

0.0432

532/939

0.0257

532/977

0.0050

534/1005

0.1728

499/952

0.1440

536

0.1080

488

0.0413

495

0.0072

494

0.0144

493

0.0565

492

0.0223

370

0.7056

368

0.0543

362

0.4032

234

0.0432

354/1006

0.0254

353

0.1512

352

0.0208

333

0.0076

348

0.2160

347

0.0216

346

0.1224

326

0.0067

327

0,0576

340

0.0432

341

0.0557

337

0,0360

342

0.0573

336

0.0360

343

0,0864

306

0.0020

335

0.0050 [एफ०सं ०आर०-31015/78/2004 - ओआर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi , the 7th February , 2005

S. O. 477. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of Petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) Terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government thatfor the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person, interested in the landdescribed in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are make available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for 1343 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005 /माष 23 , 1926

0.0216

3473

1. Pancholas-(Contd .)

3472

0.0216 laying ofthepipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority , Mumbai - Manglay Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1-C, Balmandir Colony , Near Hotel Pink Place , Sawai Madhopur - 322001 (Rajasthan) .

3471

0.0720 SCHEDULE

3467

0.0493

0.0504

3331/4081

Tehsil: Sawai District: Sawai State: Rajasthan

3332/4080

0.0504 Madhopur

Madhopur

0.0504

3334

Survey No. Area in Hect .

Sl. Name ofVillage

0.0288

3335

3254/4075

0.0144 4157

0.0135

1. Pancholas

3254

0.0288 3853

0.0961

3254/4074

0.0040 3854

0.0432

3336/4073

0.0020 3855

0.792

3336/4072

0.0432 3855/4406

0.0238

0.0720

3336/4071

3855/4401

0.0072

0.0468

3253

3855/4248

0.0067

3252

0.0864 3850

0.3240

3250

0.0040 3862

0.0020

3251

0.0648 3849

0.1008

0.0720

3243/4057

3864

0.1944

0.0540

3243/4056

3865

0.0741

0.0456

3242

3866

0.0072

3173

0.1440 3867

0.3384

0.0216

3174

3872

0.2448

3097

0.0504 3665

0.3290

0.0792

3098

3665/3978

0.1080

0.0936

3099

3658

0.0720

0.0144

3168/4055

0.0576

3877

3106

0.1080 3879

0.0432

0.0792

3107

0.3240

3517

0.0288

3110

0.0020

3880

0.0108

3111

3518

0.0252

3113

0.0612

0.0468 3519

0.0370

3116

3520

0.0252

0.0864

3119

0.0393

3120

3521

0.0020 3458

0.1440

3121

0.1080 3459

0.2784

3127

0.0040- 3460

0.1080

0.1296

3128

0.0108

0.0060

3480/4082

3129

0.0576

3480

0.0504

3130

3466

0.0630

0.1296

3135

3479

0.0504

0.0381

3131

0,0540

0.0288

3133

3478

0.0144 3476

0.0360

3134

0.0648

0.0144

3136

3475

0.0288 3474

0.0432

2316

311 Gl /054 1344

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY. 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

138

0.0720 2319

0.0648

1. Pancholas (Contd. )

1. Pancholas(Contd .)

139

0.0720 2322

.0.0360

182

0.2412 2323

0.0020

184

0.1080 2324

0.0432

185

0.1080 2326

0.0792

464

0.0216 2325

0.0040

462

0.0360 2344

0.0648

186

0.0072 2345

0,0648

186,622

0.0072 2378

0.2016

220

0.0020 2387

0.0576

0.1440

461

0.0088

2391

0.0069

221

2392

0.0161

461/603

0.0864 2398

0.0072

456/619

0.1368 2397

0.0216

236

0.0288 2401

0.0432

237

0.1800 2413

0.0360

237/587

0.0936

0.1296

2415

0,0792

250

2416

0.1440

267

0.0020 2420

0.0144

266

0.0504 2423

0.1008

265

0.0504 2422

0.1800

270

0.1008 2431

0,3240

271

0,0020 2228

0.0140

269

0.0315 2211

0.0216

0.0871

319

2207

0.0108

0.1965

2209

0.3024

0,0360

320

2176

0.0936

0.0432

321

2186

0.1986

0.0576

322

0.0072

2185

0,0556

2. Rawanjana Dungar

0.0576

2153

0.0720 2155

0.1224

0,0623 2158

0.0144

0.0216 2154

0.1008

0.0216 2152

0.0216

0.1080 2121/4282

0,0072

0,0504

0,0720 2149

0.1080

2148

0.1800

63/1864

0,0020

0.1008 2147

0.0576

0.1620 2146/3945

0.1224

0.0144 2143/4275

0.936

62/1997

0,0360 2144

0.1080

796

0.1280

3. Juwad

2144/4274

0,0216

0,2454

795

2145

0.0576

0.2631

801

2127

0.03960

811

0.0962 118

0.1008

794

0.0144 119

0.8280

793

0.1965 120

0,3456 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1345

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23 , 1926

792

0.0175

3. Juwad ( Contd. )

3. Juwad ( Contd.)

791

0.1443

789

0.1333

782

0.1434

769

0.0351

764

0.0591

765

0.0424

766

0.0662

767

0.0051

4. Nimli Kalan

768

0.0097

752

0.0741

699

0.0605

698

0.0420

703

0.0278

704

0.0402

705

0.0050

706

0.0575

714

0.0252

715

0.0252

742

0.0470

744

0.0180

5. Borif

743

0.0497

745

0.0175

747

0.0239

495

0.0788

493

0.0238

492

0.1703

491

0.0193

490

0.2055

485

0.0116

489

0.0518

479

0.1122

245

0.1252

478

0.0406

6. Gambhira

328

0.0227

256/2468

0.0954

256

0.1117

257

0.0847

260

0.0933

327

0.1146

326

0,0020

318

0.0313

320

0.0046

319

0.1224

316

0.1768

315

0.0676

314

0.0050

298

(0.2194

295

0.0180

299

0.1254

4 293

0.1646 292

0.1709 290

0.2448 360

0.0317 359

0.0360 361

0.0144 781

0.0020 475

0.0020 106

0.0244 105

0.0613 104

0.1822 110

0.0316 103

0.0048 111

0.0950

0.0020 102

113

0.0889 114

0.2022 117

0.1957

0.0197 118

0.0396

0,0900 51

(0.0288 50

0.1296 37

0.1584 38

0.0560

0.2412 14

0.0221 15

0.2594 16

(0.1598 4

0.1224 5

0.0072 3390

0.0144 3391

0,2090 3387

0,0872 3385

0,0823 3383

0.0260 2836

0.0406 2850

0,0201 2851

0.0116 2849

0.0288 2840

0.0042 2841

0,0072 2848

0.0532 2842

0.0073 2847

0.0544 2846

0,0576 1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926 2

1 2

2845

0,0654

6. Gambhira (Contd .)

10. Jatwada Khurd

0.2034

2833

2832

0.0811

2651

0.0044

2650

0.0031

2649

0,0020

0.0936

212

7. Jinapur

172

0.1368

0.1656

164

162

0.1368

161

0.1440

0.0720

160

159

0.0792

0.2736

0.1224

0.3456

0.1656

0.2952

0.4104

0.0216

0.0072

(0.3528

0.0144

0.2232

0.0288

8. Bambori

0.0432

0.1584

0.0576

0.0432

0.2088

0.1800

0,0720

0.0648

0.0720

9. Kherda

0.1800

0.0020

0.0864

0,0648

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

4 3

0.1728 1

0.0144 139

0.0216 140

0.1440 138

0.1080 136

0.0108

0.0108 137

126

0.0576

0.0216 128

127

0.0216 123

0.0288 117

0.1080

0.1152 115

0.0216

0.0072 197

0.0144 198

0.0864 199

200

0.0864

0.0020 201

0.0576 202

0,0360 203

204

0.1296

0.0576 221

0.0576 223

220

0.0097

0.0216 224

225

0.1440

0.0792 226

(0.0504 233

0.0576 234

0.0720 235

241

0.0114 242

0.0108

0.1152 254

253

0.1172 251

0.1080

0.0094 246

0.0127 247

0.0464 246

11. Thingla

0,0576

0,0020

0.0144

0.1800

0.1080

0.1944

0.3600 244

0.0432 218

0.2448 212

213

0.0576 214

0.0020 205

0.0144 206

-00144 1347

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1375

0.0792 198

0.1167

11. Thingla-(Contd. )

12. Karmoda(Contd.)

1365

0.0144 200

0.0392

1373

0.0360 142

0.4288

1366

0.0216 130

0.0326

1367

0.0216 128

0.1355

0.0144 100

0.0020

1368

0.0288

1369

105

0.1024

0.0072

0.1581

1370

102

0.0072

1371

0.1093

0,0450 155

1589

0.1123

0.0648

1694

0.2886

158

0.0470

1690

0.0288 157.

0.0030

1691

0.0360

1262

12. Karmoda

0.0864

1806

0,0864 1273

0,0504

1807

1272

0.0070

0.0720

0.0144

1803

1274

0.0216 1275

0.0684

1802

0.0864

1823

1276

0.0288

1825

0.0108

1278

0.0504

0.0252

1799

0,0720 1288

0.0504

1289

1798

0.1116 1290

1797

0.0504

0.0144

1796

0.1008

0.0792 1291.

1296

0.0648

0.0792

1829

0,0020 1297

0.0216

1830

0.0720

1298

1793

0,1728

0.0720

1792

0.0020 1424

1786

0,0100 1418

0.0864

0.0020 1417

1787

0.0020

1419

0.0288

0.0720

1784

1421

1785

0.0050

0.0216

0.0360

0,0900

1420

1833

1410

1783

0.1440

0.1152

1762

0.0144

0.0432 1409

1406

0.0864

1748

0,0020 1407

1764

0.1152

0.0020

1763

0,0288 1408

1387

1775

0.0216

0.0432

0.0504

1388

1765

0.0072 1389

1766

0.0504

0.0216 1383

1776

0.0020

0.0360

0.0050

0.0080 1382

1774

1391

0.0288

1773

0.0360 1381

0.1008

1772

0.0288

1377

1768

0.0288. 1376

0,0360

1771

0.0100 1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

1769

0.0072 12. Karmoda (Contd. )

1770

0.0648

1777

0.0270

1091

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

0.0405

5422

14. Soorwal( Contd. )

5424

0.0448

6338

0.0288

15. Dhanoli

0.0070

1090

0.0288

0.0020

1828

0.0151 13. Lodhipura

0.0152

0.0153

0.1412

0.0233

0,0500

0.0500

0.0420

0.1022

0.0100

0.1059

0.0360

0.1299

0.0144

0.0100

0.0050

0.0100

0.0020

6335

0.2088 14. Soorwal

6334

0.0087

6333

0.0210

0.0720

6332

6331

0.0260

6330

0.0396

6329

0.0738

6328

0.0720

5473

0.0227

5441

0.0583

5443

0.0020

5442

0.1273

5438

0.0215

5436

0.0762

5430

0.0428

5431/7369

0.0529

5431/7370

0.1677

5432

0.0198

5428

0.0010

5427

0.1251

5427/7368

0.0745

5426

0.0696

2412

0.0178

0,0619

2413

2418

0.2152

2420

(0.1763

2432

0,0100

0.2011

2449

0.1196

2447

2448

0.1459

2490

0.3176

0.0184

2488

0.0626

2494

2495

0.0197

0.0438

2501

2443

0.0020

179

0.0144

16. Makholi

173

0.0792

172

0.1872

153

0.1224

0,0360

154

155

0.0360

0.0648

156

0.0216

157

0.0043

145

144

0.0144

158

0.1008

0.0576

135

0.0576

136

137

0.0576

138

0.0576

0.1224

119

0.0648

114

0.0792

111

0.1440

110

103

0.0720

104

0.0180

0.2232

0.0020

0.0288

0.1224

0.0864

0.0936

0.0072

0.1656

29.

0.2376 1349

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 1

0.0252

0.0144

1412

17. Chakeri-(Contd.)

16. Makholi(Contd .)

1413

0,0010

0.0792

0.0040

180

0.0010

1423

0.1008

178

0,0010

1422

0.1656 1259

1419

0.1296

17. Chakeri

0.0072

1420

1261

0.0072

1262

0.1944

0.0576

1421

0.0216 1284

0.0144

1432

0.0792

895

0.0864

1282

1348

1283

0.0216

0.0072 1281

0.0432

888

0.0072

0.1656 1305

0.0288

889

808

0.1080

0.1008

1306

807

0.0288. 1307

0.0072

809

0.0720

0.0216 1314

801

0.2304 1315

0.0504

785

1313

0.1224

0.0072

786

1317

0.0360

0.1008

767

0.0288 1327

0.0504

750

1326

0,0216

0,0432

751

0.0504

0.0216

1331

1324

752

0,040

0.0432

754

0.0288 1332

0.0072

759

0,0216 1333

0.0360

758

0.0936 1334

0.0360

0.1728

757

0.0216

1352

755

0.2160

0.0576

1351

1348

0.0216

0,0072

368/2988

1347

368

0,0216

0.0288

217

1367

0.0214

0.0040

0.0020

367

0.0288 1358

366

0.0360 1369

0.0072

365

1370

0.2016

0.0072

358

0.0432 1373

0.0288

357

(0.2160 1374

0.1080

265

1375

0.1008

0.0288

266

1376

0.0216

(0.1080

284

0.0432 1381

0,0360

0.0072

283

0.1080 1382

0.0720

0.1656

270

1392

271

1391

0.0072

(0.1080

276

1393

(0,1440

0.0144

0.0576

277

0.0072 1397

275

0.0720

0.0144 1398

278

0.0040 1411

0.1440

0.2160

274

1410

0.0576 1350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( H) 2

273/2189

0.1800

1636

17. Chakeri-( Contd. )

19. Reitha Khurd

0.0025 273

0.0648

1631

0.0957 333

0.0072

1630

0.0246

0.2160

334

0.0628

1929

0.0216

335

1628

0.0124

0.0648

259

1626

0.0029

0.2684

197

18. Reitha Kalan

0,0275

20. Ninoni

0.0108

6/562

187

0.0983

183

0.1116

(0,0839

0,0086

184

0.1019

0.2232

6/503

149

0.0020

0.0072

160

0.0020

0.0100

147

4603/5464

0.1224

21. Rawanjana Chod

0.0180

148

4611

(0.1224

0.0936

146

4612

0.0720 145

4613

0.0468

0.0936

0.0586

144

0.0020

4609

4608

138

0,0020

0.0072

0.2376

134

4614

0.0045

0.2592

0,0504

4615

118

107

4616

0.0432

0.0792

4625

0.0144

0.0288

104

4524

0.1728

0.0288

103

0.0144

4520

0.0864 101

4527

0,0020

0.0864

0.0144

4523

0.0504 65

0.0216

4521

0,1368

4522

0.0216 66/1832

0,0216

4471

0,0216

0.0288

4469

(0.0288 62

0.0216

0.0576

4470

0.1296

4468

0.0576

0.0050 45

4467

0.0864

0.0144

4466

0.0020

0.0216

4443

0,0020 47

4447

0,0288

0,0020 48

0.0504

4131

0,0086 49

0.0020

4083/5087

(0,00144 56

0.0072

4074/5309

0.0576 50

0.0072

4083

0,020 51

0.1224

4074

0.0576 3

0.0432

4132

10.144 4

4075

0.0072

0.0288 2

0.0432

0.0216

4133

0.036 1

0.0360

4147

0.0049

1637

4148

0.0576 19. Reitha Khurd [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/ माघ 23 , 1926

2 1

0.0288

21.

4076

Rawanjana Chod-( Contd. )

21. Rawanjana Chod

4077

0.0072

4071

0.0504

4149

0,1440

0.0050

4164

4163

0.1512

4166

-0.0792

4167

0.0792

4174

0,0020

0.0720

4168

4169

0.0072

4473

0.0936

0.0504

4172

4171

0.0432

0.0360

3417

0.0576

3415

3416

0.0288

0.0050

3414/5093

3412

0.0030

0.0936

3413

0.0504

3411

3352

0.0504

3410

0.0792

3409

0,0020

0.0050

3407

3355

0.1080

0.0072

3356

0.0288

3342

3357

0.0072

0.1296

3358

0,0072

3344

0.0072

3409

3369

0,0144

22. Kushtala

3391

0.0144

3390

0.0432

0.0720

3386

0,0576

3385

3382

0.0432

3383

0.0050

3380

3381

0.0432

3379

0.0072

3378

0.0792

0.0072

3377

3376

0.0432

3375

0.0432

311 Gl/05-5

1351

4 3

3374

0.0576

0.0216 3373

0.0576 3482

0.0050 3372

0.0504 3590/4998

0.1872 3591

0.0144 1907

1925

0.0216

0.0072 1926

0.0864 2066

0.1080 2188

0.1224 2187/5121

2186

0.1080

0.1152 2185

2191

0,1368

0.2088 2192

0,1440 2193

0.1152 2194

0.1800 2195

0.2032 2196

0.2088 2201

2199

0.2304

0.0144 2459

0.0648 2458

0.0936 2457

2456

0.0648

0.0864 2455

0.1296 2411

2412

0.1728 2413

0.1944

0.0864 2404

2405

0.0864

0,3960 857

859

0,3024 866

0.1655

0.2448 868

0.0552 907

0.0295 908

0.0432 909

0.1280 912

0.0126 911

0,1213 914

(0.0820 915

0,0216 916

0.2160 5167

0.0130 5166 1352

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005/MAGHA 23, 1926

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

4 5165

0.0288

4456

22. Kushtala (Contd. )

0.0864

22. Kushtala-( Contd. )

5165/5334

0.0285

4459

0.1080 5164

0.1440

0.2016

4458

5160

0.1140

4261

0.0764 5159/5333

0,0010

4262

0.0432 5136

0.1944

4261/5329

0.0144 5138

0.1506

4260

0.0144 5139

0.1440

0.0890

4260/5328

5127

0.0432

4484

0.0065 5128

0.0144

4258

0.0216 5129

0.0266

4238/5615

0.0360 5002

0.1728

4242

0.0681 4994

0.3638

4241

0.0720 4997

0.1921

4243

0.0050 4996/5574

0.1440

4247

0.1235 4972

0,0190

4230

0.0504 4960

0.1296

4249/5386

(0.1920 4930

0.0432

4228

0.1063 4959

0.0144

4006

0.0126 4932

0.1944

3887

0.0432 4932/5470

0.0144

4005

0.0186 4943

0.0576

3889

0.1179 4944

0.0504

3890

0.2278 4945

0.0720

3896

0.2789 4946

0.0255

3895

0.0254 4947

0.0504

3897

0.0985 4948

0.0145

0.0399

3900

4910

0.0157

3901

0.0141 4909

0.0166

0.0487

3902

4830

0.0360

3903

0.1966 4858

0.1512

0.0304

3904

4860

0.0648

3906

(0.1072 4861

0.0648

3855

0,0360 4862

0.0432

0.0216

3819

4878

0.1152

3820

0.0160

0.2077

4871

0.0020

3848

4873

0.0020

3843

0.0050 4872

0.0020

0.0072

3842

4901/5545

0.2088

3838

0.1118 4902

0.1152

3837

0.0216 4697

0.0288

3839

0.0864 4469

0.0861

3841

0.0050 4467

0.1725

0.0216

3840

4461

0.2350

3854

0.0144 4462

0.0072

3834

0.0010 4460

0.1409

0.0010

3835/5221 1353 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माष 23, 1926

4 508

0.3024

0,00072 23. Panchipalya

23. Panchipalya(Contd. )

$10

0,1440

1010/2194

511

0.0144

0.00288

1011/2193

519

0,0504

0,1080 529

0,0504

0,0020 528

0.0432

0.0144 520

0.0432

0.1152

1029/2195

521

0.0216

0,0288 526

0.0010

1028/2196

0.0288 527

0,0936

0.0936

0.0432 524

1026

0.0144

525

0.0020

0.0216

1121

396

1122

0.0216

0.0936

0.0360 395

0.3096

1123

394

0.0648

1124

0.0864

385

1125

0.0288

0.1728

384

0.0072

1126

0.0058 379

1165

0.0576

0,1944

1177

0.0360

346

0.1224 343

0.0028

0,1440

1196

342

1178

0.1008

0.1440

0,0072

1179

.809

0.0144

0.0576

1180

341

0.0072

340

0.0144

1181

0.0432 812

1186

0.0072

0.0432

1183

813

0.0144

0.0020 219

1184

0.0720

0.0072

215

0.2016

1207

0.0432 214

0.0864

1211

0.1080

0.0216

911.

1212

0.0576 213

0.0025

0.0288

1210

0.0288

1209

0.1224 191

0.0504

0.0072 190

1215

1216

0.1584

0.0576 183

0.0288

913

1217

0.0144

1646

914

0.1658

0.0360

24. Dundari

1623

915

0.0040

0.0360

0.0364

1645

916

0,0020

1625

0.0072

0.0720 993

0.0504

992

1643

0.0020

0.0570 991

0.0720

1644

987

1642

0.0504

0.2088

983

1665

0.0720

0.0020

1666

0.0144 990

1667

0.00 1224

0.0504 1012/2189

1012

0.00648

1669

0.0576 1354

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

4 1674

875

0.1800

0.0360

24. Dundari-( Contd.)

24. Dundari-( Contd. )

0.0050

876

1677/2471

0.0432

892

0,0400 1675

0.0219

893

0.0751 1677

0.0050

895

0.0180 1568

0.2838

889

0.0050 1567

0.0216

890

0,0050 1562

0.0792

856

0.0144 1563

0.1152

845

0,0072 1546

0,0576

853

0,1070 1545

0.0047

854

0,0050 1113

0,0375

899

0,0342

0.0374

1082

855

0.0072 1081

0.0215

0.0936

0.0130

1080

0.0504

0.0310

1079

0,1800

164

0.0263

25. Fusoda

1075

0.0216

168

1076

0.0074

170

0.0576 1077

0.0383

161

0.0072 1078

0.0020

179

1070

0.0706

171

0,0504 1069

0.0020

178

0.1008

0,0360

1071

177/1806

0.0072

0.0720

1062

177

0.1476

0.0050

1063

174

0.1728

0.0346

1064

176

0,0900 1058

0.0144

153

0.1656 1059

(0.1795

151

0.0432 1120

0.0214

149

0,1296

0.0216

1126

150

0.0072 1127

0.0050

147

(0,0900 1128

0.0864

146

0.0216 1129

0.0072

0.2448

134/1744

0.0575

1132

132

0.0432 1151

0.0771

130

0,0504 1149

0.1008

221

0.0360 969

0.0144

222

0,1800 970

(0,1224

225

0,1440 971/2405

0.0075

0.0054

224

970/2400

0.0882

228/1750

0.0057

0.0020

933/2398

226

0.0025

0,0201

933/2399

228

0.1584

0.0815

933

0,0972

397

934

0.0216

394/1814

(0,2160 936

0.0263

394

0,0504 935

0.0360

0.0216

394/1815

937

0,0360

144 1355 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23, 1926

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4 2

0.0216

0.0072

1016

405

25. Fusoda ( Contd. )

25. Fusoda( Contd . )

1017

0,0504 407

0.2232

0.0020

1028

0.0144

408

0.0576

1029

439/1700

0.0576

0.0864

1030

409

0.0720

1037

0.0288 435

0.0020

436

1031

0.0040

0.0216

0,1224

1034

0.1152

411

0,0050

1033

434

0.1080

1036

0,0020 418

0.0720

1035

0.0288 419

0.1296

0.2232

1056

802

0.0504

1055

0.0216

0.0504

801

0.1800

1054

800

0.0144

0,0576

1052

0.1728

808

922/1708

809

(0,0020

0.0648

810

1002/1825

0.0050

0,0020

0.0504

812

511

0.1296

26. Kansir

515

0.0216

0,1080 813

0.0020

0.1152

514

1290

0.1224

520

1289

(0.1080 818

0,1008

0,0504

520/1521

0.1728 817

0.0180

525/1459

490

822

0.0144

(0,1584

0.0504

0.0216

489

823

487

0,0864 836

0.0072

488

837

0.0756

(0.1728 856

0.0108

411

0,1008 857

0.0648

484

0.0072

413

858

0.0288

0,0936

412

0.0040 859

0.0612

415

852

0.0072

0.1728 860

416

0.000072

0,0432

861

429

0.2016

0.0020

431

878

0,0020

0.0144 880

0,0576

433/1513

0.0792

433

879

0.1512

0,0792 882

434

0.0252

0.0040

299

920

0.0180

0.1008

0.0180

922/1779

301

0.0072 922

298

0.2016

0.1944

279

0.0144 921

0,0432

104/1374

0.1080 1002

0,0432

1001

0.0144

104

0.0144

0.0216

107

1020/1776

0,1296

0,1584

0,0360

106

1020 1356

THE GAZETTEOF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

109

0.1368 26. Kansir ( Contd.)

135

0.0144

108

0.0040

136

0.0360

168

0.1008

167

0.0792

172

0.0504

172/1371

0.0432

166

0.0144

213

0.0720

214/1324

0.0144

214

0,0360

214/1323

0.0144

0.0072

212/1322

212

0.0432

212/1327

0.0288

211.

0.0040

0.0576

211/1328

208/1329

0.0040

216

0.0864

0.0576

Nala

217

0.0040

0.0144

218/1430

243

0.0072

239

0.1080

238

0.0072

240

0,0648

0,0576

237

236

0.1224

0.0040

235.

0.0576

559

560

0.1080

575/1471

0.0432

575

0.0720

575/1510

0.0216

0,0864

582

583

0.0216

583/1464

0.0432

584

0,0216

585

0.0144

599

0.1440

571

0.0040

0,0020

598/1508

600

0.1224

601

0.1008

603

0.0648

0.0576

602

602/399

0,0010 18

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

1636

0.0863

27. Badolas

1645

0.1460

1649

0.0520

1643

0.0576

1651

0.0894

1656

0.0983

1610

0,1424

1609

0.0228

1659

0.0165

0.0732

1667

1668

0.0929

1672

0.0020

1674

0.0736

1673

0.0507

1676

0.0134

0.0568

1677

1678

0.0325

1687

0.0504

1686

0.0462

1698

0.0134

1696

0,0580

1697

0.0786

1705

0.1422

1714

0.1378

1715

0.0284

.1723

0.1296

0,0020

1723/2306

1724

0.0020

1730

0.0770

0.0072

1731

0.0864

1738

0.0540

1737

1741

0.0540

1742

0,0982

1743

0.0789

0.0888

1744

1756

0.0719

1773

0,0920

1757

0.0936

1772

0.0216

1770

1771

0.1065

1833

0.0726

1852

0.1389

1853

0.0100

1854

0.1236 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/मাম 23 , 1926 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1855

0.0888

27. Badolas(contd.)

28. Kirpura

1846

0.0020

1845

0,0538

1859

0.0159

1872

0.0491

1871

0.0504

1873

0.0324

1870

0.0216

1874

0.1067

0.0343

1946

1945

0.0216

1944

0.0464

1941

0.1584

1952

0.1506

1953

0.0020

0.1368

1955

1960

0.0774

0.0256

1961

0.0774

1967

1966

0.0417

0.0216

1965

1964

0.0144

1973/2124

0.0054

1973/2123

0.0130

1977

0.2284

1978

0.0020

0.0936

1982

0.0610

1981

1980

0.0796

665

0.0918

0.0216

665/2192

664

0.1107

663

0.1008

662

0.1512

674

0.0216

675

0.0805

660

0.0504

659/2228

0.2016

659

0.1368

658

0.0020

658/2292

0.0062

0.2124

680

656

0.1800

656/2238

0.0250

655

0.0504

652

0.1800

0:0326

653/2145

1357

4 3

561

0.1584 560

0.0050

0.0050 562

559

0,2334

0.0576 555

554

0.1584

0,0360 529

0.1617 531/985

0.0360 531/984

531/957

0.0072

0.0216 531/955

532

0.0432

0.0257 532/939

532/977

0.0050 534/1005

0.1728 499/952

0.1440 536

(0,1080 488

0,0413 495

0,0072 494

0.0144

0.0565 493

0.0223 492

498

0.0432

0,7056 370

0.0543 368

362

0.4032

0.0432 234

0.0254 354/1006

353

0.1512 352

0.0208

0,0076 333

348

0,2160 347

0.0216 346

(0,1224 326

0.0067 327

0.0576 340

0.0432

0.0557 341

337

0.0360

0.0573 342

336

0,0360 343

0.0864 306

0.0020 335

0.0050 [F. No. R-31015 /78/2004 -OR - II ] HARISH KUMAR. Under Secy .

1358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 नई दिल्ली , 7 फरवरी , 2005

का. आ. 478.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए जामनगर - भोपाल और काकीनाडा- हैदराबाद - गोवा पाइपलाइन को आपस में जोड़ने के लिए मैसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की 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 भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री ए. के . संघवी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एंड इनफ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन परियोजना , आनंद महल अपार्टमेंट , भुल्का भवन शाला के सामने , आनंद महल रोड , सूरत -395007 , गुजरात राज्य को लिखित रूप में क्षं भेज सकेगा । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1359

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005 /माष 23, 1926

अनुसूची तहसील: चायॉसी

राज्य : गुजरात

जिल्ला: सुरत

गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर / ब्लोक नं

1 कछोली

नदी

111

नाला

124

112

कच्चा रास्ता

123

141

148

140

149

150

152

151

165

168

166

167

नाला

163

182

184

183

कच्चा रास्ता

2.45

244

270

कच्चा रास्ता 311G1/05-8

हेकटर आरे चो.मी

15.

1 1360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

2 1

418

(निरंतर) कछोली

417

416

414

413

423

486

490

489

491

495

494

496

नाला

502

501

503

504

562

561

560

559

558

557

556

554

553

552

351

2 भाटीया

रास्ता

352

354

353

365

रास्ता

366

380

379

364

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

33 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1361

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23,1926

(निरंतर) भाटीया

रास्ता

कच्चा रास्ता

कच्चा रास्ता 3 बकताना

346

348

नहर

350

रास्ता

230

231

245

244

246

260

259

261

257

नहर

4बोणन्द

185

नहर

7.2

20 1362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

188

(निरंतर)बाणन्द

189

190

191

178

नहर

177

132

133

113

रास्ता

119

नहर

कच्चा रास्ता 5 गोजा

कच्चा रास्ता

नहर

कच्चा रास्ता

104

105

111

112

116

113

कच्चा रास्ता

नाला

115

114

6 महेोणी

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

10 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1363

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005 /माघ 23,1926

55 (निरंतर)महाणी

रास्ता (ओ.डी.आर)

रास्ता

238

फील्ड चेनल

182

181

183

184

नहर

189

190

191

195

197

200

7 साबरगाम

तहसील: पलसाना

राज्य: गुजरात

जिल्ला: सुरत

247 1 नीयाल

नहर

246

रास्ता

232

231

कच्चा रास्ता

230 पै

नहर

230

नहर

221

220

रेल्वे

211

कच्चा रास्ता

176 2

0 1364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

2 1

210

(निरंतर) नीयाल

176पै

नहर

179

180

188

192

191

रास्ता (ओ.डी.आर)

134

नहर

127

नहर

105

106

कच्चा रास्ता

80 ब

नहर

80 अ

94/ पै 1

93/1

284

2 अंत्रोली

286

नाला

धारीमागें 6

287

289

नहर

290

296

299

नाला

तहसील: कामरेज

जिल्ला: सुरत 1 छेडछा

नाला

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

राज्य:गुजरात

0 1365

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ-23 ,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

76 (निरंतर) छेडछा

कच्चा रास्ता

नहर

173 2कोसमाडा

234

228

नाला

226

नाला

225

224

कच्चा रास्ता

260

261

263

265

कच्चा रास्ता

266

371

370

363

352

353 प

नहर

353 4

69 4

0 1366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

2 1

354

(निरंतर)को समाडा

355

356

कच्चा रास्ता

357

345

341

नहर

39पै

341 पै

342

3 खडसद

नहर

110

गटर

कच्चा रास्ता

नाला

4 पसेोदरा

नाला

डामर रास्ता

कच्चा रास्ता

नहर

咖啡

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

2 1367

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12,2005/ माघ 23,1926

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

102

(निरंतर) पसेादरा

106

कच्चा रास्ता

104

105

5 लशकाना

5 पै

नहर

कच्चा रास्ता

नाला

168

नाला

राज्य धारीमाग

167

166

6वालक

बहाव

नाला

137

7 भादा

138

139

140

145

कच्चा रास्ता

146

कच्चा रास्ता 311 GI /05-7

0 .

13.

79 1368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

2 1

108

(निरंतर) भादा

107

106

104

105

कच्चा रास्ता

103

100

102

कच्चा रास्ता

डामर रास्ता

कच्चा रास्ता

तापी नदी 8 कठोर

तापी नदी

डामर रास्ता

.38

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

20.

0 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12,2005/माष 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

50 (निरंतर)कठोर

नहर

कच्चा रास्ता 9 अब्रामा

कच्चा रास्ता

557 ब

305 10वेलंजा

304

303

300

294

नहर

298

297.

278

मेटल रोड

285

281

280

279

259

260

264

डामर रास्ता

2.63

242

243

राज्य धारीमागॅ

205अ

207

208अ

211

212

215

214

199

1369 4

26.

33 1370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

200

निरंत वेलंजा

198पै

198 पै

फील्ड चेनल

197

171

190

189

188

183

182

11 शेखपुर

नाला

डामर रास्ता

20अ

कच्चा रास्ता

वेस्ट लेन्ड

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

5 0

20 0

21 0

41 0

40 0

38 0

31 0

52 0

35 0

76 0

3 0

87 0

59 0

56 0

64 0

46 0

65 0

5 0

28 0

94 0

44 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1371

भारत का राजपुत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23, 1926

2 1

निरंतर)शेखपुर

मेटल रोड

119

120

118

116 पै

111

110

106

रेल्वे

नहर

105

तहसील: ओलपाड

राज्य: गुजरात

जिल्ला: सुरत

102

1 कारेली

नहर

103

106

112

कच्चा रास्ता

113 ,

129

130

131

138

139

141

145

146

राज्यधारीमाग

147

148

नहर

185

184

182

181

183

39 1372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

180

(निरंतर) कारेली

डामर रास्ता

178

176

175

नहर

258

260

281

261

280

270

278

277

276

286

288

डामर रास्ता

287

नाला

289

290

डामर रास्ता

130

2स्यादला

127

डामर रास्ता

114

110

267

108

106

105

104

97अ

101 .

100

डामर रास्ता

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

59 1373

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12,2005/माघ 23,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

गटर /निरंतर)स्यादला

178 3सिमाल्तु

163

नहर

कच्चा रास्ता

160

159

157

156

कच्चा रास्ता

167

डामर रास्ता

126

127

128 se

129अ 00-

129ब

133 00

134

नहर

138

108 4 बोलाव

नहर

107 BP

159अ

119

121

118

117

198 5अनीता

197

194

241

240

247

248

249

20 0

16 0

44 0

34 0

28 0

67 0

80 0

99 0

95 0

88 0

8640

60 0

85 0

52 0

75 0

67 0

68 0 1374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

250

(निरंतर) अनीता

251

मेटल रोड

252

253अ

253 ब

290

296

315

312

313

336

राज्यधारीमार्गे

314

335

334

387

कच्चा रास्ता

393

394

395

396

397

नहर

409

399

408

407

403

404

355 व

184

6 उमराछी

185

182

175

174

कच्चा रास्ता

176

177

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

(

75 1375 भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 12,2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

[भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

171

( निरंतर) उमराछी

169

168

102

163 व

कच्चा रास्ता

कीम नदी

[फा. सं. एल-14014/37/2004-जी.पी . ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th February, 2005

S.O. 478 - Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through an interconnection between Jamnagar - Bhopal and Kakinada - Hydrabad - Goa pipeline , a pipeline should be laid by Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company 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 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 ofuser therein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri.A.K.Sanghavi , Competent Authority , Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited Pipeline Project, Anand Mahal Apartment, Opposite to Bhulka Bhavan School , Anand Mahal Road, Surat- 395007 , Gujarat.

311 G1/05-8 1376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

District: Surat Tehsil : Choryasi

Name of the Village

Survey No./Block No.

River

1. Kachholi

111

Nala

124

112

CartTrack

123

141

148

140

149

150

152

151

165

168

166

167

Nala

163

182

184

183

CartTrack

245

244

270

CartTrack

418

417

416

414

413

423

486

490

State : Gujarat

Area to be acquind of Hectare Are Sq.m 3

49 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/ माघ 23,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

489

Cont'dKachholi

491

495

494

496

Nala

502

501

503

504

562

561

560

559

558

557

556

554

553

552

351

2. Bhatiya

Road

352

354

353

365

Road

366

380

379

364

Road

CartTrack

CartTrack 3.Waktana

348

Canal

350

Road

40 346

1377 3

15 1378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

Cont'dWaktana

Road

230

231

245

244

246

260

259

261

257

Canal

Canal 4. Bonand

185

Canal

188

189

190

191

178

Canal

177

132

133

113

Road

119

Canal

CartTrack

CartTrack 5.Goja

Canal

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii )]

79 1379

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23,1926

1भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

CartTrack Cont'dGoja

104

105

111

112

116

113

CartTrack

Nala

115

114

6. Mahoni

Road(ODR)

Road

238

Field Channel

182

181

183

184

Canal

189

190

191

195

197

200

7. Sabargam

Taluka: Palsana

Dist: Surat

247

1.Niyol

Canal

246

Road

232

231

CartTrack

230P

Canal

230

Canal

221

State: Gujarat

68 1380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926-

220

Cont'dNiyol

Railway

211

CartTrack

176

210

176P

Canal

179

180

188

192

191

Road(ODR)

134

Canal

127

Canal

105

106

CartTrack

-69

80 B

Canal

80A

94/ P 1

93/1

284

2. Antroli

286

Nala

Road (N.H -6)

287

289

Canal

290

296

299

Nala

Dist: Surat Taluka: Kamrej

1. Chhedachha

Nala

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

State: Gujarat

23 1381

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12,2005/माघ 23,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

73 Cont'd)Chhedchha

CartTrack

Canal

173 2. Kösmada

234

228

Nala

226

Nala

225

224

CartTrack

260

261

263

265

CartTrack

266.

371

370

363

352

353P

Canal

353

354

355

356

CartTrack

357

345

341

Canal

39P

341P

342

24 0

64 0

92 0

55 42

70 12

0 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

1382

2 1

3. Khadsad

Canal

110

Drain

CartTrack

Nala

4. Pasodara

Road (Asp)

CartTrack

Canal

102

106

CartTrack

104

105

5. Lashkana

Canal

CartTrack

Nala

168

Nala

Road (S.H)

167

166

Stream 6. Valak

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

78 -0 .

1383

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/ माघ 23,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Stream (Cont'd)Valak

Nala

137

7. Bhada

138

139

140

145

CartTrack

146

CartTrack

108

107

106

104

105

CartTrack

103

100

102

CartTrack

Road (Asp)

CartTrack

River(Tapi )- 8. Kathor

River(Tapi )

311 Gl/05-9

24 0

60 0

53 0

46 52

56 0

81 25

88 0

46 0

55 10

27 0

85 0

98 0

20 0

30 0

74 0

55 14

98 0

61 0

40 0

25 0

97 0

20 24

77 0

79 0

50 0

45 0

20 0

50 0

27 0

28 0

65 1384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

2 Cont'd Kathor

Road (Asp)

Canal

CartTrack 9. Abrama

CartTrack

557 B

305

10. Velanja

304

303

300

294

Canal

298

297

278

MetalRoad

285

281

280

279

259

260

264

Road (Asp)

263

242

243

Road ( S.H)

205A

207

208 A

211

212

215

214

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

66 1385

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

199

Cont'd Velanja

200

198P

Field Channel

197

171

190

189

188

183

182

11. Shekhpur

Nala

Road (Asp)

20A

CartTrack

Waste Land

Road(Metal )

119

120

118

116P

111

18 1386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

110 Cont'd) Shekhpur

106

Railway Line

Canal

105

Dist: Surat Taluka: Olpad

102 1. Kareli

Canal

103

106

112

CartTrack

113

129

130

131

138

139

141

145

146

Road (S.H)

147

148

Canal

185

184

182

181

183

180

Road(Asp)

178

176

175

Canal

258

260

281

261

280

270

278

277

276

286

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

State: Gujarat

5 1387

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23,1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

288 Cont'd Kareli

Road (Asp)

287

Nala

289

290

Road(Asp)

130 2.Syadla

127

Road(Asp)

114

110

267

108

106

105

104

97A

101

100

Road(Asp)

Drain

178 3. Simalthu

163

Canal

CartTrack

160

159

157

156

CartTrack

167

Road (Asp)

126

127

128

129A

129B

133

134

Canal

138

108 4. Bolav

22 0

55 0

39 0

29 0

74 0

12 0

16 14

18 0

15 55

40 26

42 0

21 0

16 0

59 0

30 0

20 0

44 0

30 42

35 0

27 0

43 0

80 .32

99 0

95 74

88 0

48 1388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

Canal

(Cont'dBolav

107

159A

119

121

118

117

198

5. Anita

197

194

241

246

247

248

249

250

251

Road(Metal)

252

253A

253B

290

296

315

312

313

336

Road (S.H)

314

335

334

387

CartTrack

393

394

395

396

397

Canal

409

399

408

407

403

404

355B

184

6. Umarachhi

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

50 0

70 0

0 0

88 0

85 0

86 0

75 0

34 0

68 0

501

10 0

83 0

71 0

61 0

53 0

75 0

71 0

27 0

84 0

23 0

50 0

64 0

85 0

64 0

98 0

65 0

18 0

67 0

8 1389 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

185

Cont'd Umarachhi

182

175

174

CartTrack

62 176

177

75 171

8 169

46 168

80 102

36 163B

63 CartTrack

39 98

50 Kim River

[F. No. L -14014/37/2004-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

का.आ. 479- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ), नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4) के अनुसरण में, नागर विमानन मंत्रालय के अधीनवर्ती कार्यालय इन्दिरा गांधी राष्ट्रीय उड़ान अकादमी , फुरसत गंज एयरफील्ड, जनपद रायबरेली 229302 (उ.प्र. ) को , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारी - वृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है ।

[फा. सं. ई -11011/01/2000 - रा.भा. ] चन्द्रभान नारनौली, निदेशक राजभाषा MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2005

S.0.479-In pursuance of sub Rule (4) of Rule of the Official Languages ( Use for the Official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government , hereby notifies Office of Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Akadami , Fursatganj Airfield , Distt. Raebareli 229302 ( U.P. ) a Subordinate office of Ministry of Civil Aviation , whereof , more than 80% staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi .

[F. No. E - 11011 /01 /2000 - O.L. ] C. B. NARNAULI , Director ( O.L. ) 1390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

श्रम मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 480- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, औद्योगिक विवाद में मध्यस्थ श्री आर. के. मेहता अनुबंध में विनिर्दिष्ट अधिनिर्णय को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22013/1 /2005 - आई.आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi , the 12th January , 2005 S.O. 480. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Arbitrator Shri R. K. Mehta as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 6-1-2005

[No. L -22013 / 1 /2005 - IR(C- II ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer From:

R. K. Mehta Director (Personnel )/Arbitrator Eastern Coalfields Limited sanctoria .

To The Director (Personnal ) South Eastern coalfields Limited , Bilaspur (MP).

Dear Sir,

Sub: Submission of Arbitration Award in the matter of properpayment to the Drivers , Helpers & Mechanics of M/ s. Ex Military Enterprises Pvt . Ltd. , M/s . Rohini Associates Pvt . Ltd. and M/ s. Kaytin transport Pvt . Ltd.

Enclosed please find herewith my AWARD in relation to the above dispute for your information and further necessary action .

I am also sending herewith extra copies of my AWARD to be given to M/ s . Ex: Military Enterprises Pvt . Ltd. , M/s . Rohini Associates Pvt . Ltd. and M/ s . Kaytin transport Pvt . Ltd.

Yours faithfully, (R. K. MEHTA )

Director ( Pers) , ECL/Arbitrator .

Encl : As above .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Cc: Chief Labour commissioner ( C) , New Delhi.

Cc:Asst. Labour Commissioner ( C) , Bilaspur .

for Cc: Regional Labour commissioner (C) , Jabalpur. their infor- mation.

Cc:General Secy . , MPKMS ( HM) , Bilaspur

BEFORE SHRI RAMESH KUMAR MEHTA, DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL) EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED , SANCTORIA , AND ARBITRATOR.

In the matter of Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Sub Area Manager , Gevra Project , District : Bilaspur ( Madhya Pradesh) and their workmen represented through Shri . Nathulal Pandey, General Secretary of Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Sangh ( HMS) , Post : South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt : Surguja ( Madhya Pradesh ) , regarding the issue of rate of payment to the Contractors workers engaged by the Transport contractors namely M/ s . Ex: Military Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. , M/s. Rohini Associates Pvt . Ltd. & M/s . Kaytin Transport Pvt . Ltd.

APPEARANCES

Onbehalf ofEmployers Shri . H. P. Singh, the then Dy . Chief Personnel Manager , Korba ( West) Area : on behalf of the Sub Area Manager , Gevra Project.

OnBehalf ofworkmen : Shri . Nathulal Pandey , General Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Sangh , ( HMS) : Post : South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt: Surguja (MP).

OnBehalf of Transport : Ex : Military Enterprises contractors Private Limited .

M/ s . Rohini Associates Private Limited M/s . Kaytin Transport Private Limited

In the matter of Arbitration before the undersigned between Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Sangh ( HMS ) represented through Shri . Nathulal Pandey , General Secretary Versus M/s . Ex : Military Enterprises Private Limited .. M/ s . Rohini Associates Private Limited , M/ s . Kaytin Transport Private Limited .. & the Sub Area Manager , Gevra Project , the terms of reference between the parties to the dispute is as under: --

"Whether the workers employed by the Transport contractors at Gevra Project are being paid the correct wages , if not , what relief they would be entitled to Theparties to the dispute were heard in length on various dates , and they had also submitted their arguments both orally and in writing, and after going through the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

deliberations between the parties to the dispute, I give below myAWARD :-

AWARD

TheMadhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 3548/87 in the Hon'ble High court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur , claiming similar rate ofpayment to the workers employed by the transport contractors as is being paid by South Eastern Coalfields Limited to its employees for similar Job..

The Hon'ble High Court by its Order dated 16-11-1987 gave a direction to the Chief Labour commissioner(C) to enquire into the question raised by the petitioners as to whether the work done by the workmen of the transporters are of the same type of work that is being done by the workmen directly employed by the Principal employer.

Thereafter the matter was taken - up the Union before the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) , New Delhi .

During the pendency of the matter before the Chief Labour commissioner ( Central) , the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Arbitration of Shri . R. K. Mehta, the then chiefGeneral Manager (P &A) , South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur . It was also agreed that the decision of the Arbitrator will be binding on all parties.

After the reference of the matter to the Arbitrator, theparties submitted their statement of claim and rejoinder. Repeated hearings were also held.

The Union in their detailed statement' of claim dated 3-10-1992 has stated that the Contract was given to Ex: Military Contractors . They were supplied with vehicle for thetransportation of coal from the point of Production to the point of despatch , mainly through Dumpers and Trippers . These Trippers are run by the Drivers , Helpers and are maintained by the Mechanics , Auto Electrician, Welders etc. The Union further submitted that under the agreement between the Management and the Contractors , the contractors are bound to pay wages of the employees -according to NCWA .

It was further contended by the Union that the Provisions ofContract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is applicable to the Contractors and Under Rule 25( 2) (v) ( a) any workmen employed by the contractor performing the same or similar kind of work are the workman directly employed by the Principal Employer of the establishment. The Wage rate, holiday, hours of work and othercondition of services ofthe workmen of the contractor shall be the same as applicable to the workmen directly employed by the Principal employer of the establishment on the same kind of work . The Union further submitted that the person employed through the contractor are working in the Mines and they will be deemed to beperson employed in the Mine and in any case provisions of NCWA areapplicable to them. The Union also submitted a detailed list ofworkers and the amount claimed .

1391

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23 , 1926

The Contractors in their statement of claim has submitted that the workmen employedby the company do not fulfill the condition for treating them as equivalent to employees employed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited. The contractors have also denied their liability .

The Management of the then Korba (West) Area was directed to give details in writing regarding the commencement and termination of the Contract.

TheParties specifically agreed that the matter should notbe agitatedbefore the Chief Labour commissioner .

The Union by their letter dated 24th January, 1991 has given the details of the names of workers , their designation, attendance yearwise , amount paid, amount due as per NCWA. There is no denial of this by the Contractors.

During the proceedings held on 24-1-1991 , the representative of the Union and the Management and the Transport Contractors were asked to submit their details pertaining to the case in writing.

The points for determination before me are whether the employees employed by the Contractors i.e. Drivers, Helpers , Electricians, Mechanic, Tyre fitter, Welder etc. are entitled to similar wages as being paid to the employees , employedby South Eastern Coalfields Limited, on the same job or designation.

The objection of the Contractor that the matter cannot be decided by him stand withdrawn by the agreement dated 24-1-1991 .

There is no dispute regarding the designation given to the workers .

There is also no dispute that various employees are specified in NCWA- 2 , 3 & 4. The Government of India through Director General of Mines Safety by their letter dated 1st February, 1989 intimated that after the amendment ofthe definition ofMine, person employed in a Mine include personemployed in handling and transporting mineral upto the point of despatch and person employed on gathering and transporting of sand to the Mine, persons employed in operations or services relating to the development of theMine including construction ofplant therein . Persons employed in operation of loading of minerals for despatching the same , within the premises of the Mine.

It is also not in dispute that any person employed in theMine is governed by the Wage Board recommendation and consequently provisions of National Coal Wage Agreement are applicable on them . It is also not in dispute thatperson designated as Drivers , Helpers , Electricians , Mechanic, Tyre Fitters , Welder etc. employed in South Eastern Coalfields Limited are paid wages according to NCWA.

There is further no dispute that the provisions of Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act , is 1392

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] applicable . According to which person employed by the Contractor doing similar job has to be given similar wages.

The Union has contended that persons who are designated as Drivers etc. are doing similar job as employees ofSouth Eastern Coalfields Limited employed in the Mines. There is no material to rebut this submission of the Union before me.

TheManagement of South Eastern Coalfields Limited through Sub Area Manager, Gevra Project, now Gevra Area is a party to the said dispute, but since the workmen employed by the above named Contractors, the master and servant relationship existed between the concerned workman and the contractors . and as such , the SECL Management does not have any responsibility whatsoever with regard to making payments to the said Contractor workers by them.

I , therefore, give may Award as follows:-

The agreement between the Management and the Contractor also provides for payment of NCWA wages to theemployees.

That the persons employed by the above Contractors as per the list submitted by the Union are entitled to Wages as per NCWA.

Evenotherwise the principle of equal wages for equal work is a fundamental right as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly. Denial of similar wages for similar work violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India .

The Contractor is liable to pay this amount to the workers . The Management of SECL is entitled to make the amount good by recovery from the Bills of the Contractor for making the difference of payment to such of the Contractor Workers for the period they had worked with the said Contractors .

It is, therefore, clear that every worker employed by the Contractor with various designation as stated by the Union in their claim submitted on 24-1-1991 are entitled to similar wages as is being paid to the employees of South Eastern Coalfields Limited . Non -payment of similar wages is not only against the provisions of Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, but also violative of Article 14 of the Constifution of India .

Before concluding, 1 place on record the unstinted co-operation given to me by the parties during the Arbitrationproceedings and for extending time , from time to time enable me to release this AWARD . List of workmen employed by the said contractors , is at Annexures ' A' , 'B ' &'C' .

(R. K. MEHTA)

Director (Personnel) : Eastern Coalfields Limited/ Arbitrator

Place:Bilaspur Dated: 25-8-1994

The Submission of the Contractors that they are giving other facilities like Canteen, Food, Accommodation etc. cannot be denial payment of wages similar to that of employees employed by South Eastern Coalfields Limited. Even otherwise, no evidence was produced by the Contractors in support of their claim . These facilities are given, for the benefit of the employees to get efficient work from their employees .

ANNEXURE ' A'

ANNEXURE TO ARBITRATION AWARD

M/ s. Rohini Associates Private Limited, Gevra Project

Attendance Year Wise

Amount as Per NCWA - III Sr. No. Name & Father's Name Design

IV PER DAY

Amount Paid Rs.Ps. Rs . Ps .

Year Atten+ OT

39.34 Basicas Per NCWA - IV Helper

11.66 11.66

1. Shri . Ram Dev Ram/ Baleshwar Ram

40.19 Basic as Per NCWA - IV

307 + 1228 Hrs

366+ 1464 Hrs

304

Feb. 87 1988 1989

40.19 Basic as Per NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic as Per NCWA- IV

30.00

44.50 Basic as Per NCWA - IV Driver

30.00

46.12Basic as Per NCWA - IV 2. Shri . Lil Dhari Pandey/ Choti Pandey

46.12 Basic as Per NCWA- IV

348+ 1598 Hrs

304+ 1216 Hrs

310+

315+

Jan. 87 1988 1989 1990

47.74 Basic as Per NCWA - IV [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1393

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

5 1

Driver Mar.87 248+992Hrs

1988 6

30.00

44.50 as Per NCWA -IV

30,00

342+1368Hrs

3. Shri . Ramashankar/ KapilDev

1990

325

315

1989

Gen.

46.12 as Per NCWA - IV

47.74 as Per NCWA- IV

46.12 as Per NCWA- IV

17.66

200+ 800Hrs

June 86

Mech 1987

335+ 1340 Hrs

4. Shri . Srikant Ram/ Sudarsan Ram

1988 53.46 as Per NCWA - IV

17.66

43.50 Basic as Per NCWA - IV 17.66

320+ 1280Hrs

1999 43.50 as Per NCWA - IV

17.66

325+ 1340Hrs

1990

310+1240Hrs

Driver

98+392 Hrs

Sep.86 5. Ashok Kumar Joshi/ Umesh Chandra Joshi

1987 44.82 as Per NCWA - IV

17.66

46.14 as Per NCWA- IV

30.00

55.63 as Per NCWA - IV

30,00

323+ 1312Hrs

1988 325+ 1300Hrs

1999

330+

1990

320+

61+244 Hrs

Oct.86

Helper

46.12Basic as Per NCWA -V 30.00

46.12 as Per NCWA- IV

47.74 as Per NCWA- IV

49.36 as Per NCWA - IV

11.66

50.72 as Per NCWA- IV

323+1474Hrs

1987 6. Shui. Jagdish Kumar Roy/NCRoy

1988 11.66 40.19 Basic as Per NCWA -IV

328+ 1312 Hrs

282+ 1128

1999 11.66 40.19 as Per NCWA-IV

11.66

41.04 as Per NCWA - IV

310+ 1240hrs

1990

Helper May . 87 210+ 7. Shri . Mohan Singh Thakur/Ram Prasad

840

320+

1988

1989

330

1990

315

Feb87 11.66

41.89 as Per NCWA - IV

11.66

39.34 as Per NCWA- IV

40.19 as Per NCWA- IV

40.19 as Per NCWA - IV

41.04 as Per NCWA - IV

11.66

320+ 1280Hrs

Helper

1988

330 8. Shri . Kuldeep Singh S/o . S. Singh

1989

325

1990

335

June86 39.34 as Per NCWA- IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA -IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

50.72

210+ 840 Hrs

Helper

1987 11.66

11.66

320 + 1280 Hrs

9. Shri . Gurbinder Singh S/o . G. Singh

320

1988

1999

330

1990

335

320 + 1280 Hrs

Feb. 87

Helper

1988

320 10. Shri.Man Singh Raj/ RamGopal

1999

330

1990

340

Driver

339+ 1356Hrs

Jan. 87 11. Gaya Prasad/ Bandhoo Prasad

1988

311 + 1244 Hrs

1999

320

1990

325

Driver

261+ 1044Hrs

Mar.86 12. Nicolas/ Iliyas

1987 40.19 Basic NCWA- IV

40.19Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA -IV

41.89 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

39.34 BasicNCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA- IV

40.19 Basic NCWA -IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00 44.50 Basic NCWA -IV

30,00

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

30,00

55.63Basic

30.00

306 + 1224 Hrs

1988 328+ 1312Hrs

1989

320

1990

325 46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

15.00

53.46

149+ 596Hrs

Aug. 86

Electrician

1987 15.00

324 + 1296 Hrs

13. Shri . Chottelal. Chandra/Bahadur

1988 43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

349 + 1396 Hrs

1999

320 + 1280 Hrs

1990 15.00

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

15.00

44.82 Basic NCWA -IV

15.00

340 + 1360 Hrs

46.14 Basic NCWA- IV 1394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

5 14. Shri . Nathulal/ Prem Sai Driver Sep. 86

PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

30,00

55.63

131 + 524Hrs

1987 30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

346+ 1384 Hrs

1988

364+

1989

350

340

1990 46.12

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

55.63

164+ 656 Hrs

Driver July. 86 15. Shri . Dineshwar Singh/

1987 30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

334+ 1336 Hrs

Kishun Singh

1988

321 + 1284 Hrs

1989

320

1990

350 30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

30,00

55.63

115+ 460 Hrs

Aug. 86 16. Shri . Paulose Kunjur/ Driver

1987 30,00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

315 + 1260 Hrs

Nitai Kunjur

1988

345

340

1989

1990

330

300+ 1200 Hrs

17. Shri . Lal Chand Bodh/ Mechanic Feb. 87 Dwarika Prasad

1988

306 + 1224 Hrs

1989

350 + 1400 Hrs

1990

320 + 1280 Hrs

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA -IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

26,66

42.18 Basic NCWA - IV

26.66

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

30,00 44,82 Basic NCWA - IV

53.46

101 + 404Hrs

18. Beli Ram/ Sivan Ram Tyre Fitter Sep. 86

1987

346+ 1484 Hrs

1988 14.00

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

14.00

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

303 + 1248 Hrs

320

1989

340

1990 44.82 Basic NCWA V

46.14 Basic NCUV

53.46

30.00

170 + 680 Hrs

July 86 19. Shri . Marcus Paulose / Mechanic

1987

360+ 1440 Hrs

Amarnath Paulose

1988 30,00

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

303 + 1212 Hrs

1989 44.82Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

340 + 1360 Hrs

1990

305 + 1220 Hrs

105+420 20. Shri . Mathews Paulose/ Mechanic Oct. 86

1987 46.14 Basic NCWA- IV

30.00

53.46

26.00

43.50 Basic NCWA -IV

26.00

340 + 1360 Hrs

Amarnath Paulose

1988

320

340

1989

330

1990

205 + 820 Hrs

21. Shri Pramod Kumar/

May 86

Helper

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

44.82Basic NCWA - IV

46.14 Basic NCWA - IV

50.72

11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

320+ 1280 Hrs

1987 Bhoop Singh

1988 11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

330 + 1320 Hrs

1.989

350

320

1990

Jan87 41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

41.89 Basic NCWA - IV

39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

360 + 1440 Hrs

22. Shri S. Taram Jaiswal/ Helper

1988

320 Chotelal Jaiswal

1989

315

1990

340

310 + 1240 Hrs

Feb 87 23. Hemant Kumar/ Sobhram Welder

1988

295 + 1180 Hrs

1989 11,.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA- IV

42.18 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

43.50 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30,00

340 + 1360 Hrs

44.82 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

335 + 1340 Hrs

1990

Feb. 87 39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

310 + 1240 hrs

24. Shri . Firat Lal/ Sobhram Helper

1988

340+

315

1989

1990

320 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/ माष 23 , 1926

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5 1

Electrician May 87

1395 6

26.00

42.18 Basic NCWA - IV

240 + 960 Hrs

25. Shri . Rameshwar Das/ SunderDas

1988 320 + 1280 Hrs

1989

315

1990

330 26.00 43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

33.82 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

289 + 1156 Hrs

Helper Mar. 87 26. Shri Dhiraj Kumar/ Malaram

1988 39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

362+ 1448Hrs

1989

320

340

1990 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

105+ 420Hrs

Helper Sep. 87 27. Shri Ramakant Ram/ SudarsanRam

1988 39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

340+ 1360 Hrs

1989

320

330

1990

Dec. 86 11.66 40. 19 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA -IV

11.66

28 + 112 Hrs

28. Shri Krishna Ram Sahu/ Helper

1987 50.72

11.66 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

334 + 1336Hrs

Hrudayalal Sahu

1988 11.66

353 + 1412 Hrs

1989

320

310

1990

Welder Aug. 87 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

41.89 Basic NCWA - IV

28.00

42.18 Basic NCWA - IV

120 + 480 Hrs

29. Shri Satyendra Narayan

1988

320 + 1280 Hrs

Mishra / Nageshwar

Mishra

1989 28.00

43. 50 Basic NCWA - IV

28.00

360+ 1440 Hrs

1990 43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

28.00

340 + 1360 Hrs

Driver

44.82 Basic NCWA - IV

30,00

44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

90+ 360Hrs

Sep87

1988 30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

340 + 1360 Hrs

30. Shri Govind Singh/ AmarSingh

1989

315

1990

330

Driver

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

318 + 1272 Hrs

31. Shri Sailendra Kumar

Feb. 87

1988 30.00 44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

360+ 1440 Hrs

Singh/ Haridwar Singh

1989

340

1990

330

Feb. 87 30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

315 + 1260 Hrs

32. Shri Ravi Das/ Mantosh Helper

Das

1988

320

330

1989

1990

315 39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

26.66

205 + 820 Hrs

Electrician May 87

320

1988 33. Shri . Shankar Dixit/ Chimni Maharaj

1989

330

350

1990 42.18 Basic NCWA - IV

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

44.82 Basic NCWA - IV

249 + 996 Hrs

Driver

34. Shri Kishorelal

Apr. 87 Anandram

1988 30,00

44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

324+ 1296 Hrs

1989

320

1990

330 46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

30,00

150+ 600 Hrs

35. Shri Rankumar Verma/ Driver July. 87 Ramkuber Verma

1988 44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

330+ 1320 Hrs

360

1989

335

1990

Driver

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

145 + 580 Hrs

July 87 44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

360 + 1440 Hrs

1988 36. Shri Laxman Gupta/ Balkrishna Gupta

1989

340

345

1990 46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV 1396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

Mar.87 245+ 980 Hrs

Helper

1988 37. Shri Dhanesh Kumar/ Mahadev Prasad

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

11.66

39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

360+ 1440Hrs

1989

340+

1990

330

June 86 205+ 820 Hrs

1987

317 + 1260 Hrs

38. Shri Jairam Bhuiya/ Driver UdayBhuiya

1988

330 + 1320 Hrs

1989

320 + 1280 Hrs

1990

360 + 1440 Hrs

191 + 764 Hrs

Driver July87

1988

333 + 1332 Hrs

39. Shri Chandrika Pandey/ Ramakant Pandey

320

1989

1990

330

Driver

140 + 560Hrs

Aug. 86

1987

360 + 1440 Hrs

40. Shri Satish Kumar/ Bagediya/Rameshwar Das

1988

361 + 1444Hrs

1989

360+

1990

340+

Driver

28 + 112Hrs

Dec. 86

1987

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA- IV

41.04 Basic NCWA- IV

55.63

30,00

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

46.12Basic NCWA -IV

30,00

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

49.36 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

46.12Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

55.63

30.00

30.00 46.12Basic NCWA - IV

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

47.74 Basic NCWA- IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

55.63

30.00

360 + 1440 Hrs

41. Shri Baliram Dubey/ Parimdev Dubey

1988

315 + 1260 Hrs

345+

1989

355+

1990

30+ 120Hrs

Dec. 86

Helper

1987

338 + 1352 Hrs

42. Shri Paskal Minj / RefalMinj

1988 46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

30.00

46.12Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA- IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

50.72

11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

347 + 1388 Hrs

1989

360 + 1440Hrs

1990

320 + 1280 Hrs

288 + 1152 Hrs

Welder Mar. 87

1988

350 + 1400 Hrs

43. Shri Nowal Ekka/Alhad EKKA

320+

1989

310+

1990

Driver

11.66

41.04 Basic NCWA- IV

41.89 Basic NCWA- IV

11.66

42.18 Basic NCWA - IV

15.00

43.50 Basic NCWA-IV

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

44.82Basic NCWA -IV

55.63

30.00

153 + 612 Hrs

June . 86

1987 30.00

46.12Basic NCWA - IV

360 + 1440 Hrs

44. Shri Vijay Singh/ Kutar Pal Singh

1988

320+

1989

340+

352+

1990

Aug. 86 46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

49.36 Basic NCWA- IV

50.72Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

140 + 560Hrs

Helper

360 + 1440 Hrs

1987 45. Shri Rambir Singh/ Vijay Singh

1988

330+

1989

320+

1990

315+

Helper Aug. 86 11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

41.89 Basic NCWA - IV

50.72

11.66

135 + 540 Hrs

360+ 1440 Hrs

1987 46. Shri Ram Param Singh/ Vijay Singh

320+

1988

1989

360+

1990

352+

135 + 540 Hrs

Aug. 86

Driver

1987 11.66 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA- IV

41.89 Basic NCWA - IV

50.72

11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

360+ 1440 Hrs

47. Shri Bipracharan Bhuiya/ Govind Bhuiya

360+

1988

340+

1989

310+

1990 40.19Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

41.89 Basic NCWA - IV [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1397

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माष 23 , 1926

Driver Nov.86 6

30.00

55.63

40 + 160 Hrs

1987 30.00

360+ 1440Hrs

48. Shri Siyaram/ Bhurgat Singh

1988

340+

1989

320+

335+

1990

Driver

46.12Basic NCWA - IV

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

47.74 Basic NCWA- IV

49.36Basic NCWA - IV

30,00

180+ 720Hrs

July.87 49. Shri Sitaram Chandra/ Teekaram

1988 44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

345+ 1380Hrs

1989

355+

1990 320+ 50. Shri Ram Badai Chauhan/ Driver

30.00 46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

30:00

185+ 740Hrs

July.87

1988 Mohan Chauhan

44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

290+ 1160Hrs

1989

340+

355+

1990 51. Shri Ashok Kumar Verma Clerk

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

47.74 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

195 + 780Hrs

June 87

1988 Sivnath Verma

47.70 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

360+ 1440 Hrs

1989

330 + 1320 Hrs

1990 49.82 Basic NCWA -IV

30,00 51.94 Basic NCWA - IV

345+ 1380Hrs

Driver Aug. 86 30.00

51.94 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

55.63

192 + 768 Hrs

1987 30.00

350+ 1400Hrs

52. Shri Hari Singh/ Hukum Singh

1988 46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

320+ 1280Hrs

1989

355+

1990

320+

Clerk

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA- IV

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

47.70 Basic NCWA -IV

240+ 960Hrs

May 87 53. Shri Devnath Lahare/ Puri Ram Lahare

1988 30.00

360+ 1440 Hrs

1989 49.82 Basic NCWA- IV

320+ 1280 Hrs

1990 30.00

51.94 Basic NCWA - IV

340+ 1360Hrs

Driver

30.00 51.94 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

252 + 1008 Hrs

March 87 54. Shri Ashok Kumar/ Shri . Leeldhari

1988

360+ 1440Hrs

1989

340+

1990

330+

March 87 254 + 1016 Hrs

Driver 1988

338 + 1352Hrs

55. Shri Ghanashyam Singh/ Ranjeet Singh

1989

320+

360+

1990 44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

47.74 Basic NCWA -IV

30.00

44.50 Basic NCWA- IV

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

46.12Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

53.46

175 + 700 Hrs

Fitter June . 86

1987 56. Shri Gum Bahadur/ DalBahadur

30.00

360+ 1440 Hrs

1988

320 + 1280 Hrs

1989 43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

30.00

43.50 Basic NCWA - FV

30.00 44.82 Basic NCWA- IV

340 + 1360 Hrs

1990

310+ 1240 Hrs 30.00 46. 14 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

152 + 608 Hrs

June 87

Helper

57. Shri Yacub Toppo/

321 + 1284 Hrs

1988

1989

340 + 1360 Hrs

1990 39.34 Basic NCWA -IV

11.66 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66 40.19 Basic NCWA -IV

11.66

350+ 1400Árs

48+ 192Hrs

Oct. 87

Helper

331 + 1324 Hrs

58. Shri Munna Kumar/ RamChand

1988

355+

1989

320+

1990

69+ 276

Oct. 87

Helper

300+ 1200 Hrs

1988 59. Shri Yogendra Paswan/ Mahajar

340+

1989

354+

1990 41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66 40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

39.34 Basic NCWA -IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

11.66

40.19 Basic NCWA -IV

41.04 Basic NCWA -IV 1398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

ANNEXURE TO ARBITRATION AWARD

[PART II- SEC . 3( i ))

M/ s. Ex. -Military Enterprises Private Limited

Attendance Yearwise

Desig-

Sr. Name & Father's Name No.

nation

Year Amount as per NCWA - III/ IV per day

Amount paid per day

Rs . Ps .

Rs. Ps .

Atten. + OT

5 1.

1984

182 + 800 hrs .

Mech/

1985 Bhagirati Yadav/ Pahari Yadav

Driver

357 + 1428 hrs .

1986

354+ 1562 hrs .

1987

309 + 1306 hrs .

1988

15.00

59.98 Basic as per NCWA-VI 61.49 -do-

15.00

63.00 -do-

20.00

25.00

Basic as per NCWA- IV 51.94

54.06 -do-

346 + 1384 hrs . 25.00

78 + 312 hrs.

1989 upto

April 2.

Head

311 + 1244 hrs .

Feb. 1984

Mech. 1985 365 + 1324 hrs .

Ram Pravesh Sharma/ Sri Kuldeep Sharma

1986

357 + 1428 hrs .

1987 54.06 -do-

25.00

33.00

59.98 Basic as per NCWA- VI 61.49 -do-

33.00

63.00 -do-

33.00

307 + 1332 hrs . 33.00

1988

310+

78+

1989 upto

April

Mech.

256 + 1024 hrs .

April1984

1985

351 + 1404 hrs .

Sudarsan Ram/ Bansropan

1986 309 + 1256 hrs .

1987 331 + 1324 hrs .

289+

1988

78+

1989 upto

April 4.

April 1985 250 + 1000 hrs.

Mech./

334 + 1002 hrs .

Ram Chand/ Sri Ram Lakhan

Welder 1986

231 + 924 hrs .

1987

286+

1988

78+

1989 upto

April

Driver

125 + 500hrs.

Sept. 1985 Ravi Narayan/ BhajoramMahapathrow

1986 349 + 1396 hrs .

1987

313 + 1252 hrs .

1988 310 + 1240 hrs .

78 + 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April

309 + 1236 hrs .

Driver Feb. 1984

1985

354 + 1408 hrs .

6. SatrughanRay/ Dhaneshwar Ray

1986

356 + 1424.hrs .

1987 311 + 1244 hrs .

1988

306 + 1224 hrs .

78 + 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April יזי

51.94 Basic asper NCWA - IV 54.06 -do-

54.06 -do-

20.00

53.46Basic as per NCWA- IV 54.36 -do-

20.00

55.25 -do-

20.00

Basic as per NCWA - IV 44.82

46.14 -do-

20.00

46.14 -do-

20.00

53.46 Basic as per NCWA- IV 20.00

54.36 -do-

20.00

43.50 Basic as per NCWA- IV 44.82 -do-

46.14 -do-

27.00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA - V 57.52 -do-

27.00

46.12 Basic as per NCWA- IV 47.74 -do-

27.00

49.36 -do-

27.00

30.00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA- V 57.52 -do-

30.00

58.64 -do-

30.00

47.74 Basic as per NCWA- IV

36 -do-

30,00

36 -do-

30 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4 2

Driver Jan. 1986

1987 Mohan Lal/ Chandan Singh

1988

1399 5

349 + 1396 hrs . 30.00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA -V

320 + 1280 hrs . 30.00

46.12 Basic as per NCWA- IV

46.12 -do-

331 + 1324 hrs . 30.00

47.74 -do-

1989 upto

April 8.

Driver

78 + 312 hrs . 30.00

30.00

194 + 776 hrs .

Feb. 1986

Raja Ram/ Sadh Ram

1987

1988

55.63 Basic as per NCWA- V

327 + 1308 hrs . 30.00

46.12 Basic asper NCWA - I

46.12 -do-

306 + 1224 hrs . 30.00

30,00

47.74 -do-

1989 upto

April 9.

Driver

78 + 312 hrs .

Feb. 1986

1987 FiratRam/ MayaRam

1988

297 + 1224 hrs . 30.00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA -V 30.00

330 + 1276 hrs .

46.12 Basic asper NCWA - IV

46.12 -do-

30.00

319 + 1272 hrs .

30.00

47.74 -do-

1989 upto

April 10.

Driver

78 + 312hrs .

Jan. 1986

1987 Itwar Das/ Mangal Das

1988

356 + 1424 hrs . 30.00

Basic as per NCWA-V

55.63

304 + 1216 hrs . 30.00

46.12 Basic as per NCWA - IV 30.00

46.12 -do-

300 + 1200 hrs .

47.74 -do-

1989 upto 78

April .

Driver

11.

55.63

Feb. 1984

BhukhanRam/ Sri Chait Ram.

1985

1986

1987

1988

311 + 1224 hrs . 30.00

57.52

30.00

354 + 1416 hrs .

58.64

30.00

353 + 1412 hrs .

30.00

323 + 1292 hrs .

47.74 Basic as per NCWA - IV

49.36 -do-

30.00

310 + 1244 hrs .

49.36 -do-

30,00

78 + 312 hrs.

1989 upto

April

Driver

12.

Feb. 1984

1985 BharatLal/ AjitSahu

1986

261 + 1084 hrs . 30.00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA - V

57.52

30.00

357 + 1428 hrs .

58.64

30.00

356+ 1428 hrs .

30,00

234+

1987 upto

July.

1988 326

47.74 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

49.36 -do-

1989 upto 78

April

Driver

13 .

30,00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA -V

235 + 940 hrs .

April1984

1985 Satisan/ Ganapati

1986

1987

1988

57.52

30.00

240+ 960 hrs .

58.64

30.00

317 + 1268 hrs .

30.00

47.74 Basic as per NCWA - IV

304 + 1216 hrs .

49.36 -do-

30.00

346+ 1284 hrs .

49.36 -do-

30,00

78 + 312hrs .

1989 upto

April.

Driver

324 + 1296 hrs . 30.00

55.63 Basic as per NCWA-V

Jan. 1986

1987 14. Pardeshi/ Budaga

1988 30,00

46.12Basic as per NCWA - IV

320 + 1280 hrs .

46.12 -do-

30.00

306 + 1224 hrs .

47.74 -do-

30,00

78 + 312 hrs.

1989 upto

April 311 GI /05-11 1400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

4 2

15.

Driver Feb. 1986

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

55.63

304 + 1216 hrs

1987 30.00

30.00

320 + 1280 hrs

Sadhoo Ram/ NarSingh

1988

280

1989 upto 78

April 16.

Driver March Kamalesh Patel/ Sri Sundar Patel

1986

1987 46.12 Basic as per NCWA - IV 46.12 -do-

47.74 -do-

280 + 1220 hrs 30.00

55.63

320 + 1280 hrs

1988

322 + 1288 hrs

1989 upto 78

April 17.

Driver March 270 + 1080 hrs

Vishal Sahu/ Sri Dharam

1986

1987 30,00

46.12 Basic as per NCWA - IV 46.12 -do-

47.74 -do-

55.63

30.00

322 + 1388 hrs

1988

310+ 1240 hrs

1989 upto 30.00

46. 12 Basic as per NCWA- IV 46.12 -do-

30.00

47.74 -do-

78 + 312 hrs

April 18.

Driver

30.00

55.63

53 + 212 hrs

Nov. 1986

1987

348 + 1392 hrs

Babuva Ram/ Ram Singh

1988

306 + 1224 hrs

1989 upto 78 + 312

April 19.

Driver

30,00

Basicasper NCWA - IV 46.12

30.00

46.12 -do-

47.74 -do-

30.00

55.63

30,00

Jan. 1986 347 + 1388 hrs

Bhagirati Prasad/ SriRatan

1987

330 + 1320 hrs

1988

303+

1989 upto 78

April 20 .

Driver

348 + 1392 hrs

Jan. 1986

1987 30.00

46. 12 Basic as per NCWA - IV 30,00

46.12 -do-

47.74 -do-

55.63

30.00

30,00

287 + 1148 hrs

Roop Singh/ Sri Diwan Singh

1988 46.12 Basic as per NCWA - I

314+ 1256 hrs

1989 upto 78

April 21.

Driver Aug. 1984 16 + 118 hrs

1985 30,00

46.12 -do-

47.74 -do-

30,00

55.63

57.12

365 + 1460 hrs

Gopala Krishna Pillai/ Ramayan Pillai

1986 30.00

30.00

58.64

316 + 1264 hrs

1987

303 + 1212 hr .

1988 30.00

47.74 Basic as per NCWA - IV 49.36 -do-

310 + 1240 hrs

30.000

30.00

49.36 -do-

78 + 312 hrs

1989 upto

April

Driver

22.

Jan. 1985 55.63

365 + 1460 hrs

1986 30,00

57.12

340 + 1360 hrs

SherSing/ Sri Sanman Singh

1987 30.00

30.000

303 + 1212 hrs

1988

310+

1989 upto 78

April .

Driver

46.12 Basic as per NC WA - IV 30,00

47.74 -do-

47.36 -do-

30,00

320 + 1260 hrs

23.

Jan 1987

335+

1988 Rameshwar Singh/ Hari Charan

1989 upto 78

April 44.50 Basic- as per NCWA- IV 46.12 do-

46.12 -do- 1401

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4 24.

May 1984 6

30.00

55.63

204 + 816 hrs

D. J. Singh/ Bhagat Singh Driver

1985

310 + 1240 hrs

1986 57.52

30.00

320 + 1280 hrs

1987

315 + 1260 hrs

300+

1988

1989upto 78

April 25.

Sept. 1986 58.64

30.00

47.74 Basicas per NCWA- IV 49.36 -do-

49.36 -do-

50.72

10.00

80 + 320 hrs

Helper

1987 10.00

265 + 1060 hrs

KuwarSingh/ Jeswant Singh

316

1988

1989 upto 78

April 26.

Aug. 1984 40.19 Basic as per NCWA- IV 40.19 -do-

41.04 -do-

15.00

50.72

130 + 520 hrs

Helper

1985 Sobnath/ Chabalooram

15.00

340 + 1360 hrs

1986 51.32

15.00

51.91

335 + 1340 hrs

1987 15.00

210 + 840 hrs

1988

311

1989 upto 78

April 41.64 Basic as per NCWA - IV 41.69 -do-

41.89 -do-

53.46

345 + 1380 hrs

27.

Welder Jan. 1986 Govind Das Mahant/ LoharDas

1987 17.00

17.00

320 + 1280 hrs

1988

315 hrs

1989 upto 78

April 28.

Mech .

43.50 Basic as per NCWA - IV 43.50 -do-

44.82 -do-

10.00

50.72

145+ 580 hrs

Raju Soni/Rama Soni

July 1986

1987

303 + 1212 hrs

Helper

1988 10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV 10.00

310 + 1240 hrs

40.19 -do-

10.00

41.04 -do-

78 + 312 hrs

1989 upto

April.

175 + 700 hrs

Mech. June 1986 29. JawaharPandit/ Ramfool Pandit

1987 10.00

50.72

10.00

345 + 1380 hrs

Helper

1988

315 + 1260 hrs

1989 upto 40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV 40.19 -do-

10.00

41.04-do-

78 + 312 hrs

April 30.

Jan. 1986 50.72

324 + 1312 hrs

Helper

1987

351 + 1340 hrs

Pappu Singh/ Rameshwar Singh

1988 10.00

10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV 10.00

40.19 -do-

332 + 1328 hrs

1989 upto 10.00

41.02 -do-

78 + 312 hrs

April 31.

Helper Aug. 1984 10.00

50.72

120 + 480 hrs

1985 51.32

342 + 1368 hrs

HaridayalRay/ RamlaganRay

1986 10.00

51.91

359 + 1436 hrs

1987 10.00

10.00

323 + 1292 hrs

1988

306

1989 upto 78

April 32.

Helper Sept. 1986 41.04 Basic as per NCWA -IV 41.89 -do-

41.89 -do-

10,00

50.72

85 + 340 hrs

1987

340 + 1360 hrs

RanjitNag/ Jaikishan Nag

1988

355 + 1420 hrs

1989 upto 10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV 40.19 -do-

10.00

41.04 -do-

78 + 312 hrs

April 1402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

5 1

Auto

33.

Nov. 1986 38 + 152 hrs .

Deepak Kumar Naik/ Poorna Chandra

Electrician 1987

336 + 1344 hrs .

1988

314 + 1256 hrs .

1989 upto 78

April.

34.

Mar. 1987 270 + 1080 hrs .

Helper

Mahendra Prasad/ Gudari Paswan

1988 351 + 1404 hrs .

1989upto

April .

35.

Helper Aug. 1986 149 + 596 hrs .

1987

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

27.00

53.46

27.00

43.50 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

27.00

43.50 -do-

10.00

39.34 Basic as per NCWA - IV 10.00

40.19 -do-

50.72

10.00

315 + 1260 hrs

Narendra Chaubey/ Radheshyam Chaubey

1988

306 +1224 hrs .

1989 upto 78 + 312 hrs .

April.

36.

Auto July 1984 172 + 1688 hrs .

Electrician 1985

361 + 1444 hrs .

Shivraj Singh Bora/ Pan Singh Bora

1986

363 + 1452 hrs .

1987

364 + 1456 hrs .

359+ 1436 hrs.

1988

78+ 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April..

37.

March. 265 + 1060 hrs

Helper

1987 Vijendra Singh/ Sher Singh

307+

1988

78+

1989 upto

April.

38.

Jan. 1987 344 + 1376 hrs .

Helper

1988

306 + 1224 hrs .

Umashankar Singh/ Phoot Dev Singh

38 + 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April.

39.

Aug. 1985 142 +568 hrs .

Helper

1986

364 + 1456 hrs .

Devi Pd . Sahu/ Ramkrishna

1987

303 + 1212 hrs .

1988

307 + 1228 hrs .

78 + 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April.

272 + 1088 hrs .

Feb. 1985 40.

Helper

1986

342 + 1368 hrs .

Jaipal Singh / Tilak Singh

1987

360 + 1440 hrs .

1988

307 + 1228 hrs .

1989 upto 78+

April.

41 .

July 1986 198 + 792 lars .

Welder

1987

266 + 1068 hrs .

Hari Moha/ Shiv Nandan

296 + 1184 hrs .

1988

78 + 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April 40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV 40.19 -do-

10.00

41.04-do-

10.00

53.46

27.00

54.36

27.00

55.25

27.00

44.82 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

27.00

46.14 -do-

27.00

46.14 -do-

10.00

39.34 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

40.19

10,00

40.19 -do-

10.00

39.34 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

10.00

40.19 -do-

10.00

40.19 -do-

10,00

50.72

10.00

51.32

10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

41.04 -do-

10.00

41.89 -do-

50.72

10,00

51.32

10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

41.04 -do-

10,00

41.89 -do-

10.00

13.00

53.46

13.00

43.50 Basic as per NCWA - IV .

43.50 -do-

13.00

44.82-do- 1403 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

()

42.

50.72

Oct. 1985 72 + 288 hrs . 10,00

Helper

Dilip Kumar/ RamNihaur

1986

10,00

51.32

346 + 1384 hrs .

360+

1987

40.19 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

1988

360+

10,00

41.04 -do-

10,00

4189 -do-

1989 upto 78 + 312 hrs .

April.

43.

Driver

30,00

55.63

Nov. 1985 50 + 200 hrs .

1986

30,00

360 + 1440 hrs

57.52

Ray Singh/ Kalyan Singh.

30,00

46.12 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

140 + 560 lırs .

1987 May

44.

10.00

50,72

Helper Nov. 1986 40 + 160 hrs.

1987

Mohanan/ Shivnandanan

340 + 1360 hrs . 10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA - IV .

1988 360 + 1360 hrs . 10.00

40.19 -do-

10.00

41.04-do-

1989 upto 78 + 312

April

45.

Driver

55.63

Fcb . 1984 298 + 1192 hrs . 30.00

Santosh Kumar/ Motilal

1985

57.52

348 + 1392 hrs . 30.00

1986

30.00

58.64

360 + 1440 hrs .

1987

360+

30,00

47.74 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

1988

49.36 -do-

30,00

328 + 1312 hrs .

49.36 -do-

1989 upto 78

April.

46.

Driver

340 + 1360 hrs . 30.00

Jan. 1987

44.50 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

1988

Narmada Patel/ Malik Ram

300+

46.12 -do-

1989 upto 78

April.

47.

Driver

55.63

Jan. 1985 363 + 1452 hrs . 30.00

Salim Khan/ Alim Khan

1986

57.52

364 + 1456 hrs . 30.00

1987

263 + 1052 hrs . 30.00

46. 12 Basic as per NCWA - IV.

1988

30,00

47.74 -do-

311+

30.00

49.36 -do-

1989 upto 78

April .

48.

50.72

10.00

Nov. 1986 50 +200 hrs .

Helper

Hasarat Mullah/ Shek Abdul

1987

340 + 1360 hrs . 10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

1988

292+

10.00

40.19 -do-

10.00

41.04 -do-

1989 upto 78+

April.

306 + 1224 hrs . 10.00

50.72

49.

Feb. 1985

Helper

Madan Lal / Om Prakash

10.00

1986

360 + 1440 hrs

51.32

328

1987

10.00

40.19 Basic as per NCWA- IV.

360

41.04 -do-

1988

10.00

41.89 -do-

78 + 312 hrs .

1989 upto

April .

53.46

50.

20.00

Auto

210 + 840 hrs .

April 1984

20.00

54.36

Narendra Vastrakar/ Nohar Sai.

Electrician1985

360 + 1440 hrs .

55.25

1986 upto 136 + 544 hrs . 20.00

April.

1404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE " C" ANNEXURE TO ARBITRATION AWARD

M/s . Kaytin Transport Private Limited

Name & Father's Name

Amount

Attendance Year Wise

Sr. No.

Desig- nation

Amount as per NCWA - III/ IV per day

Year

Atten+ OT

Paid per day Rs . Ps .

Rs . Ps .

Head

178 + 712 hrs 33.00

59.98

July 83

61.49

1984

33.00

365 + 1460 hrs

Shri Vidhya Singh/ Shiv Poojan Singh

Mistry

1985

63.00

360 + 1440 hrs 33.00

64.51

1986

33.00

365 + 1460 hrs

33.00

54. 06 Basic NCWA - IV

1987 upto 363+

June

54.06 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 299+

Nov.

55.63

Feb. 84 305 + 1220 hrs 27.00

Mistry

57.52

Driver 1985

331 + 1324 hrs 27.00

Shri Shankar Singh/ Kashi Singh

1986

58.64

336 + 1344 hrs

27.00

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

346+

1987 upto

June

49. 36 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 258+

Aug.

55.63

Feb. 85

27.00

Shri . Moein/ MD . Hassan Driver

310 + 1240 hrs .

57.52

1986

27.00

344 + 1376 hrs .

27.00

46. 12 Basic NCWA - IV

349+

1987 upto

June

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 210 +

Aug.

55.63

345 + 1380 hrs

27.00

Jan. 85

57.52

1986

309 + 1236 hrs 27.00

Shri Chandra Shekhar Driver Patel/ Munna Lal

27.00

1987

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

339 + 1356 hrs

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

27.00

195 + 780 hrs

1988 upto

Aug

55.63

27. ( X )

320 + 1280 hrs

Driver Jan. 86

27,00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV Shri Amarendra Kumar Jha/ Satrughan Jha

1987 upto 342+

June

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

205+

1988

55.63

27. (X)

187 + 748 hrs .

June . 86

Driver

27.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

345+

1987 upto

Shri Shyam Dev Sharma/ Aganu Sharma

June

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 210 +

Aug.

55.63

27. (X )

Driver Feb 86 306 + 1224 hrs

1987

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

362 + 1448 hrs 27. (X )

Shri . Pradeep Kumar/ Vanembar

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 204

Aug.

55.63

Driver Feb. 86

27. ( X)

299 + 1196 hrs

Shri . Jairam/ Fekoo Ram

349+

27.00

1987

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

upto

June .

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

210+

1988 upto

Aug.

30,00

59.98

180 + 720 hrs

June . 86

Mistry

49.82 Basic NCWA - IV

358+ 1432 hrs 30,00

1987

Shri . Nawalesh Sharma/ Kameshwar Sharma

30,00

51.94 Basic NCWA - IV

195+ 788 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1405

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23, 1926

4 1

10.

55,63

33.00

268 + 1072 hrs

Mar. 84

1985

57.52

358 + 1404 hrs

Shri Ram Swaroop Singh/ Driver Shiv Poojan Singh

1986 33.00

58.64

33.00

345+ 1380 hrs

1987 upto

June

1988 upto

Aug.

11.

Driver

33.00

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

348+

49. 36 Basic NCWA - IV

210+

180+ 720 hrs

May87 Shri.Ray Singh/ Kalyan Singh

27.00

44.50 Basic NCWA - IV

46. 12 Basic NCWA- IV

210 + 840 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

Driver

12.

May.87 27.00

27.00

44,50 Basic NCWA - IV

204 + 816hrs

Shri .Mehman Ram/ LoharaRam

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

210 + 840hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

Driver

27.00

245 +980 hrs

13.

March 86

1987 Shri .Harsh Kumar/ RajKumar

1988 upto 27.00

55.63

320 + 1280 hrs 27.00

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

210 + 840 hrs

Aug.

14. Shri Ravendra

Driver Dec.86

1987 27.00

3+ 12 hrs

27.00

55.63

Basic NCWA -IV

46.12

330+ 1320 hrs

1988 upto 27.00

27.00

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

215+ 860 hrs

Aug.

15.

Mar.86

Driver

55.63

260 + 1040 hrs

Shri Vijayan

1987 27.00

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

330+ 1320 hrs

1988 upto 27.00

27.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

205 + 820 hrs

Aug. 8,00

50.72

194 + 776 hrs

16.

Helper Jun . 86

1987 Shri . Tulsi Prasad/ DhwajaRam

upto June

1988 upto

Aug.

17.

Aug. 86 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA-IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

220 +

8.00

50.72

120 + 480 hrs

Helper

Shri .Baal Kishan/ Gorakram

1987 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA-IV

344+ 1376 hrs

1988 upto

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

215+ 840 hrs

Aug.

18.

May 86 8.00

8.00

50.72

205 + 820 hrs

Jelper

Shri.Shyam Sundar/ Kashi Sunder

1987upto

June 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

362+

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 205 +

Aug.

Jan. 87 19.

Helper

1988 upto Shri .Ashok Kumar Singh/ Jamuna Singh

June 20.

Aug. 86 8.00

364+

39.34 Basic NCWA - IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

215+

8.00

50.72

110 + 440 hrs

Helper

1987 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

320 + 1280 hrs

Shri.Sukhdev/ Shree Ram Das

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

230 + 920 hrs

1988upto

Aug.

21.

Aug. 86 8.00

50.72

115 + 460 hrs

Helper

1987 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

345+ 1380 hrs

Shri . Nanaki Sahu/ Mehatar Sahu

1988 8.00

205 +820 hrs

22.

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

50.72

65+ 260 hrs

Oct.86

Helper

1987 Shri Ram Ashish Dukhi Lal

8.00

360+ 1440 hrs

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

210 + 840 hrs

1988upto

Aug.

23.

Aug. 85 8.00

8.00

50.72

143 + 572 hrs

Helper

1986 8.00

51.32

320 + 1280 hrs

Shri Satyadev Ramlakhan

1987 upto

June 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

338 +

41.04 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 220+

Aug.

1406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

24.

Driver

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

55.63

267 + 1068 hrs

Apr83

1984 33.00

33.00

57.52

354+ 1416 hrs

Shri . Gyan Singh/ DadanSingh

1985

58.64

358 + 1432 hrs

1986 33.00

33.00

59.76

358 + 1432 hrs

33.00

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

1987 upto 349+

June

49.36 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 205+

Aug.

25.

Driver Feb. 85 Shri .Daal Chand/ Varelal

1986

55.63

310 + 1240 hrs 30.00

30.00

57.52

360+ 1440 hrs

1987

360 +

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 225+

Aug.

26.

Electrician Apr. 86

1987 Shri . Narendra Vastrkar/ NoharRam

356+

upto June

1988 upto

Aug.

27.

Helper May . 85

1986 Shri Vakeel Ram/ MohanRam

25.00

230 + 920 hrs

53.46

25.00

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

230+

8.00

190 + 760 hrs

50.72

51.32

320 + 1280 hrs 8.00

8,00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

1987 upto 300+

June

1988 upto

Aug.

28.

Helper May. 86

41.04 Basic NCWA- IV

230 +

8,00

50.72

225 + 900 hrs

Shri .Ghanashyam/ Kedar

1987 upto

June

40.19 Basic NCWA -IV

330 +

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 215+

Aug.

29.

Jun. 86

Helper

Md. Ameen/ Md . Hassan

8.00

175 + 700 hrs

50.72

1987

300+

40.19 Basic NCWA -IV

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 215 +

Aug.

30.

Driver Jun. 86

55.63

30.00

327 + 1308 hrs

1987

46.12 Basic NCWA -IV

360+ 1440 hrs

Shri . Midhilesh/ Manager Singh

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV 30,00

1988 upto 230 + 320 hrs

Aug 31.

Driver Nov. 85 30.00

55.63

40+ 160 hrs

1986

57.52

345 + 1380 hrs

Shri Pyara Singh / Sunder Singh

1987 upto

June 30.00

30,00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

305+

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV

1988 upto 215 +

Aug.

32.

Driver

Shri . Babu/ Komal

55.63

30.00

230 +920 hrs

April 86

1987 30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

365+ 1460 hrs

1988 upto

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

215 + 860 hrs

Aug.

33.

Driver March 86 30.00

55.63

265 + 1060 hrs

1987 30.00

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

315+ 1260 hrs

Shri . Rajendra Parihar/ Shankar Singh

30.00

46.12 Basic NCWA- IV

215 +860 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

34.

Driver May84

1985 Shri Bhura Singh/ Jagmohan Singh

1986 30.00

55.63

210 + 840 hrs

57.52

335+ 1340 hrs 30.00

58.64

30.00

340 + 1360 hrs

1987

47.74 Basic NCWA - IV 30.00

310 + 1240 hrs

33.00

49. 36 Basic NCWA -IV

190 + 760 hrs

1988 up to

Aug.

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1407

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23, 1926

35.

Driver March 86

55.63

270 + 1080 hrs

1987 Shri . Giri Bahadur/ Krishna Bahadur

30,00

325+ 1300 hrs

1988 upto 30.00

46,12 Basic NCWA -IV

Basic NCWA - IV

46.12

230 +920 hrs

Aug.

36.

30.00

25.00

260 + 1040 hrs

Apr. 86

Electrician

1987 Shri . Abdul/ Md . Ibrahim

1988 upto

53.46

43.50 Basic NCWA - IV

330+ 1320 hrs 25:00

Basic NCWA - IV

43.50

215 + 860 hrs

Aug.

37. Shri Ghasi Ram/

Driver

25.00

30.00

55.63

140+ 560 hrs

July.86

1987 30.00

340+ 1360 hrs

46.12 Basic NCWA - IV

215 + 860 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

38.

30.00

50.72hrs

8.00

320 + 1280 hrs

Jan.86

Helper

1987 Shri . Lal Babu/ Shiv Prasad

8,00

345+ 1380 hrs

1988 upto

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

230 + 920 hrs

Aug.

39.

Feb. 86

50.72 hrs

8.00

320 + 1280 hrs

Helper

Shri . Gajadhar/ YaminDas

1987 8.00

340+ 1360 hrs

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

215+ 860 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

Mar. 86 40..

Helper

1987 Shri . Ram Prasad/ Jailal

8.00

50.72 hrs

270 + 1080 hrs 8.00

8.00

40,19 Basic NCWA - IV

340+ 1360 hrs

1988 upto

Basic NCWA - IV

40.19

230 +920 hrs

Aug.

41 .

Mar.86 8.00

8.00

50.72 hrs

260+ 1040 hrs

Helper

Shri . Ram Poojan Tiwari/ Ram Kripal Tiwari

1987upto

June

1988 upto

Aug.

42.

June . 86

Helper

1987 Shri . Rajendra Bahadur/ Khadak Bahadur

8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

360+

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

210 +

175 +700 hrs 8.00

50.72 lus

40. 19 Basic NCWA -JV

325+ 1300 hrs

8,00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

210 + 840 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

43.

Feb. 86 8.00

50.72 hrs

310 + 1240 hrs

Helper

1987 Shri . Devi Singh / KedarBahadur

8.00

40 19 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

340+ 1360 hrs

40 19 Basic NCWA - IV ९00

220 + 880 hrs

1988 upto

Aug.

44.

Jan.86

Helper

Shri . Amul Kumar/ Motilal Sonkar

1987

1988 upto 210-

Ang 45.

Feb

Helpe

198?

50,72 hrs

320 + 1280 hrs 8.00

8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

360+

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

50.72 hrs

8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

360+ 1440hrs

Shri . Oman Kutian' Rajkumar

310+ 1240hs

8.00

40.19 Basic NCWA - IV

210-840lirs

1988 upto

Aug.

F໖ . 37

Mistry

46. Shri . Ramesh Kumar/ Jumbal Salka

47.

Helper July. 87 Shri .Kanti Gopal/ Kalapat

48.

Mar. 87

Helper

Shri . Bhagat Singh/ Bhag Singh

49.

July . 87

Helper

Shri . Bal Beer Singh/ Bhag Singh

311 G1 /05-12

47,70 Basic NCWA - IV 30.00

90+550 hrs

39.34Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

140 + 560 hrs

39.34 Basic NCWA -IV 8.00

50+ 200 hrs

39.34 Basic NCWA - IV 8.00

70 + 280 lus 1408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/ MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2005

The claimant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim , it has been stated that the workman was employed with Dena Bank, BO Chawari Bazar. Delhi as clerk/ cashier and his service conditions are governed by the provisions of Industry wise awards and bipartite settlements . On 16-2-94 the Regional Manager of Dena Bank issued orders placing him under suspension .

का.आ. 481.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं . 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 126/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/348/ 96 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January , 2005

That the above order was passed and served upon him without affording him any opportunity of being heard . On the contrary under the threat of police action coupled with assurance of lenient administrative action authoritics obtained from the workman some confessional statement and thereafter used them against him . All such confessions having been obtained under the threat and allurement cannot be deemed as confessions of free will and consent .

S.O. 481. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 126/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , No. 2 , New Delhi shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-1-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/ 348/ 96 - IR (B -II )] .

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

Thereafter the disciplinary authority gottserved upon him alleged charge sheet dated 26-2-94 . Only a few days prior to the suspension of the workman , the bank had reinstated Sh. Sanjeev Chopra Chief Cashier Rajendra Place , New Delhi . The said Sh . Sanjeev Kumar was also charged with acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank leading to losses and was awarded the punishment of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority . However later on , on his accepting the charges and making mercy plea the higher authorities intervened and he was reinstated in the service ofthe bank a few days prior to placement of the workman under suspension further the case of a similarly placed employee Sh. Shiv Lal , Chief Cashier, Safdarjung Enclave was also under active sympehthetic consideration of the authorities at the relevant time . As a matter of fact said Sh . Shiv Lal who was also intially dismissed was finally reinstated. Again above background authorities prevailed upon the workman for confessing his alleged guilt with assurance of a similar lenient administrative action . In case of non -confession he was threatened with harsh police action.

I. D. No. 126/97

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Sh. K.K. Gupta, R/ o 105 , Krishma Apartments , Plot No. 27 , IP Estate , Delhi - 110 092 .

VERSUS

Inview ofthe understanding of lenient administrative action the workman again accepted the charges vide his reply dated 16-3-94 and furtherance of the understanding requested the authorities to treat his case under clause 19.12 ( e) of the bipartite settlement . As on previous occasion he again gave a letter dated 5-4-94 accepting charges and requesting the authorities to treat his case under clause 19.12 ( e) of the bipartite settlement .

The General Manager ,

DenaBank , Keitron Chamber , Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, NewDelhi -110005.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/348/ 96 IR-(B - II) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT. 29-8-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

The bank instead of treating his case at par with other similarly placed cases two of which have been mention in the preceding paras and proceeding against him under clause 19.12 (e) of the biparties settlement , constituted departmental enquiry in the matter and appointed Sh . A.K. Jain as enquiry officer to conduct enquiry in respect of boththe alleged charge sheets . Still the workman was under bonafied impression that ultimately his matter will also be considered in accordance with the understanding mentioned hereinabove .

Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank in awarding the punishment of dismissal to Sh. K.K. Gupta, Clerk-cum- cashier without notice w.e.f. 29-10-94 is legal andjustified ? If not , what relief the said workman is entitled to ."

That a sham enquiry was held in the matter which was not effectively defended by the workman because of the circumtances explained herein before. All along he was under the impression that having regard to the assurances TT भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

as well as existing precedents the authorities will take a compassionateview of his case and will not award extreme penalty leading to his economic death . It may be added that the behaviour of the workman in not defending the case and making confession after confession and even depositing money with the bank may be seen and considered against the background of threat of police action and apprehension of loosing employment in case of lack of desired cooperation with authorities coupled with his responsibility of supporting his family of six members including one handicap sister and aged parents .

On 6.9.94 the workman received letter dated 1.9.94 along with a copy of enquiry report desiring him to make submissions on the said within 15 days . Surprisingly this letter was signed by Chief Manager in capacity as Disciplinary Authority whereas in previous correspondence , Regional Manager was acting as Disciplinary Authority. It is not understood how and why the Disciplinary Authority was changed by the bank in the middle of proceedings . This change of Disciplinary Authority was illegal being violative of principles ofnatural justice and has prejudiced his case adversely.

As casual the workman again did not contest even the sketchy report submitted by the EO and once requested for lenient consideration ofhis case . However the authorites did not examine the case in totality of circumtances and taking advantage of his alleged confessions given under pressing circumtances as discussed herein before awarded him the punishment of dismissal without notice vide Memorandum dated 29-10-94 .

Pressed to wall and completely demoralized with unfolding of events the workman approached DGM ( O) , the Appellate Authority and submitted to him his appeal on 30.11.94 again on same lines without contesting the charges ontechnicalities or marits and seeking is indulgence forsympathetic consideration on humanitarian grounds.

The Appellate authority also took benefit of. hisso called confessions and rejected the appeal vide order dated 13.2.95 communicated to the workman by thebank after expiry of full one year under the cover oftheir letter dated 13.2.96 . This delay of one year in dispatching the order of the appellate authority is clear indication of the casual approach adopted by the authorities in the matter . The same is also violative of clause 19.14 ofthe bipartite settlement .

On 25.3.96 the workman addressed a Mercy Petition to the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank submitted therein as to how the order of the bank in dismissing him was discriminatory and hence liable to be substituted by some other lenient order .

The workmanwas informed by the DGM ( personal ) of the bank vide letter dated 3.4.96 that the said Mercy Petitionhas been filed by them because there is no provision in the bipartite settlement for such petitions . In this regard it is submitted that the said petition was addressed to the chairman of the bank and he alone was competent to deal with the same and the action of the bank in filing the same without placing it before the Chairman the addressee is not only arbitrary but is also malafide .

1409 The action of the bank in dismissing workman is arbitrary unjust discriminatory malafide and illegal and deserve to be set aside . It is submitted that all the alleged confessions were made by the workman under duress and the reliance ofthe bank is mainly on said confessions only . Further the enquiry conducted by the EO was not fair as the same was also held under coercive circumstances discussed herein before . Further findings based upon said enquiry and confessions are not liable to be accepted as tenable in law.

The management/respondent has filed WS . In the WS has been submitted that the reference made by the appropriate Govt . is bad in law and is likely to be rejected and/or to be answered in favour of the management . That no cause of action has arisen in favour of the claimant and against the management and the statement of claim is liable to be rejected in limine.

That the claimant has not come to this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and the claim of the claimant is likely to be rejected summarily . It is denied that under the alleged threat of ploice action and coupled of alleged lenient administrative action any confessional statement was obtained by the authorities as alleged. There is not even an iota of truth in the allegations of the claimant . The claimant committed the fraud and was caught red handed by the management and in order to avoid penal action he made confessional statement voluntarily without any pressure, coercion from any quarter whatsoever about the fraud committed by the claimant . The claimant made the confessional statement voluntarily without and pressure , coercion or undue influence or allurement and the managment has not assured any alleged lenient administrative action as alleged . The claimant is guilty of serious fraud and cheating and there was no ground to take the alleged lenient administrative action . It is denied emphatically that any confessional statement was obtained under the threat and/or allurement as alleged . The allegations of the claimant are an just after thought .

Itis stated that the management afforded sufficient opportunities to the claimant to present his case and to put his defence if any to the charge sheets . The claimant has levelled baseless allegations just to prejudice the mind of thisHon'ble Court moreover the same are beyond the scope ofreference made by the appropriate Govt . The case of Sh . Sanjeev Chopra and Sh. Shiv Lal have no relevance with the matter of the claimant . The allegations of the claimants about the case of Sh . Sanjeev Chopra and Sh . Shiv Lal are highly misconceived, bogus and denied emphatically. It is denied emphatically that under the alleged background of the cases Sh . Sanjeev Chopra and Sh. Shiv Lal the management prevailed upon the claimant for confessing his guilt with the alleged assurance of a similar lenient view/action . It is also denied that the claimant was threatened in case of non- confession with harsh police action . The claimant cannot escape from his own admission/ confession made before the competent authorities.

It is denied that there was any alleged understanding of lenient administrative action by the management . In fact the claimant was guilty of major misconduct and there was 1410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] no ground and reason to take lenient administrative action. Since the charges against the claimant were crystal clear andbeyond reasonable doubt as such the claimant had no other alternative except to confess and admittedly he confessed vide reply dated 16-3-94 . There was no alleged understanding to treat the case of the claimant under clause 19.12(e) of the Bipartite Settlement as alleged.

It is denied that the claimant was pressed to the wall orthat the claimant reaped what he has sown and nothing happened unusual in the prevalent circumstances. It is denied that the appellant authority took any benefit from the confession for the claimant . It is submitted that Ld . Appellate Authority considered all the facts and the submission made and decided the appeal of the claimant on merits. It is denied that the Appellate Authority took any casual approach in the matter or that the same is violative of clause 19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement as alleged

The allegations levelled against the management are wrong. It is denied that the mercy petition was not considered or that the case of the claimant has not been considered in the right perspective. It is denied that any confession was obtained forcefully as alleged . It is also denied that the punishment awarded to the claimant is highly dispropornateordiscriminatory punishment. The claimant has levelled stock allegations against the management .

It is pertinent to state here that the confession made by the claimant was without any reservation whatsoever . It is denied emphatically that the case of the claimant was atpar with the other alleged similar placed cases . It is stated that the two alleged cases are not similar to the claimant . Every case has its own merits and demerits and there was no ground to treat the claimant case under clause 19.12 ( e) of the Bipartite Settlement . The management on the basis of serious charges of cheating and fraud constituted an inquiry officer 10 conduct an inquiry in respect of the charge sheet. It is pertinent to state here that after the constitution of the inquiry officer nothing bonafide impression of misunderstanding was left. Undoubtedly , the management issued charge sheets 10 the claimant for major misconduct. and referred the matter to an inquiry and all the reasonable opportunities were afforded to the claimant to defend the same and there was no alleged understanding whatsoever between the management and the claimant.

It is denied emphatically that the act of the management bank is arbitrary , unjust, discriminatory , malafide , illegal or the same is liable to be set aside. It is stated that the action of the management is legal , just and there is no ground to set aside the same . It is denied in to that the claimant made the confession under the duress or the reliance of the management based on the confession of the claimant

It isdenied that the punishment of the dismissal is liable to be set aside on the grounds of its being discriminatory as alleged. It is denied that in the similar matter the punishment was awarded lesser as alleged . It is stated that the facts of the four cases were entirely different to the claimant's and the purishment awarded is just fair and reasonable on the basis of serious charges against the claimant. It is denied that action of the bank in awarding punishment to the claimant is hit by the provision of art 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India .

There is not even a single iota of truth in the baseless allegations of the claimant . It is denied that the inquiry held by the inquiry officer was sham or that was not effectively defended by the claimant as alleged. The claimant admittedly was served with the charge sheets and he replied to that and full opportunities were granted by the management. It is denied emphatically that there was any alleged assurance or precedent as alleged . The claunant coniessed voluntarily as there was unrebuttable evidence against the claimant . It is pertinent to state here that nowhere the claimant has alleged that he was not provided the opportunities to defend the charge sheets . The allegations of the claimant are an after thought .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder . In his rejoinder, he has denied almost all the paras of the written statcinent and has reiterated the averments of his statement of claim. Evidence of both the parties has been taken . The management has denied most of the paras of the statement ofclaim.

It is stated that the change in the disciplinary authority occurred on account of structural changes in the hierarchy and the same was circulated to all the branches of the management vide circular No. 249/34/1994 dated 11-8-94 alongwith the report of the inquiry provided an opportunityto the claimant to make submission before awarding punishment . It is denied that there was any change in the Disciplinary Authority or that the same was illegal being violative ofprinciple of natural justice or that it has prejudiced his case.

It isdenied that the report of the inquiry officer was a sketch report as alleged. Admittedly, the claimant did not challenge the finding of the inquiry officer report and on the contrary has admitted the same in totality. The claimant is estopped from his own admission /confession . It is denied that the management passed the order of punishment without any notice to the claimant. The allegations ofthe claimant are wrong to claimant's own knowledge and are even contrary to the specific admission made by the claimant

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that punishment of dismissal was awarded on the workman applicant without notice w.e.f. 29-10-1994. The punishment is illegal . On 16-02-1994, the Regional Manager of Dena Bank issued orders placing him under suspension. He was not afforded any opportunity. Thereafter charge sheet dt. 26-02-1994 was served on him. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Chief Cashier was also charged with acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank leading to losses and was awarded the punishment of dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority. Later on he appealed for mercy and he was reinstated . Similarly. Shri Shiv Lal , Chief Cashier , Safdarjang Enclave was also dismissed but on filing appeal on mercy grounds, he was also reinstated . Adiscrimination 1411 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

misconduct, have been reinstated thereafter . The quantum of punishment imposed as a result of domestic inquiry is quite appropriate in view of [ 1999 ] 81 DLT 696. From the perusal ofthe record and the law cited by the management, itbecomes quite explicit that the workman applicant has committed a serious and grave misconduct and he was rightly punished by the bank. The inquiry is quite fair and the punishment awarded is commensurate with the serious misconduct of the workman applicant .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Dena Bank in awarding the punishment of dismissal to Sh . K.K. Gupta, Clerk -cum-cashier without notice w.e.f. 29-10-94 is legal andjustified.

Theworkman applicant does not deserve to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly . Dt. 07-01-2005

R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 482.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में । निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/370/94- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2005

S.O. 482. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-01-2005

has been made against the workman . It was further submitted that departmental inquiry was constituted and Shri A.K. Jain was appointed an inquiry officer in respect of both the charge sheets . The workman had bonafide intentionthat his matter will also be considered according to the cases of the other two employees . A sham inquiry was held in the matter and it was not effectively defended by the workman because of the circumstances explained above . The workman believed that the authorities will take a compassionate view as in all other cases so he did not defend himself. He made confessions after confessions and even deposited the moneyney but he was meted out a different treatment . It is clear that the workman applicant has confessed the charges levelled against him . It is in this case that he has taken the stand that he confessed under coercion and threat. In replydt. 16-03-1994 , he accepted the charges . Still a departmental inquiry was held and Shri A.K. Jain was appointed Enquiry Officer. He conducted the inquiry quite fairly and give opportunity to the workman applicant but he did not defend himself in the inquiry but rather accepted the charges . It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman applicant did not challenge the report of the inquiry officer. After report of the inquiry officer , he again prayed for lenient view . As such, an opportunity for defence to the workman was given but he accepted the charges and after the report of the inquiry officer , he again prayed for lenient view . It has been further submitted by the management that the disciplinary authority and inquiry authority were the same persons so the inquiry is vitiated. It was submitted from the side of the management that the disciplinary authority was changed under a structural changes . It was submitted from the side ofthe management that the workman applicant defrauded the bank of Rs . 60,000/- . He prepared debit voucher of Rs . 10,000/- on 09-11-1993 , on 20-11-1993 , he prepared voucher of Rs . 10,000/ - and similarly on 13-12-1993 and 19-01-1994, two vouchers of Rs . 20,000/ - were prepared. On 15-02-1994 , he attempted to defraud the bank for Rs . 20,000/-from account No. 343770. In this way, there is misappropriation of Rs. 60,000/- . He has fraudulently withdrawn the money by making false entries and he has received all the amount by pay order . As such , the fraudulent act committed by the workman applicant has beenprovedby cogent evidence and in view of the repeated confessions ofthe workman applicant .

[No. L - 12012/370/94- IR(B -II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, NEW DELHI It was further submitted from the side of the management that the case of the workman applicant is different from the cases of two persons referred to above . I have gone through the entire proceedings of the inquiry. It isnot neededto reiterate the charges when the same has been confessed several times by the workman applicant under the alleged assurarice by the bank authorities to take a lenient view.

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer L. D. No. 19/95

Inthe matter of .:-

It has been submitted by the respondent that the same view should be taken by the management in his also . The cases of the other two persons referred to are quite different than the case of this workman applicant.

Sh . C.M. Ganga Ram C/o Andhra Bank Shramik Union, Delhi(Regd.), R-3, GreenPark, New Delhi - 16.

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that capital punishment has been awarded tohim whereas two employees having cominitted the same serious 1412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

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

Andhra Bank

inwriting of their intention to terminate this settlement. It is a matter of record that neither of the parties to the settlement has issued notice of their intention to terminate the same.

The Dy . General Manager, Andhra Bank, Zonal Office , New Delhi

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/370/ 94 IR(B - 2) Central Government Dt. 31-1-1995 has referred the following point for adjudication.

In spite of such settlement, which is binding on the management as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and in spite of the fact that the workman had put in the requisite minimum service of 20 years by 1986 , promotion to clerical cadre has not been given to the workman and the management has miserably and deliberately committed breach of the said memorandum of settlement .

The point runs as hereunder :-

" Whether the demand of Andhra Bank Shramik Union , Delhi on the management of Andhra Bank, New Delhi for grant of promotion to Sh . C.M. Ganga Ram, Daftry to clerical cadre isjustified? If so , what relief the said workman entitled to . "

Andhra Bank Shramik Union , Delhi is a registered union of the sub - staff of Andhra Bank . Sh . C.M. Ganga Ram (hereinafter referred to as , the workman) is a member andOffice Bearer of the said union. The said union exposes thegrievance of the said workman.

The said workman was appointed as Sub - staff (Daftry)with staff code No. 1650, on 16th March, 1966 , and his services were confirmed on 16th September, 1966. The workmanwas appointed and initially posted at the Bank's Branch at Karol Bagh, New Delhi . The workman was in the said branch right from the date of opening of the said branch .

The workman fulfilled all the requirements as early as 1986 but the management did not call him for interview at all though vacancies occurred . It cannot be disputed that the workman was within the zone of consideration . The seniority list of clerks as on 1-4-1990 promoted from sub-staff contains as many as 107 promotees from sub- staff as indicated by column 10 of the said list . the workman's date ofjoining the sub - staff cadre was 16-3-96 . All the persons denoted by letters S/ S (meaning sub - staff) in column 10 ofthe seniority list werejuniors to the workman except the persons shown at serial No. 17, 1586 , 1588 , 4457, 4458 and 6823. As seniority in sub- staff cadre was only with reference to the date of joining , when the said promotees (juniors ) were placed in the zone of consideration, the workman also should have been placed in the zone of consideration . He was not so placed as evidenced by the fact that he did not get a call for interview . Thus, the provisions of the settlement dated 27-9-1985 have been violated .

Oneofthe reasons why the promotion was not given , was due to the factor that some subordinate staff Members have given wrong information regarding educational qualifications so much so that those who had much higher educational qualification have disclosed their educational qualification as 7th standard or less than that, so that they could get the promotion under 1 / 10th quota under the aforesaid memorandum of settlement .

In 1975 the workman was transferred to Asaf Ali Road Branch , New Delhi in 1977 , and was transferred to GreenPark Branch , New Delhi . It is pertinent to note that from the last 28 years the workman has been working as Daftry only and there has not been any promotion or change ofgrade. Even stagnation increment was also over in 1992. Subject to the grievance against wrong noting of thedate ofbirth of the workman, which matter is subjudice in a writ petition No. 664 of 1995 before the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi .

It is also pertinent to note that those who had the same educational qualifications as that of the workman , butwho had entered into the services of the bank as late in 1978, 1980 , 1982 and 1986 were promoted , thereby clearly making a discrimination, which is highly illegal .

It is further submitted that because of the wrong policy being adopted by the management , grave injustice was done to the workman , resulting in financial loss also . It is heartening to note that since 1966 , the workman required to work as Daftry in the same scale and the workman be retiring from service even without any promotion or change of scale , which is unheard in the annuals of service law jurisprudence.

The management has been unfair , unreasonable and prejudicial in dealing with the promotions of sub - staff and moreparticularly for the workman. Right from the beginning of the services of the workman , the workman has been in the trade union activities and is General Secy . of the applicant from 1991. Because of the trade union activities ofthe workman , the workman, is denied of his legitimate right of promotion to next higher post . It is pertinent to note that there have been no single memo ever issued to the workman and there has been no charges levelled against the workman in respect of the performance of the duties of the workman. On the other hand , all the concerned officers have appreciated the performance and discharge of duties all through of the workman.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that the present dispute is an individual dispute and has not been espoused properly. It is not an industrial dispute within the meaning ofS. 2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act . The claim is liable to be rejected on this ground alone .

It is pertinent to note that the memorandum of settlement shall continue to be binding even after 31st December, 1987 until either party gives two months notice [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

That inter alia the question of evolution of promotion policy as claimed in para 14 of the statement of claim goes beyond the reference order. It is well settled that a claim beyond the reference order cannot even be entertained. This claim is liable to be rejected out right .

That the claimant is guilty of an attempt to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal . Since the claimant has not approached to this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands , he isdisentitled to receive any relief from this Hon'ble tribunal. It is submitted that the Andhra Bank Shramik Union has not been recognised by the management and does not command a substantial following among the employees of thebank . Sufficient number of workman have not espoused the case of the workman .

The management has treated all its employees (including the workman in the present case) fairly , reasonably and properly and has granted them all their legitimate rights and dues . The allegations relating to victimization are vague and lacking in material particular. They are also false and are denied. The allegations with respect to the issue of memo , charge sheet alleged appreciation of performance are irrelevant to the present dispute and are not admitted.

It issubmitted that the mana ent has always acted 'ement . The case of e to the fact that terview was umber of in accordance with the terms of th the workman could not be cons the number of candidates to be tailed fo . to be thrice the number of vacancies . candidates were senior to the workman concerned, he did not fall into the zone of consideration. In view of the availability of a number of employees with more than 20 years service the question of relaxing the stipulated requirement of 20 years service did not arise.

The claimant is trying to mislead and confuse this Hon'ble Tribunal . It is submitted that none of thejuniors of the workman has been promoted under the seniority quota. However, under the settlement the sub - staff are also entitled to be promoted under the merit quota . It is for this purpose that written tests are held in terms of the settlement. The juniors were promoted only under the merit quota. The interpretation of the settlement is not admitted. It is denied that the workman was ever threatened that in case he did not appear for the written test he would be dis- qualified for the promotion as alleged. The management has acted in accordance with the settlement . The allegations relating to wrong information regarding educational qualification etc. are vague and lacking in material particulars and cannot even be taking into consideration. It has also not been shown how the workman's case was affected by the action of the bank . The management reserves the right to give a proper reply as and when there particulars are supplied. It is denied that their was any favouritism as alleged or at all . It is also submitted that bank was fully within its rights to take a

1413

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

lenient view and the same does not furnish any cause of action in favour of anyone else . In any case this objection should have been raised in 1989 .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder , he has reiterated the averments of his claim and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the statement of claim . Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from both the sides . It was submitted that the workman applicant has been serving respondent since March, 1966. He was initially posted at Karol Bagh. He has not been given promotion despite his seniority as he took part in trade union activities and the workman is General Secretary of the applicant from 1990- 1991. Because of the union activities of the workman, the workman is, being denied of his legitimate right of promotion to next higher post . According to the memorandum of settlement dt . 30th December, 1987, he is entitled to be promoted as there is no criteria for qualification . He should have been promoted after 20 years service by 1986 but the management did not give him opportunity for interview when the vacancies occurred in 1986. Juniors to him have beenpromoted as is apparent from the list filed by the workman applicant but the workman applicant has not been giventhe chance of interview so he has not been promoted. It has been further submitted that the management is followingunfair labour practice .

It was submitted from the side of the management that there is no espousal of the case . Espousal is immaterial inthe light ofthe recent law laid down and aggrieved person can get his matter referred for adjudication. There is no victimization of the workman applicant , the candidates who are senior to the workman have been promoted. No junior to him have been promoted. Whenever interview was called for, he did not come in the seniority list so he would not be promoted. From perusal of annexure -A, it becomes quite obvious that Shibdas Kar who joined in 1977 has been promoted. Shri Banerjee who joined in 1978 hasbeenpromoted . Shri Subramaniam whojoined in 1978 has been promoted. Annexure-A is a certified copy and this paper has not been denied. As such , according to Annexure-A, juniors to him have been promoted long back. Those employees howjoined in 1978 and 1979 have been promoted but the workman applicant has not been promotedwhereas he joined the respondent bank in 1966 . Itshows that the bank is following unfair labour practice . According to the settlement of 1987 , no qualification is required for promotion. He was appointed daftari in 1996 . He has not been given even stagnation increment . From 1992, he has served the respondent bank for almost 28 years . He ought to have been promoted after 20 years but hewas not given opportunity for interview . 1989 (4) SCC- 635 is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this 1414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/ MAGHA 23 , 1926

case as seniority list has been prepared and the workman applicant is the sr . most . 1989 ( 4) SCC 640 is also not applicable as it is regarding municipalities . The workman filed this case in 1995. There is delay and latches in his part. He ought to have been promoted in 1986 but he was not called for interview . He has now 28 years experience and he is now at the verge of his retirement . He was not given the opportunity of interview and after such long gap, there is no question of interview. The workman applicant shall be deemed to be promoted with all the consequential benefits from 1st January , 1995 at least after a gap of almost 10 years when juniors to him were promoted.

The reference is replied thus:

"The demand of Andhra Bank Shramik Union , Delhi on the management of Andhra Bank, New Delhi for grant ofpromotion to Sh . C.M. Ganga Rain , Daftry to clerical cadre isjustified. The workman applicant shall be deemed to be promoted from 1st of January , 1995 along with all the consequential benefits . The respondent is directed to pay back wages in view of his promotion within two months from the publication of the award. In case of default, an interest of 12% per annum will run on the entire back wages .

The award is given accordingly ,

Dt. 11-01-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी, 2005

का.आ. 483.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडीकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 132/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 85/2001- आई.आर . ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th January , 2005 S.O. 483. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 132/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 14-01-2005.

[No. L - 12012/ 85 /2001 - IR( B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT :

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 132/2001

Ref. No. L- 12012/85 /2001 - IR (B - II) Dt. 23.8.01 BETWEEN :

Nand Kishore S/o Madhav Prakash C/o B.P. Saxena, 426 ,W -2 Basant Vihar Kanpur(Mohalla Kharba Chowk Sathbad , Hathras (U.P. )

AND

Syndicate Bank

Dy.General Manager, ZonalOffice, Nand Kishore Road Lucknow -226001 (U.P. )

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L - 12012 /85 /2001 - IR (B - II) dated 23.8.01 referred the following dispute for adjudication to presiding officer , CGIT - cum- Labour Court , Lucknow .

" WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT IN TERMINATING THE SERVICESS OF SRI NAND KISHORE W.E.F. 5.11.98 IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT , WHAT REFIFE THE CONCERNED WORKMAN IS ENTITLED TO. "

The worker has filed the statement of claim and the opposite party has filed their written statement . The evidence of parties were recorded . The parties had discussion this matter in the preliminary sitting of the Lok Adalat and ultimately they have reached a compromise today . According to the terms of the compromise the management has agreed the following terms :

1. The management will pay the worker retrenchment compensation and

2. As and when the work arises as result of temporary leave vacancies and regular vacancies the worker shall be offered .

3. The worker shall be empannlled in the category ofattender and as when the vacancies occur, the worker shall be given opportunity of regular einployment looking to the length of service he has put in. The management has further explained that in case any other casual labour has put in more working days than Nand Kishore then that casual labour shall be given preference . However, no other person shall appointed in regular vacany who has put in less number of days then Nand Kishore. He has further explained that this [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1415

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

empanelment shall be ever lasting and no cut ofdate has been fixed .

The worker has accepted the terms of agreement . The parties have filed the compromise C -34 in the Lok Adalat. The parties have requested that award be passed interms of compromise C-34 . After verifying C-34 I am of the considered opinion that the compromise C - 34 disposes the dispute . Award accordingly passed in terms of compromise reached in Lok Adalat on 7.1.2005 . C- 34 will be part of the award.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer Lucknow. 7.1.2005

BEFORE CGIT-CUM LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW L. D. Case No. 132 of 2001

APPLICANT NAND KISHORE

VERSUS

SYNDICATE BANK

OPP . PARTY FIXED FOR : 7-1-2005

BEFORE LOK ADALAT

JOINT APPLICATION FOR COMPROMISE OF THE CASE FOR DECISION BEFORE LOK ADALAT PROCEEDINGS

Sir,

1. That the present industrial dispute was raisedby the workman against the alleged termination of his services by the bank management w.e.f. 5.11.1998 in violation of Section 25 (F) of I.D. Act .

2. That during pendency of the case , the parties have reached for amicable settlement of the dispute under mutual understanding and want to get the matter decided before Lok Adalat on the following terms and conditions:-

(a) That the workman will not press his claim as prayed and the bank management is agreeable to pay notice pay and retrenchment compensation ofthe workman as per prevailing law and practice ofthebank.

Further , the bank is also agreeable for empanelment ofthe workman for entrustment of duties during temporary leave vacancies and regular vacancies, if any , arises in future when his turn comes as per his length of temporary service put in at the time of dispensing him subject to the condition that the minimum acadmic qualification and age for the post of attendant at the time he was first engaged are fulfilled.

3. That the above proposal of the Bank is accepted by the workman in full settlement of all his claims against the Bank as prayed in his application dated 12-11-2001 and both the parties want to get 311 G1/05-13

the matter decided / settled with the above proposal.

PRAYER

It is , therefore , prayed by both the parties that the above case may be decided/disposed off in terms of the above settlement/compromise before Lok Adalat and decision ofwhich will be binding upon both the parties .

Sd/- Sd./-

(S. S. RAWAT), SeniorManager Sd/- Applicant-Workman OppositParty-Bank Management Syndicate Bank , Regional Office, Lucknow. 07-01-2005

7-1-2005

Present worker Nand Kishore alongwith his representative. Also present Sri S.S. Rawat, Sr. Manager , Syndicate Bank, Regional Office , Lucknow , with his represntative Sri Vinay Shankar . The contents of the compromise read over and explained in Hindi to the parties present and they were asked whether they have signed the compromisewiththeir own sweet will. The parties have replied inaffirmative. The compromise is accordingly verified.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA . Presiding Officer SYNDICATE BANK

PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE , LUCKNOW BEFORE THE CGIT- CUM- LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

I. D. No. 132 of 2001

NAND KISHORE

APPLICANT

VERSES

SYNDICATE BANK

OPP. PARTY FIXED FOR : 7-1-2005

BEFORE LOK ADALAT

Wehereby, authorise Sri S.S. Rawat, Senior Manager (Personnel ) of our Office to represent the Bank and to confirm, verify and sign compromise petition in the above case. The specimen signature of Sri S.S.Rawat is attested herebelow:

Sd/-

REGIONAL MANAGER Signature of Sri S.S. Rawat attested

Sd/-

Regional Manager

PLACE: LUCKNOW DATED: 01/01/2005 1416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 484.- 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, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011/201/2002 - आई.आर . ( बी- II ) ]

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] to as the ' Act ' has referred the following Industrial Dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in terminating the services of workman Shri Subhash w.e.f. 31-10-1994 was legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th January, 2005 S.O. 484. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/ 2003 ) 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 Canara Bank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 14-1-2005

[No. L - 12011/ 201/2002 - IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JAIPUR

Case No. CGIT- 10/ 2003

Reference No. L- 12011 /201/ 2002 - IR (B - II) The President , All Bank Safai Karamchari Sangh , 50/138 , Rajat Path , Mansarovar, Distt . Jaipur

2. The Applicant - Union has pleaded in its statement of claim that the workman Sh. Subhash joined the services of the non - applicant bank at its Jhunjhunu branch w.ef. 1-5-93 as a temporary part - time Sweeper , who was declined to join the duties w.é.f. 31-10-94 . The Branch Manager had issued a certificate in his favour that he had worked in the bank during the period 1-5-93 to 31-10-94 . It is alleged that his service was terminated in contravention of the provision under Section 25 -F of the Act and the Union has prayed that the termination order dated 31-10-94 be declared as illegal and the workman be reinstated in service with consequential benefits and back -wages .

3. Resisting the claim of the Applicant -Union, the non - applicants in their written counter have averred that the workman was engaged intermittently between May, 1993 to October 1994 , that he himself left his duties and that the Union has raised an industrial dispute before the ConciliationOfficer after a gap of 7 years without explaining thedelay.

4. Inthe rejoinder, the Applicant - Union has reiterated the facts as stated in the statement of claim .

5. On the pleadings of the parties , the following points fordetermination were framed:--

L. Whether the workman had worked with the non- applicant management as a temporary part -time Sweeperfrom 1-5-1993 to 31-10-1994 for more than 240 days in a calendar year ?

Applicant-Union

Versus

Canara Bank . Regional Office, 1. The Regional Manager , SPL - 1A, Gopinath Marg , Near MLA Quarters , Jaipur

II . Whether the service of the workman has been terminated in violation of the provisions under Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ?

III. Whether on account of raising the Industrial Dispute by the workman after a gap of 7 years , his claim deserves to be rejected ?

IV. Relief, if any ?

..Non -applicants

2. Branch Manager , CanaraBank . Jhunjhunu

PRESENT :

SH. R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer:

: Sh . C.D. Chaturvedi Forthe applicant

: Sh . B.C. Jain

Forthe non - applicants

Date of award

: 07-12-2004

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub - sections 1 to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred 6. In the evidence , the Applicant - Union has submitted the affidavit of the workman, who was cross- examined on behalf of the non - applicants .

7. On 3-12-2004, at the stage of the defence evidence, both the parties submitted before this court a settlement duly signed by the authorized persons, which says that both the parties have mutually agreed and have settled the dispute between the claimant Sh . Subhash and the management of the non- applicant bank as under:

(i) Sri Subhash shall be regularized in the service of CanaraBankprospectively within one month from the passing of the award in terms of this settlement without any back wages or attendant benefits .

1417 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी , 2005

आदेश

(ii) Sri Subhash shall not claim any seniority or continuity of service in respect of his engagement earlierby the bank which is subject-matter of this dispute.

का.आ. 485.- जबकि हुगली के डाक विभाग तथा उनके कर्मकार श्रीश्यामल कुमार सेन के संबंध में नियोक्ताओं के बीच औद्योगिक विवाद है;

(iii) Sri Subhash shall be posted as Part Time Employee (½ scale) at the Bhiwari Branch of the Canara Bank.

(iv) Sri Subhash shall not be entitled to any transfer as perthe rules/procedure of the bank governing the Part Time Employees .

और जबकि उक्त नियोक्ताओं और उनके कर्मकारों ने औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 10क की उप- धारा (i ) के तहत लिखित समझौता कर उक्त विवाद को विवाचन हेतु संदर्भित किए जाने पर सहमति जताई है और उक्त विवाचन समझौते की एक प्रति केन्द्र सरकार को अग्रेषित की गई है ;

अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा -10 क की उपधारा ( 3 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम को प्रकाशित करती है ।

समझौता

के बीच

(v) In case Sri Subhash does not report for duties within one month from the date of issue of the proceedings under this settlement to his address as given in the cause title to this Settlement , the Settlement shall stand cancelled and becomes void ab inito and consequently treated as withdrawn and Sri Subhash shall not be entitled for any claim whatsoever against Canara Bank in future either under this settlement or on the claim made by him in the subject Industrial Dispute i.e. ID 10/2003.

8. 1 have beard both the parties and have gone through the record .

(औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 की धारा 10 - क के अंतर्गत ) पक्षों के नाम प्रतिनिधि कर्मकार:

प्रतिनिधिनियोक्ता:

1. उप- मंडलीय निरीक्षक ( डाक ) , आरम बाग सब-डिवीजन, पोस्ट आरामबाग , जिला- हुगली

9. Since both the parties have entered into a settlement which is within the purview of the terms ofthe reference, there is no necessity to discuss the evidence brought on the record and to decide the points framed for determination.

श्री श्यामल कुमार सेन, पोस्ट-कद्रा, पी एस गोरबेटा, जिला-मिदिनापुर

2. डाक अधीक्षक, नार्थ हुगली डिवीजन, चिनसुरा -721101

10. On the basis of the settlement arrived at between the parties , the termination order dated 31-10-94 is quashed and the claim of the workman is allowed and an award is passed in the following terms:

एतद्वारा निम्नांकित विवाद को कोलकाता के क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (के. ) श्री वी.के. पांडेय के पास विवाचन हेतु संदर्भित किए जाने के लिए दोनों पक्षों के बीच सहमति व्यक्त की जाती है । (1) that the service of the workman Sh . Subhash shall be regularized in the non - applicant bank prospectively within one month from the date of the award without any back -wages ;

( i ) विवाद में विनिर्दिष्ट मामले

(ii) that the workman shall not claim continuity of service in respect ofhis earlier employment by the bank;

(iii) that he shall be posted as part-time employee (2 scale) at Bhiwari branch of the non -applicant bank;

1. क्या ई डी एम सी के पूर्व- स्थानापन्न श्री श्यामल कुमार सेन जिन्होंने डाकघर की कद्रा शाखा में अवकाश रिक्ति पर 17-06-1994 से 24-07-1995 तक बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्य किया और जिन्हें डाक विभाग द्वारा बिना कोई सूचना दिए हटादिया गया , ई डी एम सी के नियमित पद के लिए पात्र हैं ? यदि नहीं, तो वे किस राहत के पात्र हैं ?

(iv) that he shall not be entitled to any transfer as per the connected rules of the bank ; and

2. क्या ई डी एम सी के पूर्व स्थानापन्न श्री श्यामल कुमार सेन जिन्होंने डाकघर की कद्रा शाखा में अवकाश रिक्ति पर 17-06-1994 से 24-07-1995 तक बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्य किया, 14-12-1994 से 25-07-1995 तक की अवधि के लिए भत्ते और मजदूरी के भुगतान में विलम्ब के लिए 18 प्रतिशत ब्याज के पात्र हैं ? यदि नहीं, तो वे किस राहत के पात्र हैं ?

(v) that in case the workman does not report for his duties within one month from the date of issue of the proceedings under this settlement to his address as given in the cause title to the settlement , the settlement shall stand cancelled and consequently treated as withdrawn and the workman shall not be entitled for any claim in future under this settlement or for the claim made by him under the present reference.

(ii ) विवाद से संबंधित पक्षों का ब्यौरा संबंधित प्रतिष्ठान या उपक्रम के नाम और पते सहित

11. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.

भारत सरकार के डाक विभाग का प्रतिनिधित्व आराम बाग के उप- मंडलीय डाक निरीक्षक द्वारा और ई डी एम एस के श्रीश्यामल कुमार सेन द्वारा ।

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 1418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

( iii ) यदि कर्मकार विवाद में स्वयं संलग्न हो तो उसका नाम या संबंधित कर्मकार या कर्मकारों के प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले यूनियन ( यदि हो ) का नाम

श्री श्यामल कुमार सेन, उप- स्थानापन्न, ई डी एम सी, कद्रा पी ओ, पी एस गोरबेटा, जिला मिदिनापुर ।

(iv) प्रभावित उपक्रम में नियोजित कर्मकारों की कुल संख्या एक

( v ) विवाद से प्रभावित या प्रभावित होने की संभावना वाले कर्मकारों कीअनुमानित संख्या

एक

हम इस बात पर भी सहमत हैं कि विवाचक का निर्णय हम पर बाध्यकारी होगा । विवाचक समुचित सरकार द्वारा सरकारी राजपत्र में इस समझौते के प्रकाशन की तिथि से छः माह के भीतर की अवधि या हमारे बीच लिखित रूप में हुए आपसी समझौते द्वारा विस्तारित समय- सीमा के भीतर अपना पंचाट देगा । यदि ऊपर उल्लिखित अवधि के भीतर पंचाट नहीं दिया जाता तो विवाचन के लिए दिया गया संदर्भ स्वतः रद्द समझा जायेगा और हम नये सिरे से विवाचन कर सकने के लिए स्वतंत्र होंगे ।

प्रतिनिधि कर्मकार :

प्रतिनिधिनियोक्ता:

ह०/-

(टी. के. करमाकर)

उप-मंडलीय निरीक्षक ( डाक) ,

आरम बाग सब -डिवीजन,

पोस्ट आरामबाग

श्रीश्यामल कुमार सेन , पोस्ट-कद्रा, पी एस गोरबेटा, जिला-मिदिनापुर साक्षी:

1. ह०/-

( )

2. ह०/-

(निर्मलमित्रा)

प्रतिलिपि:

1. सहायक श्रमायुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , कोलकाता

2. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , कोलकाता

3. मुख्य श्रमायुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , श्रम शक्ति भवन, नई दिल्ली 4. सचिव , भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली

विवाचक की सहमति:

मैं एतद्वारा श्री श्यामल कुमार सेन और डाक विभाग के बीच उनके गैर- रोजगार के संबंध में औद्योगिक विवाद फाइल संख्या 5/31/2004-ई . 3 के मामले में विवाचक के रूप में कार्य करने पर सहमति प्रकट करता हूं ।

ह०/-

(बी.के. पांडेय)

क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) , कोलकाता [सं. एल -40013/1/2004- आई. आर. (डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 17th January, 2005 ORDER

S.O. 485. Whereas an Industrial Dispute exists between the employers in relation to the Postal Department , Hoogly and their workmen Sh. Shyamal Kumar Sen.

And whereas , the said employers and their workman have by written agreement under Sub section ( i ) of Section 10 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) agreed to refer the said dispute for arbitration and have forwarded to the Central Government a copy of the said arbitration agreement :

Now therefore, in pursuance of sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 10 A of the said Act. the Central Government hereby publishes the said Agreement .

AGREEMENT

(Under Section 10 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947) BETWEEN

Name of the Parties

Representing Employers : Representing Workmen : - Mr. Shyamal Kumar Sen , PostKadra , PS Gorbeta , Distt . Medinapore .

1. The Sub -Divisional Inspector ( Postal) , Arambagh Sub- Division, PO Arambagh , Distt.Hoogly

2. The Superintendent of PostOffices, North Hoogly , Division, Chinsurah-721101 .

It is hereby agreed between the parties to refer the following dispute to the arbitration of Shri V.K. Pandey , Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Kolkata .

(i) Specific matters in dispute :

1. Whether Mr. Shyamal Kumar Sen , Ex- Substitute EDMC who worked on leave vacancy at Kadra Branch Post Office continuously without any break from 17-6-94 to 24-7-95 and was discontinued by the Postal Department ( without any notice ) is entitled for regular post of EDMC ? If not, to what relief he is entitled ?

2. Whether Mr. Shyamal Kumar Sen , Ex- Substitute EDMC who worked on leave vacancy at Kadra Branch Post Office continuously without any break from 17-6-94 to 24-7-95 entitled for 18 % interest for the delay in payment of his allowance and wages for the period from 14-12-1994 to 25-7-1995? If not , what relief he is entitled ?

(ii) Details of the parties to the dispute including the name and address of the establishment or undertaking involved;

Postal Department , Government of India represented by Sub - Divisional Inspector (Postal ) Arambagh and Sh . Shyamal Kumar Sen, EDMS.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1419

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

(iii) Name of the workman in case he himself is involved in the dispute or the name of the Union, if any, representing the workman or workmen in question

Sh. Shyamal Kumar Sen, Ex-Substitute, EDMC, Kadra PO, PS Gorbeta Distt . Midanapore (iv) Total number of workmen employed in the undertaking affected

One.

(v) Estimated number of workmen affected or likely tobe affected by the dispute.

One.

We further agree that the decision of the arbitrator shall be binding on us . The arbitrator shall make his award within a period of six months from the date of publication ofthis agreement in the official Gazette by the appropriate Government or within such further time as is extendedby mutual agreement between us in writing. In case the award is not made within the period aforementioned, the reference to arbitration shall stand automatically cancelled and we shall be free to negotiate for fresh arbitration .

Representing Employers : Representing Workmen.

Sd.-

Sd/-

(T. K. Kurmakar)

Mr. Shyamal Kumar Sen, PostKadra , PS Gorbeta , Distt.Medinapore .

Sub -Divisional Inspector (Postal) , Arambagh Sub -Division, PO Arambagh, Distt. Hoogly

Witness :-

Sd/-(xxxx) 1.

Sd/- ( Shri Nirmal Mitra) 2.

Copyto:-

1. The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Kolkata.

2. Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Kolkata.

3. The CLC (C), Shram Skhakti Bhavan, Rafi Marg, NewDelhi .

4. The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi .

CONSENT OF THE ARBITRATOR

I hereby consent to act as an Arbitrator in respect of I.D. File No. 5/31 /2004.E.3 between Mr. Shyamal Kr . Sen and the Department of Posts , regarding his non- employment.

Sd/-

(V.K. Pandey)

RLC(C) , Kolkata

[No. L -40013/ 1/2004 - IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 486.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 198/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01- 2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/133/1997 - आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th January , 2005 S.O. 486. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 198/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , New Delhi No. II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 18-01-2005 ,

[No. L - 12012/ 133/1997- IR (B -II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N. RAL I.D. No. 198/97 IN THE MATTER OF :-

Sh . Sher Singh , C/o V.K. Gupta, 13 / 17 -A, Tilak Nagar , New Delhi -18

VERSUS

The Regional Manager , PNB, North Delhi Region , 9 - A. Antriksh Bhawan, KGMarg, New Delhi

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/133/ 97- IR(B - II) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT. 28-11-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The points runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of PNB in dismissing the services of of Sh . Sher Singh w.e.f. 13-4-94 is legal and justified ? If not, to what reliefthe said workman is entitled. "

The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was employed with PNB (hereinafter called the bank ) and was posted as peon at BO Shahdara , Delhi . His service conditions are governed by the provisions of Industry wise awards and Bipartite settlements.

1420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

forced absence of the workman . It is reiterated that fair opportunity of defence was denied to the workman as he was compelled to remain away from enquiry due to financial hardships illegally iniposed upon the workman by non payınent of legally due subsistence allowance .

On 29-4-90, the Senior Manager of BO Shahdara , Deshi of the said bank served him with a suspension order alleging the suspension was on accor for alleged tempering of oank records and for pass information to Smt . Shanti Devi . A c e secret aid order served upon him is enclosed as annexure 1 of this statement ofclaim.

The enquiry officer concluded this one sided enquiry and thereafter on 29-1-94 she submitted her report of enquiry to the DA. In her report , she did not prove the three serious charges against the workman, but through a perverse reasoning proved one charge of allegedly furnishing certain recordes to Smt . Shanti Devi.

The finding of guilt recorded by EO in the enquiry report is full of contradictions and the same cannot form basis for any further action in the matter . The conclusion of charge having been proved, drawn by the EO in his report is perverse being contrary to material available on record . This report ought to have been rejected by the DA and the Appellate Authority and their not doing so shows their non application of mind to the enquiry records.

The procedure adopted by the EO for conducting enquiry was against the provisions of Bipartite Settlement as well as well established principles of natural justice . The report of the enquiry officer holding workman guilty of charge 1 is illegal and findings are perverse . Further , the charges allegedly proved by the EO in the said report do not constitute misconduct in terms of provisions of Bipartite Settlement . No punishment can be awarded for an act which do not constitute misconduct . The awarded punishment is liable to be set aside on this short ground .

The above suspension order was passed and served upon the workman without affording him any opportunity ofbeing heard which is contrary to the principles of natural justice . In terms of bank rules , the workman was entitled to receive subsistence allowance regularly but the bank did not pay even the subsistence allowance for a considerably long time which shows the bias of the concerned authorities towards the workman . On 24-10-91 , the workman made a representation to the bank asking for payment of subsistence allowance . A copy of the said enclosed as annexure 2. It was followed by other reminders including letter dated 23-4-93 ( Annexure 3) . All these letters were duly received by concerned authorities but payment of subsistence allowance was not released . It was for the first time in the year 1993 i.e. after full three years that bank released subsistence allowance to the workman , but again thereafter stopped paying him subsistence allowance. Bank authorities used non -payment of subsistence allowance as a means to crush the workman financially completely . It may be submitted that non payment of subsistence allowance for such a long time is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and tantamounts to denial of fair opportunity of defence.

Withoutprejudice to above , it is submitted that even otherwise the punishment of dismissal which tantamount to economic murder of the workman is grossly disproportionate to the charges alleged to have been proved by the EO . The charge that has been proved by the EO is not at all serious and has in no way prejudiced the interest of the bank . No loss has occurred to the bank due to the alleged act of the workman. Such a charge do not deserve extreme punishment of dismissal .

After about six months of the service of suspension letter , the workman was served with charge slieet dated 24-9-90. Strangely, the allegations in the charge sheet were different from those contained in the suspension letter . It clearly shows that all the charges were cooked up with malafide intention of harassing an innocent employee . A copy of the charge sheet dated 24-9-90 is enclosed as annexure 4. This charge sheet is illegal having been issued with closed but biased mind . The same is in the form of conclusion instead of allegations .

The action of the bank in dismissing workman is arbitrary, unjust , discriminatory , malafide and illegal and deserves to be set aside . It is submitted that the enquiry conductedby the EO was not fair for the reasons discussed herein before . Further, finding of guilt recorded by the EO is perverse , not being based on any legally tenable evidence . The final order based on such enquiry and finding isbad in law.

After issuance of charge sheet , the disciplinary authority constituted a domestic enquiry by appointing Miss Anjali Saxena , Personnel Officer as enquiry officer (EO). The EO started enquiry in the case but in absence of payment of subsistence allowance coupled with his illness and other domestic problems , the workman could not attend the proceedings on all dates . It may also be added that even intimation of all dated fixed by the EO were not received by the workman .

Later on , it transpired that on most of the dated the EO conducted proceedings even in absence of the workman which is against the provisions of Bipartite Settlement as well as violative ofprinciples of natural justice, especially when the absence was on account of non information and/ or financial constants due to non payment of subsistence allowance in terms of rules .

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that it is submitted thatthe service conditions of bank employees are governed by various Awards/ Settlements . Chapter 19 of the Bipartite Settlement provides for disciplinary action and procedure therefore. Disciplinary action against Shri Sher Singh was taken by the bank in accordance with the provisions of the said chapter and during the enquiry he was provided with all reasonable opportunity to defend his case keeping view the principles of natural justice . Finding that the charges levelled against him are proved , he was imposed with punishment ofdismissal . The bank has taken action against the workman for his acts of misconducts in accordance Asham enquiry was held in the matter by the enquiry officerwho in defiance of all canons ofjustice and fair play recorded the statement of management witnesses in the 1421 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

withthe provisions of the Bipartite Settlement and hence no prejudice can be said to have been caused to him.

Ganga Saran to Smt . Shanti Devi . Thus , acting in contravention of declaration of fidelity and secrecy given by him to thebank. The other three allegations , i.e. b , c and d as mentioned above could not be established during the enquiry.

Sh . Sher Singh was appointed in the bank on 19-3-86 and he reported at our BO Shah dara on 21-3-86 and continued to work at this branch . It was brought to the notice of the branch Manager by one Smt . Shanti Devi that Sh . Sher Singh had shown her inventory of locker no . 164 which belonged to Mr. Ganga Saran she also informedthat Sh. Singh had defrauded her to the tune of Rs . 90,000/- . She had wanted to raise loan against NSCs which were worth Rs. 40,000/-. These NSCs was not given to her . He had also promised her that the contents of the locker shall be given toher. It was only after receipt of the above information it was decided by the bank to place Sh . Sher Singh under suspension and he was suspended on 29-4-90. He was served with charge sheet dated 24-9-90 for the following alleged acts of misconduct committed by him under paras 19.5 (j ) and 19.5 (k) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 as amended upto date .

The disciplinary authority i.e. the Chief Manager BO Shahdara passed an order dated 17-2-94 which is self speaking. The Chief Manager had proposed punishment ofdismissal without notice to Sh . Sher Singh and had asked himto appear for personal hearing on 9-3-94. On 9-3-94 Sh . Sher Singh asked for another date for personal hearing which was granted looking into the circumstances and the personal hearing was fixed for 16-3-94 . Sh . Sher Singh appeared on 16-3-94 and asked for another adjournment. Hewas not able to bring any thing in his defence . Later Sh . Sher Singh sent a letter dated 18-3-94 detailing therein his domestic circumstances. It was decided by the disciplinary authority on 13-4-94 that despite giving so many opportunities to Sh. Sher Singh nothing new had been brought before the disciplinary authority and as such he was dismissed from the service of the bank. It was also decided by the disciplinary authority that Sh . Sher Singh will be entitled to subsistence allowance only for the suspension period and he will not be treated on duty .

(a) He unauthorisedly tempted Smt . Shanti Devi to get the locker no . 164 of late Sh. Ganga Saran operatedby her instead of the valid legal heirs . Smt . Ramo Devi for which he accepted Rs. 30,000/- in a wrongful/illegal manner . He also furnished to her copies of ledger sheets ofSF A/ c No. 3086 and inventory of the articles ofthe above locker .

To the above decision of the disciplinary authority , Sh. Sher Singh preferred appeal dated 28-5-94. The appellate authority allowed personal hearing to the appellant and after considering the various submissions made by him upheld the decision of the disciplinary, authority vide orders dated 16-2-95 as the charge proved against Sh . Sher Singh was very serious .

(b) On 21-8-89 Smt . Shanti Devi applied for a loan of Rs . 40,000/- against her NSCs . Although the payment of the said loan account was taken by the party but by making false pretences he took a sum of Rs . 30,000/- fraudulently from her.

(c) Smt . Darshana Rani gave him a sum of Rs . 2000/- for being deposited in the bank. He pocketed the amount and in order to mislead her, unauthorisedly prepared a pass book giving the account no. as 3926 which had actually been opened in the name of Smt . Usha Devi on 2-3-90.

The allegation of the workman that bank authorities used non payment of subsistence allowance as a means to crushtheworkman financially is totally baseless and far from the facts . From the enquiry records it is evident that the workman attended the enquiry proceedings on 3 out of 15 dated i.e. on 12-4-91 , 13-6-91 and 24-10-91. During these dates he never placedbefore the enquiry officer as to the purported financial hardship being faced by him . It is totally incorrect that he moved any such representation which are enclosed with the claim as annexures 2 and 3. The only representation which was received by the bank was in Feb. 1993 and on the receipt of the same bank acted immediately ensuring the subsistence allowance is paid to him. The two representa- tions appears to be an after thought and have been fabricated to gain the sympathy of the Hon'ble Tribunal .

(d) On 19-6-89 Sh. Ram Prasad Bajaj gave him a sum of Rs. 200/- for deposit in his term loan account No. 374/83. Instead Sh . Sher Singh pocketed it and affixed the stamp of ODBC dated 19-6-89 and unauthorisedly placed his initials and cheated the customer for a sum of Rs . 200/- .

The charges mentioned in the suspension orders and in the charge sheet were different is incorrect hence denied. While issuing suspension orders the disciplinary authorityhad made a reference to the prima facie case found against the workman. It was mentioned in the suspension order that the detailed charge sheet would follow and accordingly detailed charge sheet was served on the workman subsequently . The charge sheet is legal and issued with an open mind.

Smt . Anjali Saxena was appointed as the enquiry of officer on 19-11-90 . The enquiry proceedings show that ample opportunity was provided to Sh . Singh to cross examine management witnesses and also to adduce his evidence . He did not attend the enquiry most of the time despite being adequate notice to appear in the enquiry . Theprinciples of natural justice were duly followed during theenquiry.

The enquiry officer in her report has held Sh . Sher Singh guilty of allegations , as detailed above that he had furnished the photo copy of the ledger sheet in respect of the account and inventory of locker No. 164 of late Sh.

Itiscorrect that an enquiry was constituted to look into the truth of charges levelled against Sh . Sher singh and Smt. Anjali Saxena the then PO was appointed as EO. The applicant aid not attend the enquiry on 12 occasions 1422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] out of the 15 occasions when the same was held and number of times he did not even inform the inquiry officer with regard to this absence from the enquiry . The enquiry officer report categorically states that the workman had absented on 12 occasions without informing any reasons of his absence, hence there was a justified ground available with the enquiry officer to hold the ex -parte enquiry proceedings.

From the evidence of Sh . J.L. Bhatia it is quite clear thatcomplaint from Smt. Shanti Devi had been received on thebasis ofwhich action was taken against Sh . Sher Singh . Smt . Shanti Devi herself has stated that these documents were handed over to her by Sh . Sher Singh . As regard the payment , even if Sh . J.L. Bhatia could not tell about the same, Smt. Shanti Devi had stated that Sh . Sher Singh had taken her thumb impression and had not handed over the money which was arranged by her for loan against NSCs .

He was given full opportunity to defend himself and be represented. He chose not to attend the enquiry and afterdismissal from the bank on the basis of charge proved against him , he has raised the present dispute. The intimations with regard to the enquiry were sent regularly by the EO to the workman.

Theorder of the appellate authority is also very clear who has upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority and rejected the appeal of Sh . Sher Singh . The applicant was given adequate opportunity to be present in the enquiry for cross examining the management witness and adduce his evidence . He was absent on 12 occasions out of the 15 occasions when the enquiry took place . The enquiry officer has not violated any provisions of the Bipartite Settlement while conducting the enquiry and has followed the principles of natural justice .

Theworkman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, the workman applicant has denied most of the paras of the written statement and has reiterated the averments of his statement of claim . The management has also denied most ofthe paras of the statement of claim .

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record.

In the instant case the enquiry officer was regularly writing to Sh . Sher Singh and intimating date fixed and the applicant was notified that in case he is not present and does not send any intimation the enquiry shall proceed ex- parte . The enquiry officer has not violated any rules or principle of natural justice in having continued with the enquiry in the absence of applicant . A fair enquiry has been conducted providing opportunity to the applicant to appear and be defended on all the dates of enquiry . It is applicant who has decided to remain absent and now he is attributing the reasons of absence to hardship which can not be entertained by this Hon'ble Court . The applicant is not correct in his allegations as the enquiry proceedings go to prove that ample opportunity was provided to him to cross examine the managementgement witnesses and also adduce his evidence .He did not attend enquiry most of the time despite being given adequate notice to appear in the enquiry .

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that three charges were proved against him . Charge Nos. 2 and 3 were not found proved by the enquiry officer and the Ist charge was found proved. He was suspended on 20-09-1990 and charge sheeted on 24-09-1990. It was further submitted from him that he was not given opportunity to present his case . Principles of natural justice have not been followed in this case . The enquiry was biased and he found first charge proved without any evidence on the record . The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority also did not apply their mind.

The allegation that has been proved against the applicant is quite serious in nature . The applicant after defrauding an outsider i.e. Smt . Shanti Devi by taking her money and showing her the confidential documents of the bank had done an act which was against the interest of the bank . The report of the EO is in detail and specific on the allegation which has been proved against the applicant . The applicant is trying to rely on the fact that only one allegation has been proved and the rest three have not been proved against him during the enquiry .

There is no contradiction in the enquiry report . The disciplinary authority on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer and the record of enquiry passed a speaking order . The disciplinary authority was well aware of the seriousness of the lapse on the part of Sh . Sher Singh . Once the trust and faith reposed in the employee is lost . The employee does not deserve to be kept in the service of the bank .

On the death of Sh. Ganga Saran who was holder of locker No. 164, his wife Smt. Ramo Devi was the legal claimant and the bank had passed the claim in her favour. Sh . Sher Singh tempted Smt . Shanti Devi to operate the locker in an unauthorised manner for which the inventory of the locker alongwith the ledger sheet containing SF account of Sh . Ganga Saran were supplied to Smt . Shanti Devi by Sh. Sher Singh. Thus, he did not maintain the secrecy of the bank's documents and made them available to an outsider placing the bank in a difficult situation . This act on part of Sh . Sher Singh was not pardonable.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the enquiry is quite fair and proper . A complaint of Smt . Shanti Devi has been received in this case . There is report of handwriting expert also . The management has examined MW/ 1 Shri J.L. Bhatia , Manager . He has stated thatSmt . Shanti Devi complained that a sum of Rs. 30,000 /- , taken by way of loan , had been pocketed by Shri Sher Singh. She was made to sign on the documents at the instance of Shri Sher Singh . Smt. Darshana Rani has also complained that she had given a sum of Rs . 2000/- for opening her account . Shri Ram Prasad Bajaj has also complained against him . This witness has also stated that Smt . Shanti Devi told him that her husband late Shri Gangaram was maintaining locker No. 164 at Branch Office , Shahdara. She was having the key for the said locker but had been misplaced by her though she has never operated the locker . After the death of her husband , Shri Sher Singh has promised to arrange for the locker to be operated by her and asked her to give security of Rs . 50,000/- which she could not arrange that is why she arranged a loan of Rs . 30,000/- against N.S.C. worth Rs. 40,000/-. Shri Sher [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Singh promised that he will get the locker opened and took her thumb impressions on some papers . She has further stated that she neither got her N.S.C.'s back nor anything from the locker. Smt. Shanti Devi has been examined as MW/ 3 besides the statement of Shri Ram Prasad Bajaj . MW/3 has stated that her husband was managing a locker with the bank and she was second wife of Shri Gangasaran . The first wife of the deceased was her elder sister in whose favour the bankhas passed the claim for locker . Shri Sher Singh told her about that . Sher Singh asked for her residential address and told her that he would go to her house in the evening . Shri Sher Singh went to her house and assured her that the work would be done in case she paid a sum of Rs . 50,000 / - , She would get the articles kept in the locker . She provided Rs . 30,000/- to Shri Sher Singh and Shri Sher Singh took her signature on several documents . Shri Sher Singh had given her some documents from the bank which was about articles kept in the record. She got a photostat copy of the said documents and on the reverse wrote " Ek Abla Ki Pukar" and pasted on the wall of the bank. Shri Sher Singh did not return her money. Charge No. 1 is regarding observing secrecy and confidentiality but he unauthorisedly tempted Smt . Shanti Devi to get the locker No. 164 of late Shri Gangasaran operatedby her instead of the valid legal heirs . The claim in respect of the saine had already been passed in favour of Smt . Rama Devi , the real widow of the deceased . Shri Sher Singh also illegally took a sum of Rs. 30,000 /- from Smt . Shanti Devi and also supplied bank documents to her which included ledger sheet for S.F. No. 3086 and the inventory for the locker No. 164. Witness No. M - 1 to M - 3 have corroborated this charge . The enquiry officer found Shri Sher Singh guilty of charge No. 1 only and he found the other two charges not proved against him . As such, it cannot be said that the enquiry officer was biased as he has not found charge No. 2 and charge No. 3 proved . He was found ChargeNo. 1 proved . Charge No. 1 is a charge of grave and serious misconduct . The complainant herself has deposed before the enquiry officer and she was also defrauded ofRs . 30,000/- .The workman applicant disclosed the confidential matters to Smt. Shanti Devi and gave her copies of the articles kept in the locker and allured her to pay Rs . 30,000/-.

From the records , it is quite clear that sufficient opportunity has been given to Shri Sher Singh, workman applicantand principles of natural justice has been followed. Ithas been observed by the Enquiry Officer that the workman applicant was given sufficient opportunity to cross - examine the witnesses and to produce evidence in his defence but Shri Sher Singh neither engaged any departmental person to defend himself nor he cross - examined the witnesses . Shri Sher Singh did not appear in the enquiry on several occasions . Several adjournments were given at the request of the workman applicant . It is the right of the workman applicant to appear in the enquiry to cross -examine the witnesses but he had not done so. Sufficient opportunities havebeen given to the workman applicant.

It was also submitted from the workman applicant that charges were vague . I have perused the charges . The charges are not vague . From the perusal of the enquiry , it transpires that enquiry officer has regularly intimated the dates fixed and it was mentioned that in case he did not 311 G1/ 05-14

1423

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

appear, the enquiry shall procced ex- parte . No rules of enquiry has been violated . The workman applicant deliberately avoided the enquiry on various dates . It transpires from the perusal of the enquiry report that there were 15 sittings for the enquiry but the workman applicant did not appear on 12 dates . Again letterdt . 31-1-1992, exhibit 27 was sent to him but Shri Sher Singh did not appear . As such, the enquiry was declared as closed and he was given opportunity to file documents in defence but he did not file the papers so the enquiry was closed. As such , according to the enquiry proceedings , sufficient opportunity has been given to the workman applicant but the workman applicant did not avail the opportunities provided to him .

It was argued from the side of the workman applicant that he could not attend the enquiry proceedings as payment of suspension allowance was not made to him . The workman applicant has appeared on 3 dates out of 15 dates . So he has not participated in the enquiry . It is explicit from the proceedings of the enquiry that he was intimated of all the places and change of dates but still he did not appear. It cannot be presumed that the workman applicant did not attend almost 12 proceedings due to his illness . He did not complain to the Enquiry Officer that he has not received suspension allowance so he was financially handicapped to appear before the enquiry committee .

It was further submitted that vague charges were framed against him but it transpires from the enquiry proceedings that second detailed charge sheet was issued. ChargeNo. 1 has been proved during the course of enquiry.

Itwas further submitted that there was no loss to the bank. Extreme punishment of dismissal tentamounts to economic murder and it is grossly disproportionate to the charges . No loss has occurred to the bank. I have perused the rules of the banking regarding award of punishment. An employee who discloses the secrets of the bank can be awarded punishment of dismissal . As such , the quantum ofpunishment is appropirate .

Itwas further submitted that there was no evidence thathe has given papers to Smt . Shanti Devi . Smt . Shanti Devi has appeared before the enquiry and she has given evidence regarding the fact that Shri Sher Singh took Rs . 30,000/ - from her and gave her the copy containing the articles kept in the locker. As such , enquiry is quite fair and sufficient opportunity has been given to the workman applicant . The enquiry officer has found charge No. 1 proved on the evidence adduced in the enquiry . It has been further submitted that punishment is quite arbitrary, unjust , discriminatory , malafide and illegal . The punishment awarded is commensurate with the serious misconduct of the workman applicant . No interference is required.

The reference is replied thus .

The action of the management of PNB in dismissing the services of Shri Sher Singh w.c.f. 13-4-24 is legul and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

The award is given accordingly .

Dt. 12-1-05

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer 1424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] नई दिल्ली , 19 जनवरी , 2005

represented by the Union was referred to this Court as perorder No. L- 12012/ 61 / 99/ IR (B - I ) dated 12-05-1999 for passing an award after adjudicating the issue as to :

"Whether the action of the management of South Malabar Gramin Bank in imposing punishment of 'Delay in two increments' against Sri T. Baburajan for alleged charges is Justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to? ``

का०आ ० 487- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साउथ मालाबार ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंधमें निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कोझी कोडे , केरल स्टेट के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. ( सी ) 6/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/61/ 1999- आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

सी० गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th January , 2005

S.O. 487.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. I.D. (C) 6/99 ) of the Labour Court , Kozhikode , Kerala State as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Malabar Gramin Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-05

i [No. L - 12012/61/ 1999 - IR(B - I) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA

STATE

2. The workman involved in the dispute was working as a clerk in the Kakkattil Branch of the managementbank. While so , on 28-5-1995 he was deputed to bring cash of Rs . 2,00,000 from another branch . On bringing the money a shortage of five bundles of 50 rupees notes totalling of Rs . 25,000 was noticed . The workman offerred an explanation that loss of cash on account of reasons beyond his reach . The explanation was not acceptable to the management . Therefore , disciplinary proceedings were initiated for committing misconduct in accordance with the staff service Regulation . An enquiry into the charges was caused to be conducted through one of the senior officers of the Bank . The Enquiry Officer ultimately found the workman guilty of the charges . Accepting the finding of guilt the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of delayed payments of two increments . The appeal filed by the workman did not also succeed and eventually the dispute raised by the Union on behalf of the worker was referred to this court . On receipt of notice from this Court . both parties appeared and presented their case through counsel of their choice and filed their respective statements .

Dated this the 1st day of December , 2004.

PRESENT :

Shri K. Balasubramanian, B.Com. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer

LD. ( C) 6/99

BETWEEN:

...Management

The Chairman, South Malabar Gramin Bank, Central Office , Post Box No. 16 , Up -Hill, Malappuram -676 505.

AND

.... Union.

3. As per the statement filed by the Union , the enquiry conducted was farce and an eye- wash . The Enquiry Officer almost acted as a spokesman of the Bank . The findings were rendered on the basis of presumptive evidence. the Enquiry Officer did not even examine the bag in which the currency note brought . The Enquiry Officer lost sight of the unfavourable circumstances under which the cash was lost. The finding of guilt was entered without sufficient legal and factual supporting evidence . The enquiry is vitiated on account of flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment is totally unjust and disproportionate with the charges . Therefore the Union prays for passing an Award holding that the impugned punishment is wholly illegal and unjustifiable and to direct the management to make good the entire loss caused to the workman .

The General Secretary , South Malabar Gramin Bank , Employees Union, CentralOffice, Post Box No. 16 , Up -Hill , Malappuram -676 505 .

REPRESENTATIONS :

: For Management .

Sri N. Ramakrishnan, Advocate , Calicut .

: For Union

Sri M. Asokan, Advocate , Calicut .

5. Accordingto the management the loss occurred on account of sheer negligence and carelessness of the workman while transporting the cash . The enquiry was conducted in a fair and reasonable manner affording full opportunity to the parties . The charges levelled against the Enquiry Officer are absolutely baseless . The findings are well supported by legal and factual evidence and that the punishment commensurates with the gravity of the charges.

AWARD

6. A detailed rejoinder was also filed by the Union attacking the legality and fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer .

This industrial dispute between the South Malabar Gramin Bank and its workman by name , Sri T. Baburajan 1425

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23, 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

7. The Enquiry Officer was examined as MW1 and enquiry file was marked as Ext. Ml . The points for determination are :-

(1) Whether the domestic enquiry was validly held inaccordance with law?

(2) Whether the charge of mis - conduct stands proved by acceptable evidence?

(3) Whether the punishment is justifiable in the circumstances ?

8. Points No. 1 & 2 -Three charges were levelled against the worker . In proof of the charges management examined MWI and marked Exts . MEl to ME 21. Two witnesses are seen examined and Ext . DE1 was marked on the side of the worker in the enquiry . The enquiry was conducted by an Officer of the management Bank . The Enquiry Officer when examined as MW1 has deposed about the details of enquiry conducted by him . Ext . Ml is the report prepared by the Enquiry Officer. It could be seen from the proceedings that the workman was represented by an observer .... ..throughout the enquiry . The Union was not able to point out any instance of denial of opportunity or any procedural error vitiating the enquiry .

9. An Officer of the management Bank who conducted a preliminary enquiry into the charges against the delinquent worker and filed Ext . M11 report has given evidence that he had examined the bag carried on by the worker from which the cash was lost , that a tearing on the rear- side of the bag was seen and that it is not easy in the normal circumstances to pull out cash bundles from the bag through the torn portion in a holding position . Assignment of duty of bringing cash from another branch with the worker and the shortage of cash bundles was spoken to by DW1 and the tearing on the rear portion of thebag was stated by DW2 , a staff of another branch who claimed presence at the time of the reported missing of cash by the worker.

10. It could be seen from the available materials that there is not much of dispute regarding the entrustment of duty of bringing cash with the worker and partial missing of cash. The worker attempted to wriggle out of the liability stating that in the unfavourable weather he was travelling in an over - loaded bus it was not possible in the ordinary circumstances to forseen the loss which occurred on account of pick pocketing by some miscreants .

11. The evidence of MWI who conducted a preliminary enquiry is sufficient to held that the worker was not alert . This is further fortified by the conduct of the worker who has not even noticed the details of bus in which he was travelling and the loss of weight in cash bundle until noticed by the cashier of the Bank .

12. Charge No. 1 is that the delinquent worker ignored the orders of the Chairman of the Bank to remit the lost amount with interest and thereby violated Regulation 17 of the staff service Regulations , Charge No. 2 is that the worker committed mis - conduct under Regulation 19 by not serving the Bank honestly and faithfully and charge No. 3 is that by the said acts he committed breach of discipline which is a misconduct under 30 (1 ) of the said Regulations .

13. Ext. M17 is a letter issued by the Chairman directing the worker to remit the cash shortage and Ext . ME 17 and ME 18 are the replies thereto submitted by the worker. In Ext. ME 18 the worker has narrated the circumstances for the loss of cash and prayed for indulgence of mercy of the disciplinary authority as any other worker will do in a similar situation . It is also in evidence that the entire loss was re - imbursed by the insurance authorities. There is nothing to show that the worker made any wilful disobedience or disregard to the orders or directions given by the employer . So it is difficult tohold that the worker violated Regulation 17 as stated in chargeNo. 1.

14. The evidence on hand would sufficiently indicate thatloss of cash occurred while in transit on account of the sheer carelessness and negligence of the worker and therefore he has committed misconduct as per Regulation 19. Charge No. 3 is practically a combination of charge Nos . 1 and 2. So from the evidence I hold that the impugned domestic enquiry was validly held in accordance with law and charge of mis - conduct against the workman substaintially stands proved by acceptable evidence .

15. A responsible and disciplined Bank employee cannot be allowed to shirk off his responsibility without taking adequate safety measures to avert these kinds of untoword incidents . This being not a case of discharge or dismissal of worker from service, interference with the punishment is not called for. The punishment imposed is also justifiable in the circumstances.

16. In the result, an award is passed holding that the action of the management of South Malabar Gramin Bank in imposing the punishment of 'delay in two increments' against Sri T. Baburajan for the alleged charges is justified. Consequently the worker is not entitled to any further relief.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , transcribed by her , revised , corrected and passed by me on the 1st day of December, 2004 .

APPENDIX: K. BALASUBRAMANIAN. Presiding Officer Witnesses examined on the side of the Management : ---- MW1 .. Gopalakrishna Pilla . P.N. documents marked on the side of the Management :--- Ext.M1 ..Enquiry File .

Witnesses examined and documents marked on the side of the Union:

-NIL-

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2005

का ०आ ० 488.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक 1426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 178/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/ 290/1997- आई.आर. ( बी -1 ) ]

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] governed by Sastry /Desai Award as modified by various bipartite settlements . That the workman worked at the Kalyan Puri branch of the bank continuously upto 21-9-93 without any break and thus became a protected workman under the provisions of the ID Act , 1947 .

सी.गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th January , 2005 S.O. 488. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 178/98 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - II , New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-05

[No. L - 12012/290/ 1997 - IR(B - I) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

R.N. RAI . Presiding Officer

L.D. No. 178/98

In the matter of:-

Sh . Soran Singh ,

C/ o Sh . S.K. Patney. A- 50, New Multan Nagar, Delhi- 110056 .

Versus

SBI , Through Asstt. General Manager , Region- I. SBI SBI , Delhi Zone Office, 11 Sansad Marg . New Delhi - 110001.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/ 290/97 / IR ( B - I ) Central Government dt . 30-6-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :

Whether the action of the management of SBI New Delhi interminating the services of Sh. Soran Singh is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman isentitled to? "

The claimant has filed statement of claim . In the statement of claim, it has been stated that the workman was recruited by the bank on 13-3-89 at Kalyan Puri , Delhi branch to work as messenger - cum- water-boy cum Mali . That the service conditions of the workman in the bank are That on 21-9-93 , the branch Manager , SBI , Kalyan Puri branch by his verbal order, terminated/retrenched the service of the workman , without complying with the provisions of para 522 (4) of the Sastry Award or S 25 - F of the ID Act, 1947. The workman was neither advised of any cogent reasons for the illegal retrenchment nor he was paid any retrenchment compensation .

The rules regarding appointment/termination of temporary employees are laid down in chapter 26 of the reference book on Staff Matters .

That after the illegal retrenchment the bank did not offerre - employment to the workman while making fresh recruitment in the bank as per the provisions of the ID Act . The action ofthe bank is against the established law. The employees having much less service who were terminated by the bank at various branches between 1975 to 1991 were re -appointed by the bank, whereas , the workman was denied the opportunity for re - appointment in a dis- criminatory manner.

That the action of the bank in terminating the service oftheworkman w.e.f. 21-9-93 was unjust, unfair and illegal. Further action of the bank in giving permanent re- appointment to the employees with lesser service , while denying the same to the workman is discriminatory and amounts to unfair labour practice . The bank has violated the provisions of the bipartite settlements , Award and the IDAct, 1947 .

Thatthe action of the bank in pursuing ' hire and fire' policy without adhering to the provisions of the Awards and the ID Act , 1947 is unjust , unfair and illegal .

The management/ respondent has filed WS . In the WS it has been submitted that the dispute has been raised by the petitioner through Sh . S.K. Patney who is not competent under the law to represent Sh . Soran Singh. As perSection 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, only an office bearer of the trade union can represent the petitioner . So , the petition through Sh . S.K. Patney cannot be allowed .

That the dispute raised by Sh . Soran Singh is completely misconceived , baseless hence ought to be complet rejected. Sh. Singh was never appointed in the bank . No appointment letter was ever issued to him nor he ever marked his attendance in the attendance register . The SBI is a public sector institution where there are set rules about the recruitment ofpersons in the bank . The recruitment in the bank is being done by the well - established machinery as per the rules of the bank keeping in view the Central Govt. instructions regarding reservation and also observing rules of equal opportunity to all as enshrined in articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India . The Branch Manager has no authority to appoint any person . Sh . Singh was never appointed in the bank through aforesaid recruitment system.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1427

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

There is no relationship of master and servant as defined under the ID Act between the bank and Sh. Singh . The true facts are that Kalyan Puri branch of the bank hired a generator set from M/s . SBM Enterprises as there was shortage in power supply, the branch being situated in a rural area . The said supplier of the generator set employed Sh . Soran Singh for upkeep and functioning of the generator set given on rent by him to the branch . A copy of the letter dated 2-7-90 received in this regard from M/ s. SBM Enterprises is attached herewith . As Sh. Singh was available at the door- step of the branch the branch which does not have the facility of drinking water supply used to get their drinking water supply from Sh. Soran Singh who started supply of water to the branch for which he used to be paid various amounts depending upon supply of the water in a particular month. The petitioner due to his availability was also asked sometimes to do casual nature of work for which he was paid the settled charges . Sh . Singh was never employed by the bank . This is also evident from an application given by Sh . Singh to the branch under " SEPUP " Scheme wherein he requested the branch to give a loan of Rs . 5,000/ - to enable him to do the work of selling vegetables etc. for his livelihood . A copy of the said letter of Sh . Singh is attached.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1996. Hon'ble Supreme Court page 1565 that it is a settled law that persons appointed without observing recruitment rules cannot be permanently absorbed. It has also been held in a case titled as Koodaranji Service Cooperative Bank V/ s . M.M Lissy II- LLJ 1994 page 97 that when the workmen were not appointed as per the prescribed rules no master and servant relationship existed. Hence they cannot claim permanent absorption. In view of the above decisions laid down by the Court the present dispute is liable to be dismissed.

The question of violation of section 25 of the ID Act does not arise . It has been held in Ernalore Cooperative Society case that for getting protection under Section 25(F) . The services terminated must be capable of continuing. When an appointment itself is irregular and void then there is no question of termination . So there is no question of violation of Section 25 of the ID Act . It is absolutely incorrect that the petitioner was appointed as a temporary employee.

It is worthwhile to mention here that in case the petitioner has worked in temporary capacity, he should have applied to the bank for his permanent absorption in response to the advertisement published by the bank on 1-5-91 for permanent absorption of persons working in temporary capacity in compliance of a Bipartite Agreement entered into between the SBI and the SBI Staff Federation . So, the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct to raise the present dispute.

The workman has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder, he has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The respondent has also denied most of the paras of the statement of claim . Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from both the sides and perused the papers on the record. It was submitted from the side of theworkman applicant that it is admitted to the management thathe has worked from 13-3-1989 to 21-09-1993 as a water boy or as a messenger or as a contract worker . There is no paper on the record that he has been given any payment by any contractor. As such , he has worked under the supervision and control of the management . It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman applicant was a contractor's man for running the generator and sometime other duties were also taken from him. From the perusal of the evidence of the management witnesses, it transpires that he has been made payment of the vouchers annexed with the record . It has been admitted by the management witness No. 1. As such , payment to the workman by the management has been admitted in cross-examination of the management witness . In case , he has worked at the direction and under the supervision of the management, he cannot be said to be contractor's man. Payments have been made to him admittedly by the management so contract is a sham . However , no papers regarding licence of contract and agreement of contract hasbeen filed on the record . In case , he is presumed to be a temporary employee , then under para 524 of the Shastri Award, he should be given one month's pay and allowances by way of compensation . This payment shall be inaddition to the pay the workman applicant was already drawing . No payment has been made as compensation to the workman applicant. As such, the management is bound by para 524 of the Shastri Award and in case , compensation has not been paid , Section 25 of the ID Act will be attracted. It was submitted from the side of the management that he was not appointed according to the rules of recruitment . His namewas not sponsored by the employment exchange . The rules of recruitment have been annexed with the record. He is simply a peon and it has been held that no sponsoring of employment exchange is required for the appointment of a peon . As such, there is no force in the argument ofthe management . It was further submitted from the side ofthe management that he was much less senior in service so while appointments were made between 1975 to 1991 , his case was not considered. But the bank has not shown as to how he was much less senior in service . My attention was drawn to AIR 1996 page 1565. It has been held that persons appointed without observing recruitment rules cannot be permanently absorbed. It has also been held in II - LLJ 1994 page 97 , that in case the workman has not been appointed according to the rules , it shall not be deemed that there ever existed master and servant relationship . These pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not applicable in view of the agreement between the union and the bank. The bank is bound by the settlement of Shastri Award and the citation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are in view of the other matters . In this case, para 524 ofthe Shastri Award is intervening according to which the workman applicant should have been paid one month's compensation in addition to his allowances andpay but the workman applicant has not been paid any compensation .He was not a contractor's man as he has all along worked under the supervision of the management . Payment through vouchers have been made by the 1428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

management adınittedly . As such , the contract theory raised bythe management has failed . The workman applicant has done the entire work of the management as a peon along the banking duty hours from 13-3-1989 10 1-3-1993 . As such , he has worked for more than 4 years under the management as temporary employee .

It was submitted from the side of the management thathis services were terminated in 1993 whereas he has moved this ID Case in 1995. As such, there is delay and latches on the part of the workman applicant . The limitation Act is not applicable in the I.D. Act case in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court but still delay and latches defeat equity so the workman deserved to be reinstated from 1st January , 2000 without any back wages and without any continuity of service within two months ofthe publication of the award.

The reference is replied thus:-

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDRA PLACE NEW DELHI

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer L.D. No. 109/97

Smt . Raj Kumari ,

Through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.), 163 , Balmukund Ext. , Giri Nagar, Kalkaji , New Delhi - 110019 .

Versus

State Bank of India ,

Tigri Branch,

New Delhi - 110062

The action of the management of SBI , New Delhi in terminating the services of Sh . Soran Singh is neither légal nor justified . The workman applicant deserves to be absorbed from 1st January, 2000 without continuity of service and without back wages . In case , the respondent failed to absorb the workman applicant from January , 2000, he will be entitled to 12% interest per annum on the back wages from 1st January, 2000 .

The award is given accordingly.

Dated . 06-01-2005

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 489- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/52/1996- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th January, 2005 S.O. 489. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 109/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - II , New Delhi as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2005

[No. L - 12012/ 52/ 1996-IR(B - I) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 52 / 96/IR- (B.I) CENTRAL GOVERNMENT DT . 10-07-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of SBI in terminating the service of Smt . Raj Kumari , Peon w.e.f. 13-2-1995 is legal and justified ? If not what relief, the workman is entitled to .

2. The claimant has filed statement of claim . It has been stated in the statement of claim, that Shri Raj Kumari was appointed at the post of peon in 1989 in the Tigri Branch of State Bank of India and her last pay was Rs . 1500/ - per month and she had been working continuously and there was no occasion of complaint regarding the work and conduct of the workman applicant. She further stated that the workman applicant worked for 5 years continously . The documents regarding the work are attached with the record . She worked in the canteen for 8 hours regularly and the Branch Manager has assured the applicant that she would be given a permanent appointment . The workman applicant requested the Branch Manager on 02-06-1995 to make payment of the remaining wages from 1-5-1995 to 31-5-1995 and appoint her permanently . The Branch Manager misbehaved with her and removed her from service which is against the provisions of law. It has been further stated that the workman applicant has worked for 5 years regularly from 1989. As such, she is entitled to be reinstated with full wages as the Branch Manager has terminated her services illegally and arbitrarily from 02-06-1995 .

It has been further stated that the workman applicant approached the Branch Manager for her arrears of pay and forappointing her again but the Branch Manager paid no heed to her request . It has been further submitted that the workman applicant sent demand letter dt . 08-06-1995 for giving her appointment but her request was rejected . That the management has engaged another person at the place oftheworkman applicant .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the present industrial dispute has been raised by Smt . Raj Kumari through All India General Mazdoor Trade Union (Regd.) which is not a trade union of Bank employees . The said trade union has no existence at all in the State bank of India. As such , this fake union cannot espouse the cause of Smt. Raj Kumari . That the dispute raised is otherwise not maintainable because Smt . Raj Kumari was never in the employment of the State Bank of India. There was no relationship ofmaster and servant between Smt. Raj Kumari and the State Bank of India . It is absolutely incorrect that Smt . Raj Kumari was appointed as messenger/peon in the Bank. The State Bank of India is a public sector institution and as such has a well established recruitment system . The recuitments are made as per the laid down procedure intheBank after observing all the rules in this regard and also the rules of reservation for scheduled castes , scheduled tribes as per the government instructions . The employees who are appointed through the selection procedure after giving equal opportunities to all the applicants , are given appointment letters . The Branch Manager of the State Bank of India under this procedure has no authority to appoint any person in the Bank . Smt . Raj Kumari has never been appointed in the State Bank of India through this established procedure . Smt. Raj Kumari was never paid any wages or any other benefits by the Bank. She was never asked to mark her attendance in the attendance register . Hence there is no relationship ofmaster and servant and her claim is not maintanable .

That Smt . Raj Kumari was engaged as " canteen boy " bythe Local Implementation Committee at the Branch which is a welfare body meant for the staff of the Bank. This Local Implementation Committee has representatives of the workmen staff as well as from the supervising staff depending upon the respective strength of a particular branch . The Branch Manager is the ex -officio President of the Committee . The recruitment of the canteen boys is done by this committee . The sanctioning of leave to them is also done by the committee . There is no right in the Bank to supervise and control the work done by the canteen boys appointed by the committee nor has the bank any right to direct the manner in which the work should be done in the canteen. The bank has absolutely no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any canteen boy to do a particular work and all the more , the Bank is under no statutory obligation to run the canteen . It has been heldby the Supreme Court in the case titled as Employers in the matter of Management of Reserve Bank of India V/s. their workmen reported in 1996 Labour & Induatrial Cases page 1048 that in the absence of any obligation statutory or otherwise regarding running of a canteen by the Bank and in the absence of any effective or direct control in the Bank to supervise and control the work done by various persons , the workers in the canteen run by the Local Implementation Committee cannot be said to be an employee oftheBank.

Inthepresent case also , Smt . Raj Kumari was engaged bythe Local Implementation Committee . As such, her claim is absolutely not maintainable.

1429

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

Itisabsolutely incorrect that Smt . Raj Kumari worked asmessenger in the State Bank of India . Smt . Raj Kumari was engaged as ' canteen boy ' as already explained in the foregoing paras.

Itis clear that the claimant was working as canteen boy in the canteen. It is absolutely incorrect that the Branch Manager has ever assured the claimant that she willbe made permanent . It is absolutely incorrect that the Branch Manager misbehaved with the claimant and terminated her services . It must be mentioned here that the Branch Manager neither has authority to appoint any person nor has the authority to terminate the services of any person . There cannot be any termination where there is no valid appointment . When the services are itself not capable of being continued, then there cannot be any termination . There was no valid appointment or appointment for which there can be any illegal termination .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, she has denied most of the paras of the written statement and has reiterated the averments of her statement ofclaim. Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

Heard arguments from the side of the workman applicant . The management was not present on the date of the argument but the management has filed written argument . It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that she was posted on 1-1-1989 at the salary of Rs . 1500/- as canteen boy . She worked for 5 years . Her services were terminated illegally on 02-06-1995 . She was not paid wages for March , 1995. She has worked for more than 240 days and she was assured by the management that she would be absorbed in the bank and she wrote a letter to the Bank Manager for absorbing her in the bank buther services were terminated .

It was submitted from the side of the management that she has admitted that she worked in the canteen . She has not done any duty in the bank. She was appointed by the Chairman of the Implementation Committee of the canteen. There was no master and servant relationship between the workman applicant and the management . It has also been submitted that her case has not been properly espoused . The aggrieved workman can file her case herself. Espousal is not necessary. The crux of the question is whether the workman applicant was an employee of the bank or she was simply an employee of the canteen . Whether she was appointed by the Branch Manager or she was appointed by the Chairman Implementation Committee of the canteen.

My attention was drawn to 2000-1 -LLJ SC page 1441 . This judgement is regarding the canteen of the State Bank ofIndia. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that branches where total employees are minimum 100 or more than 100, the canteen was taken over by the bank and employces absorbed after due selection process . In the rest of the canteens , where total employees are less than 100 run by Local Implementation Committce . Only facilities have been provided to the canteen committee . It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no obligation on the bank to run the canteen . Since there is no statutory binding on the bank to run the canteen . The bank cannot be directed 1430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

to absorb the workman of the canteen . It has been further held that if the canteen is non- statutory , unrecognised canteen, employees of such canteen are not the employees of the principle employer . Canteens run by Local Implementation Committee comes under this category. There is no obligation on the bank to run the canteen. There is no master and servant relationship between these employees andthe bank . In view of this judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , the respondent bank is not under any statutory obligation to absorb the workman of the canteen though the canteen is recognised one but there is no statutory obligation . In a similar case, in 2000 - III - LLJ SC page 1633 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the RBI is under no statutory obligation to provide canteen facilities . There is no supervision and control of the master over the work done by the servant and for lack of effective and direct control , they are the employees of the canteen and not of the respondent bank . There exists no relation of master and servant between the respondent bank and canteen employees . Hence demand for regularisation is not sustainable . In view of these two pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , it becomes quite explicitthat the workman applicant was not an employee of the bank . She was at best a workman of the canteen and there is no obligation on the bank to absorb her or to regularise her . There is no master and servant relationship between the workınan applicant and the respondent.

The reference is replied thus:-

The action of the management of S.B.I. in terminating the services of Smt . Raj Kumari , Peon w.e.f. 13-2-1995 is legal andjustified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any releif as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly .

DT. 10-01-2005

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी, 2005

का.आ. 490- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सर्वे आफ इण्डिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ (संदर्भ संख्या 23/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 167/2002- आई.आर. ( सीएम- II ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th January, 2005 S.O. 490. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 23/2003 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Survey of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-01-2005

[No. L-42012/ 167/2002 - IR ( CM- II) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW PRESENT :

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer I. D. NO . 23/2003

Ref . No. L-42012/ 167 /2002- IR( CM - II) dt. 17-2-2003

BETWEEN

PRADESH MANTRI BHARTIYA MAZDOOR SANGH 32, CHAKRATA ROAD , DEHRADUN

AND

THE SURVEYOUR GENERAL SURVEY OF INDIA SURVEYOR GENERAL OFFICE , P. B. NO . 37 DEHRADUN

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide his order No. L - 42012/ 167 / 2002 - IR (CM - II ) dated 17-2-2003 referred following dispute to Presiding Officer , CGIT- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication;

''WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF SURVEY OF INDIA IN NOT GIVING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO SUSHEEL KUMAR S/O LATE SH . BABU RAM IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT TO WHAT RELIEF HE IS ENTITLED TO ? "

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh's case is that one Late Babu Ram was working as permanent Khalasi with opposite party i.e. Survey of India, Dehradun the aforesaid Late Babu Ram died on 30-1-95 . The wife of Late Babu Ram Smt . Krishna Devi applied for providing the appointment to her son Susheel Kumar in group ' C' . The department of Survey of India asked for option for appointment at Hyderabad as Lower Division Clerk vide their letter no . 1065/ 4E - 2/ 1 dated 19-7-96 with the condition that for minimum three years Susheel Kumar shall not be transferred to Dehradun . Sri Susheel Kumar exercised his option as desired by the opposite party on 29-8-96 . Considering poor condition of the dependant of Late Babu Ram Supdt . Surveyor recommended the case for appointment, but vide letter no . 1323/4 - E -2/ 1 dated 15-10-2001 Supdt. Surveyor informed that the appointment is not possible as it is improper and illegal . The Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh has alleged that the opposite party has arbitrarily made appointments and has resorted to malpractices . They have also given example of one Late Smt . Tara Mehrotra wherein in the dependant son has been favoured. It has also been highlighted that in the case of Late Tara Mehrotra dependant son has been favoured as her husband was government officer and as such the dependant son of Tara Mehrotra had seperate source of income even than flouting the government rules and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dependant son of Tara Mehrotra has been given appointment on [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/ माघ 23 , 1926

compassionate ground which is unjustified. Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh accordingly has requested that the dependant son of Late Babu Ram be provided appointment on compassionate ground and also be awarded damages .

Theopposite party has admitted that Late Babu Ram was Khalasi with the opposite party and it is also admitted thathe died on 30-1-95 . It is also admitted that Smt . Krishna Devi applied for appointment of his son in group ' C' vide his applicationdt. 16-3-95 . However, it is submitted by the opposite party that the Officer Incharge of party No. 14 without obtaining the permission of the office of the opposite partyvide his letter dt. 26-8-96 wanted to know whether Sri Susheel Kumar is willing to go to Hyderabad and son of Sri Babu Ram, Sri Susheel Kumar on 29-8-96 gave his willingness whichwas forwarded by the Officer Incharge ofparty no . 6 alongwith recommendations to the Surveyor General . The Surveyor General vide his letter dt. 20-9-96 wanted to know whether there is vacancy of Lower Division Clerk in the quota of compensation appointment and he was replied on 8-10-96 that no vacancy in the category of LDC available on compassionate ground . In the circumstances the Surveyor General vide his letter dt . 24-10-96 rejected the recommendation ofthe Officer Incharge No. 14. It is admitted that the son of Tara Mehrotra was appointed on the post of Coupon Clerk/Counter Clerk on the sanction letter of the Ministry dt. 7-2-2000 . The opposite party has also challenged the jurisdiction of this Court and has alleged that the case belongs to Central Administrative Tribunal.

The workman union Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh filed the following documents in photo copy;

1. Photo copy of letter No. 1065/4-E - 2 / 1 dt . 19-7-97 regarding appointment on compassionate grounds by Officer Incharge, No. 14 of Survey ofIndia , Dehradun to Smt . Krishna Devi w/ o Late Babu Ram.

on 2. Photo copy of letter No. C- 8458/4 -E- 1-2dt. 15-7-97 regarding appointment compassionate ground by Shri J. S. Grover, Dy . Director , Geodetic & Research Branch , Dehradun.

3. Photo copy of letter No. 211/4-E- 2/ 1 dtd. 26-8-96 regarding appointment on compassionate grounds by Sri S. N. Kumar, Supdt . Surveyor, Survey of India, Dehradun to Smt . Krishna Devi w/o Late Babu Ram .

4. Photo copy of letter dtd. 29-8-96 written by Sushil Kumarto Officer Incharge reagrding consent of his appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. Photo copy of letter No. 255/ 4- E- 2/ 1 dt . 3-9-96 by Sri S. N. Kumar , Supdt . Surveyor, Survey of India , Dehradun to Director, Geodetic & Research Branch Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds .

6. Photo copy of letter No. 11514/4 - E - 1-2 dt . 12-9-96 by Sri J. S. Grover , Dy . Director , Geodetic & Research Branch Dehradun to Chief Surveyor, Dehradun regarding appoint- ment on compassionate grounds .

311 Gl/ 05-15

1431 7. Photo copy of letter No. E- 1282/ 1869-A/G & RB dtd. 28-9-96 by Sri S. Chowdhery , Asstt. Surveyor, Surveyor General's Office , Dehradun to Director , Geodetic & Research Branch , Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds .

8. Photo copy of letter No. 12686/4 -E- 1-2 dtd. 8-10-96 by Sri J. S. Grover , Dy . Director, Geodetic and Research Branch , Dehradun to Chief Surveyor, Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds.

9. Photo copy of letter No. E3-12858/ 1869 -A/G& RB by Sri S. Chowdhery , Asstt . Chief Surveyor , Surveyor General Office , Dehradun to Director, Geodetic & Research Branch , Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds.

10. Photo copy of letter No. 1323 /4 -E -2 / 1 dtd . 15-10-2001 by Sri Bimlesh Kumar , Officer Surveyor, Officer Incharge Dal No. 14 to Smt . Krishna Devi w/o Late Sri Babu Ram regarding appointment on compassionate grounds .

11. Photo copy of letter No. Stha 02-16384/ 1869 -A by Sri S. S. Uniyal , Supdt . Surveyor, Surveyor of India , Dehradun to Director Geodetic & Research Branch , Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate, grounds .

12. Photo copy of letter No. 9395/4-E- 1 /2 dtd . 16-6- 99 by Sri Jamuna Ram , Estt . and Accounts Officer, to Director General Surveyor, Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds.

13. Photo copy of letter dtd . Feb. 1996 by Amit Mehrotra s /o Smt . Tara Mehrotra to the Director G& RB, Survey of India , Dehradun request for compassionate appointment .

14. Photo copy of letterdt . Feb. 1996 by Sri Naresh Mehrotra H/ o Late Smt . Tara Mehrotra to . Director , G & RB Dehradun request for appointment on compassionate grounds .

15. Photo copy of letter dtd . Feb. 1996 by Nidhi Mehrotra D/o of Late Smt . Tara Mehrotra to the Director, G& RB , Survey of India, Dehradun request for appointment on compassionate grounds.

16. Photo copy of letter No. G/301/Gen - II Dtd. 27-5-96 by Sri Pooran Singh , Sr. Accounts Officer, Controller of Fin. & Acs AO , GLF, Dehradun to Supdt . Surveyor, Dehradun regardings details of employment of Sh . N. C. Mehrotra AAO and details of dependancy of his children.

17. Photo copy of letter No. SM/02/ 027/ 99 dtd. 7-2-2000 by Sri M. L. Parasher , Under Secretary. Govt . of India . Maistry of Science & Technology , New Delhi to Surveyor General of 1432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

India , Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds .

18. Photo copy of letter No. 02-7374 / 1869 Estt dtd: 11-5-01 by Sri Girish Kumar, Surveyor ofIndia, Dehradun to Director , Geodetic & Research Branch Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds.

19. Photo copy of letter No. C-3309/4-E- 1/2 dtd. 12-6-2000 by Sri N. C. Tyagi , Director to Amit Malhotra S / o late Smt . Tara Malhotra regarding appointment on coupen clerk/ for dependent of deceased employees .

20. Photo copy of letter No. Estt . 02 /492/ 1869 -A- Geo & Res. Branch , dtd . 8-1-2002 by Sri V. R. Mahendra , Dy . Director General Surveyor , Dehradun to Asstt : Labour Commissioner (Central) Dehradun regarding appointment on compassionate grounds .

21. Photo copy of office memorandum No. 14014/ 18/2000 -Estt ( D) dtd. June 22,2001 regarding compassionate appointment issued by Sri K.K. Jha, Director (Estt .) Ministry of Public Grievances & Pensions , Deptt. of Personnel and Training , Govt. of India, New Delhi .

22. Photo copy of letter dtd . 29-8-96 by Sri Sushil Kumar s/ o Late Sri Babu Ram, Dehradun to Officer Incharge , G & RB , Dehradun regarding consent of appointment on compassionate ground inHyderabad.

The opposite party filed the photo copies of the following documents:

1. C- 4103 / 17 - A- 2 ( Court Case) /Sushil Kumardtd. 22-7-03 by Sri H.S. Pawar, Officer, Surveyor, G& RB, Dehradun to Court Secretary, CGIT-cum- Labour Court , Dehradun ( Camp ) regarding vacancies of UDC and compassionate appointment on he vacancies .

2. Photo copy of letter No. Esst . 02-11435/ 1869 / G& RB dtd. 18-7-2003 by Sri P.K. Chatterjee , Surveyor Generals office to Director, G& RB , Dehradun regarding appointment proforma on compassionate grounds .

3. Photo copy of office memo No. 14014/6/94- Estt(D) dtd . 9-10-98 of Sri K.K. Jha , Director (Estt .) Govt . of India. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Deptt . of Personnel & Training ) New Delhi regarding scheme for compassionate appointment.

4. Photo copy of letter No. C-4280/17 - A - 2 ( Court case) Sushil Kumardt . 29-7-2003 by Sri Dr. B. Nagrajan, Director G& RB to Director General Surveyor. Dehradun for demanding information regarding appointment of Sri Sushil Kumar .

5. Photo copy of Letter No. LC 12767/ 1196/Vividh ( Sushil Kumar ) dt. 7-8-2003 by Sri Ram Prakash, Dy. Director General Surveyor, Survey of India.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] Dehradun to Director Industrial and Publication, Survey of India , Dehradun to send the information regarding case No. 23/2003.

6. Photo copy of letter No. C -4848 /17 - A- 2 ( Court Case)/ Sushil Kumar dtd. 28-8-03 by Sri B. B. Rai , Estt . and Accounts Officer , G & RB , Dehradun to Director, Industrial & Publication , Survey of India , Dehradun regarding information of the case .

7. Photo copy ofLetter No. RI - 1834/27 - A/ 1 /RR dtd. 5-9-03 by Officer, Map Record and Issue Office, Dehradun to Director , G & RB regarding information of case No. 23/03 .

8. Photo copy of letter No. C/ 17-A-2/ Court Case/ Sushil Kumar dtd. 10-9-2003 by Sri B.V. Rai , Estt . and Accounts Officer , Survey of India, Dehradun to Officer Incharge Map Record and Issue Office, regarding information of case No. 23/2003.

9. Photo copy of letter No. TD - 1646 /60 - I - MRIO dtd. 12-9-03 by Sri Naveen Tomar , Map Publication to Officer Incharge , Map Issue & RecordOffice, Dehradun regarding information ofcase No. 23/2003.

10. Photo copy of letter no . RI - 1934/27-A- 1 (RR) dtd . 16-9-03 by Sri J. S. Tomar , Supdt . Surveyor , Map Record and Issue Office to the Director , G& RB , Survey of India, regarding information of case No. 23/2003.

Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh has examined Sri Sushil Kumar and opposite party has examined Sri H. S. Pawar .

Heardparties and perused evidence on record .

Sri H. S. Pawar is Adhikari Sarveshk ( Survey Officer) posted at Survey of India , Dehradun . He stated that he worked in the department of Survey of India under Central Government and this department comes under the Ministry of Science & Technology. This department is entrusted to survey as per the order of the Government. He has further stated that the opposite party is not an industry . It is also stated that the department is not earning any profit out of its activities and therefore the opposite party is not an industry and the CGIT- cum- Labour has no jurisdiction as the Indian Survey deptt . does not indulged inany business .

The opposite party has filed the details of income from the sale of maps which is as under;

1. Maps which was sold to office of Rs. 2,58,467.00 Central Government

Rs. 3,39,527.00 2. Maps sold to the State Govt .

Rs . 27,20,676.00 3. Maps sold to defence services

Total Rs. 33,18,570.00 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

The leamed representative of the opposite party has argued that cost of the maps are more than sale amount and the maps are sold to the defence on subsidies rates .

1433

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

Accounts in Aupti Electronic Factory, Raipur and thus the case of the appointment of the son late Smt . Tara Malhotra is not good enough in comparison of that of son of late Sri Babu Ram , as Sri Babu Ram was only a Khalasi and who has no other means of livelihood . The comparative table ofboth case are as under :

Case of late Babu Ram

On the other hand the witness Sri Sushil Kumar has stated on oath that the Survey of India prepares Government maps and they sell them and by such activity they earn profit and therefore it comes under the term of industry.

Case of late Tara Malhotra 1. Late Babu Ram was merely Late Tara Malhotra was

UDC in group No. 19 of the aKhalasi in group ' D '

1993 HBD (Alld) Vol. 4 page 69 (High Court, Allahabad H. M. Rizvi and others vs. rural Engineering Services U.P. and others .

category working group opposite party .

No. 14 ofG&RB of Survey

It has been held that there should be an activity which is pre dominantly carried on, by employment of organised labour force for the production or distribution of the goods or for rendering material service to the community at large or part of such community-if the mutual relations, the method of employment and the process of cooperation in carrying out of the work bears close resemblance to the organisation within the organisation will be an industry in the above circumstances it becomes in material that the organisation is the deptt . of State.

In Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V. A. Rajappa 1978 (36 ) FLR 256 the Supreme Court held that non -existence of profit making motive or any other gainful object is an irrelevant consideration in determining whether an enterprise is an industry or not . In the present case the Survey of India is conducted survey and it has entered into preparing maps and therefore selling it to the Govt. Departments and others is certainly a industry also though it may not have any profiting motive . I am therefore not convinced with the argument forwarded by the opposite party that the opposite party is not a industry.

Itisadmitted fact that late Babu Ram was employed as a class IV employee (Khalasi) who died on 30-1-95 . It is also admitted fact that Smt . Krishna Devi is the wife of late Babu Ram . It is also admitted fact that after the death of Sri BabuRam his son Sushil Kumar applied for appointment in thedepartment of the opposite party in Group ' C' i.e. clerk on compassionate ground but he was denied appointment on the compassionate ground on the ground that there was no vacancy . It is also admitted fact that one late Smt . TaraMalhotra was also employee in the department of the oppositeparty and his son was provided appointment on 7-2-2000.

The witness of the opposite party Sri H. S. Pawar has admitted that son of late Sri Babu Ram applied for service on 16-3-95 where as the son of late Smt . Tara Malhotra applied for service on 19-3-96 .

The witness produce by the trade union , Sri Sushil Kumarhas categorically stated that late Smt . Tara Malhotra died after the death of late Sri Babu Ram .

From the documents on record it is clearly established that Smt . Tara Malhotra died on 30-1-96 and his husband Sri Naresh Malhotra requested for the appointment of his sonAmitMalhotra on the post of group ' C' employee . It is also clear that Sri Naresh Malhotra was Asstt. Accounts Officer in the office of the Controller of Finance & ofIndia .

2.No record to prove that there was any source of livelihood for the family left by the death ofBabu Ram .

It is proved that late Tara Malhotra was survived by her husband who was AAO inthe Deptt . of Controller and Finance , Aupti Eletronic Factory, Raipur, thusthe family of late Tara Malhotra had earning member to support the family.

3.Babu Ram died on 30-1-95 . Tara Malhotra died on 30-1-96.

According to the evidence of opposite party so called dependant Tara Malhotra moved application for ap- pointment on compassion- ate grounds on 19-3-96 .

4.According to the witness ofthe opposite party ap- plication for appointment oncompassionate ground wasmoved application onbehalf of the family members of late Babu Ram on 16-1-95 .

If there could be a post for clerk was vacant to accommodate Sri Amit Malhotra son of late Smt . Tara Malhotra then it can not be said the same was not available to the son of late Babu Ram . It is clear case of discrimination forwhich there is no justification at all . The dependent of late Babu Ram even hoped for his posting at Hyderabad for minimum 3 years but he was not given weightage . In the circumstances 1 am of considered opinion that the action of the management in not giving compassionate appointment to Sushil Kumar is not legal and unjustified. The issue is therefore answered against the management and I have no hesitation to hold that the management of Survey of India in not giving compassionate appointment to Sushil Kumar is illegal and unjustified . I am therefore of the considered opinion that the worker deserves to be appointed inGroup ' C' as requested by him from the late Mr. Amit Malhotra dependant of late Tara Malhotra was appointed . Although he will be entitled to the backwages till the date he was reinstated but at the same time he deserves to be compensated by compassion @ 15000/ - (Rsfifteenthousand) per year from the date Amit Malhotra join to the date he is actually asked to join the duties . Award passed accordingly.

Lucknow

14-1-2005

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer 1434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2005

का०आ ० 491.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सी.पी.डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ (संदर्भ संख्या 140/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को18-1-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/198/2001 - आई.आर. ( सीएम- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th January , 2005

S.O. 491. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 140/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-1-2005.

[No. L -42012/ 198/2001 - IR (CM - II) ]

N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Shrikanı Shukia , Presiding Officer

I.D. No .: 140/2002

Ref. No: L -42012/ 198/2001 - IR (CM-II) dated : 8-8-2002

BETWEEN :

The General Secretary

CPWD , Mazdoor Union , E -26 , Raja Bazar ( Old Qtrs . ) , Baba Kharak Singh Marg , New Delhi - 110001 .

Dehradun .

AND

The Executive Engincer CPWD , Dehradun Civil Division No. II

20 , Subhash Road , Dehradun , Uttaranchal .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L - 42012 / 198 /2001- ( IR ( CM - II) dated : 8-8-2002 has referred following issue for adjudication to the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow .

The trade union's case in brief is that the workman Shri Raj Kumar was employed as sewer - man w.e.f. 25-3-93 and he was paid wages for unskilled labour fixed by the appropriate authority of Dehradun from time to time . The daily rated workman on hand receipt or muster roll have been getting their wages in the time scale of Rs . 950-1500 and revised after the acceptance of Vth pay commission w.e.f. 1-1-96 in the pay scale of Rs . 3050-4590 but Raj Kumar was not only denied equal pay for equal work but also denied minimum wages fixed for skilled workman with in the jurisdiction of Dehradun by appropriate Government from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 . Although daily rated workman on muster roll or hand receipt were paid wages in the time scale including DA , ADA , CCA, Hill Allowance , HRA , but the workman Raj Kumar was discriminated for payment of the said allowances , Govt . of India , Ministry of Urban Development vide its letter 1-9-92 created 8 , 9, 82 posts for regularisation and the office of Director General ( Works) , CPWD vide its order No. 38/2/ 87 -EC - 10 dated 30-9-92 in which 22 posts of sever man were sanctioned for North Zone - 2 under which management , the worker Raj Kumar is doing duties , but he has not been regularised . Instead regularising the worker, the management handed over the worker with the workman to the contractor. Whereas work of regular nature cannot be handed over to the contractor as it violates the provisions of Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970. The management on 25-3-93 handed over the work to the contractor and the payments were made through so called contractors only with a view to deny employment directly under the management . Before handing over the work of sever man no notice was given for change of his service condition. Sarva Sri Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Yeshpal Singh , Malik and now Dinesh Nautiyal are paying less minimum wages to the workman Raj Kumar , but the workman has been performing his duties from the date of his initial employment i.e. 25-3-93 to till date under the direct supervision and control of Junior Engineer concerned and the contractors were only performing their duties in respective period of cashier. The trade union has pointed out there are other regularly employed sever man in the time scale and are performing the same duties in Dehradun Civil Division 1 , but the worker Raj Kumar who is performing same duties in Dehradun Civil Division 2 , but Raj Kumar is discriminated . The workman has been denied direct payment w.e.f. 1-12-98 . The management with view to deny the regularisation and permanent status to Sh. Raj Kumarhave changed direct payment through the contractor which is not proper and against the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act as the worker is entitled to equal pay for equal work . The action of the management not paying wages in the term scale w.e.f. 25-3-93 and denial of permanent status and regularising is unjustified and illegal . Trade union has therefore prayed that changed in service condition be set aside . Worker has also prayed for grant of equal pay for equal work w.e.f. 25-3-93 in pay scale of Rs . 950-1500 and revised w.c.f. 1-1-96 Rs . 3050-4590 . The third prayer ofthe union is the worker Raj Kumar be granted permanent status / regularisation .

"क्या प्रबंधन केन्द्रीय लोक निर्माण विभाग देहरादून के द्वारा श्री "राजकुमार सीवर मैन" की नौकरी की सेवा शर्तों को परिवर्तन करके दिनांक 1-12-98 से ठेकेदारी प्रथा पर रखा जाना उसे समान कार्य का समान वेतन न देना एवं इसे दिनांक 25-3-93 से स्थायी नौकरी देना उचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है । "

TheExecutiveEngineer, Dehradun , Central Division No. II , CPWD . Dehradun has filed the written statement and

HI [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

has specifically denied the claim of the trade union . The opposite party has denied that the worker Raj Kumar was never employed as sever man on any basis . In facts the complaints relating to cleaning the sever line were very small in quantum to justify a full time sever man. Therefore, the complaints were attended on contract basis with payment as per complaint basis. The opposite party has filed the exemplar hand receipt stating that the payment has been made to the worker for attending 23 complaints to totalling to Rs . 1380/ -. It is also alleged that principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable to the workman. Since Sh . Raj Kumar attending the complaint as contract basis , hence he cannot be treated as daily rated worker performing their duties on muster roll as well as hand receipt basis . There is , in such circumstances no question of payment to skilled or unskilled worker . The scope ofwork does notjustify the engagement of sever man and there is no vacancy as well , hence the question of regularisation does not arise . The union wants to malafidely pose Sh . Raj Kumar a worker , where as he himself has quoted Rs. 60/- per complaint . It is also alleged that Sh. Raj Kumar did not quote his rates in 1980 due to reduce scope for work, therefore other agency has been assigned the work . In additional pleas it has been alleged that Raj Kumar was engaged by other contractor and payment was made to him by the contractor not by the department so in the ins- tance he was a contractor from 93 to 11/98 and onwards he was contractor's labour . In the end it is alleged that claim is false and baseless , illegal afterthought and has been moved with ulterior motives .

After the opposite party filed the written statement, the trade union stated in the rejoinder that the workman from 25-3-93 to 30-11-98 has been performing the duties and payments were made to him directly and thereafter the payments were made through fake contractor . The attendance was also marked and supervised by Asstt . Engineer . Moreover the Ministry of Labour vide its notification dated 21-7-2002 have prohibited the contract labour.

Worker has filed following photostat copies of documents:

1. Espousal /Resolution of the trade union , paper No. 3.

2. Statement showing the details of daily rated workers employed during 1-7-98 , paper No. 3/2 .

3. Office Memorandum , Govt . of India , Directorate General ofWorks , No. 45/ 1 /87 -EC. X Part . I dated 19-4-87 , paper No. 3/3 .

4. Office Memorandum , Govt . of India, Directorate General ofWorks , No. 45/ 1 /87 - EC . X dated 28-4-87, paperNo. 3/4 .

5. Letter ofDy . Director of Administration II , Govt. of India , Directorate General of Works No. 45/ 1 /87- EC . X ( Vol . IV) dated 28-1-91 regarding implementation of the Judgement of Supreme Court dated 17-1-86 , paper No. 3/5 .

6. Letter of Dy. Director of Administration II, Govt . of India , Directorate General of Works No. 38/ 2/87-

1435 EC. Xdated 30-9-92 regarding creation of additional 8982 posts in various categories of work charged Estt. and Regular Classified Estt . For the purpose ofregularisation of daily rated muster roll workers ofCPWD, paper No. 3/6 , 3/7.

7. Letter addressed to Director General of Works , CPWD , N. Delhi No. 38/2/87 -ECX/BW 2 (ii ) dated: 1-9-92 regarding creation of 8982 posts in the work charged establishment of CPWD for the regularisation of Muster Roll Workers of CPWD , paperNo. 3/8, 3/9 .

8. Copy of decision of the Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. S. 5299-5300 of 1993 between Council of Scient . And Indl . Research and Ano . V. Suresh Prasad Thekur and ors. , paper No. 3/10-3/14 .

9. Office Memorandum ofCPWD No. 23/12/83 . Ε.Ο.Χ. dated 5-1-1985 regarding payment of wages to different categories of labour employed on muster roll in CPWD, paper No. 3/15 , 3/16 .

10. Circular of CPWD No. 22/ 16/89 -EC X dated 28/29-12-89 regarding maintenance work in CPWD, paper No. 3/17.

The worker has also filed following documents with hisrejoinder:

1. Photo copy of attendance register, paper No. 7/4 to 7/16.

2. Gate pass of the worker, paper No. 7/17 .

3. Statement showing the details of daily rated workers employed during 1-8-96 , paper No. 7/18 .

4. OfficeMemorandum of CPWD regarding contract labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (31 of 1970) , dated 27-12-2002 , paper No. 7/19 , 7/20.

The management has filed following photostat documents along with its written statement :

1. Hand receipt , paper No. 6/3 .

2. Office order of CPWD No. 13 (5 )/दे. के. स./3066-67 dated 30-3-94, paper No. 6/4 .

3. Letter addressed to Karyapalak Engineer , CPWD , Dehradun, dated 23-3-94 , paper No. 6/5 .

4. Letter of acceptance by Suraj Prakash dated 23-3-94, paper No. 6/6 .

5. Letter of acceptance by Raj Kumar dated 23-3-94, paperNo. 6/7.

6. Letter of acceptance by Umed Singh dated 23-3-94 paper No. 6/8.

7. Office memorandum of CPWD No. 19/ 137/2001 -EC . Xdated 19-11-2001 , paper No. 6/9 .

8. Office order No. 19 / 137/ 2001 - EC - 10 . dated 19-10-2001 , paper No. 6/10.

9. Copy of judgement of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No. 12659 of 2000 , paper No. 6/11 to 6/15 .

1436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

sever man on the monthly salary . Admittedly there was no advertisement of vacancy in the newspaper , notifying the vacancy of sever man to be filled. Names of candidates were also not called for from employment exchange . As such it could not said that the worker Raj Kumar was appointed as regular or casual labour to perform the job of severman .

From the evidence stated above it cannot be said that he was appointed sever man as such , on the contrary it is proved that the worker was called by the Beldar due to exigency of work to attend the complaints . There appears to be no relationship of employer and employee between Raj Kumar and opposite party .

Gone through the written arguments and heard the representation of the workman, worker stated in cross- examination that he came under CPWD in the year 1993 He also stated that he did not apply , nor his name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange . He has further stated that no advertisement published in the newspaper for fulfilling the vacant post of sever man . On a question in cross -examination as how he came for the work in CPWD, the worker stated that he was called by Beldar from his house in the year 1993 and told him that the Saheb has called him for the work and there is the need for a man. Worker has further stated that he went there and started work. He admits that he was not offered any appointment letter, but said he was appointed on the monthly salary of Rs . 1300 on 25-3-93 .

Worker has further stated in his cross - examination thathis attendance was not marked however the attendance ofBeldar, plumber , mansions were marked . He has also adınitted that Beldar, plumbers etc. were paid through register and he himself was paid on separate receipts .

In para 12 of the statement of claim the trade union has mentioned, " that the management on 25-3-93 " handed over the work of perennial nature to contractors and the payments were made through so called contractors only with a view to deny employment directly under the management and the said activities of the management is against the provisions of Contract Labour in violation of the Contract-Labour (Regulation & Abolition Act 1970 ) and those type of employment through Contract Labour is disapproved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter.. as Annexure ' F.

Worker has also admitted that he gave a letter dated 23-3-94 stating therein that he is prepared to attend the complaint atthe rate of Rs . 60 per complaint in case the work is provided for the whole month , as contractor . He has also admitted that he gave his own quotation together with those of Umed Singh and Suraj Prakash.

Worker has also admitted the fact that he was given a letter that his proposal is accepted and he was informed that he should be paid Rs . 60 per complaint .

In the further cross - examination he was questioned specifically as to till what date and year he worked as contractor , he did not reply in straight forward manner and stated that the sanction was accorded for contract yearly and worked upto 6 years .

This goes to show that the management resortedto entrust the work of sever man to contractor on 25-3-93 and as such there is no question of employment of Raj Kumar as employce. The management has argued that Raj Kumar was never employed as sever man. Reason for need of contractor is explained as " In fact the complaint relatingto cleaning the sever lines were very small in quantumto justify a full time sever man. Therefore the complaints were attended on the contracted basis with payment as per complaint basis . " It is argued that statement of claim is misleading. It is further argued that Shri Raj Kumar was attending complaints on contract basis , hence he could notbe treated as ever daily rated worker.

Ifa person himself opts to attend the complaints on the basis of Rs . 60 per complaint , it does not prove that there is a relationship of employer and employee but it only proves that he was a petty contractor, and a petty contractor in such a case cannot clainı equal return to that of sever man .

Worker was further asked as to after 1-12-98 and onwards under whose contractorship did he worked, he replied that he worked under contractor Rakesh Sharma for 1 1/2 years , who used to pay him as per the daily work . Thercafter he worked with another contractor Malik for a period of 1 1/2 years and thereafter he worked with another contractor Dinesh Nautiyal and now a days he is working for Rajeev Chaudhary , Contractor for which Rajeev Chaudhary is paying.

Opposite party did not produce any evidence however , K.C. Pant , Executive Engineer was summonedby the court whose statement was recorded on 14-9-2004 . He was confronted with the paper No. 3/12, which was filed as Annexure A with the statement of claim .

Raj Kumar has admitted that his attendance was not marked; there is no question of supervision in the case by the opposite party . Certainly where the contractor is engaged to perform a work , then the satisfactory performance is to be ensured before the payment is release to such contractor. In the circumstance it cannot be said that the work ofRaj Kumar was supervised by JE/AE of the opposite party.

From perusal of the said Annexure ` A` referred above, it appears to be Annexure No. I to same paper . It does not bear any date . Sh . K.C. Pant has admitted that he was Asstt . Engineer when the said paper was made . This witness has also stated that the payment was made to Raj Kumar on the basis of quantum of work .

Itisadmitted fact that as long as Sh . Raj Kumar was direct contractor , he was attending the complaint himself and after the change of contractor he worked with the contractor and the labour charges were received by him from the contractor . It was not on 1-12-98 that the contract was given, but is proved that prior to it the worker himself was the contractor and not a worker .

In the aforesaid background the arguments of the worker is to be appreciated. Admittedly there is no appointment letter to prove that the worker is appointed as 1437

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

From the evidence on the record I come to the conclusion that there was no relationship of employer and employee between Raj Kumar and opposite party . On 25-3-93 itself the job was entrusted to the contractor i.e. Raj Kumar as soon as he failed to obtain the contract, taking the help of DG ( W) order and other rules came forward with the plea that he is a worker merely on the ground ofAnnexure ' A ' to the statement of claim, which is not sufficient to prove that he was an employee of the opposite party worker. Raj Kumar was not in service and therefore there arise no question of changing the service condition on 1-12-98 . The rule of equal pay for equal work is also not applicable on the present case and there arise no question of providing Raj Kumar permanent service in CPWD. All issues referred, therefore , decided against the worker. The case has no basis . The worker , Raj Kumar is not entitled to any relief.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, PresidingOfficer 13-1-2005 Lucknow

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी, 2005

का०आ० 492.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एल.सी./आर/ 80/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/99/2001- आई.आर. ( सीएम- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th January , 2005

S.O. 492. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGIT/LC/ R/80/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2005 .

[No. L-42012/99/2001 - IR(CM-II) ]

N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/80/2002

PRESENT:

Shri C.M. Singh, Presiding Officer

Shri Sudheer Kumar Surywanshi , Madanpur Road, Ward No. 13 ,

..... Workman Waraseoni , Balaghat .

Versus

Shri R.S. Rao,Principal,

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya,

Waraseoni , Balaghat .

TheDy. Director,

N.V.S. RegionalOffice, 160 -Zone- II , MP Nagar , Bhopal.

..Management.

AWARD

Passed on this 31st day of December , 2004 .

1. This is a reference made by the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi vide its notification No. L -42012/99/ 2001 - IR (CM- II) dated 29-5-2002 for adjudication of the following dispute :-

"Whether the action of the Principal , Navodaya Vidyalaya , Waraseoni , Distt . Balaghat ( MP) in not regularising the services of Shri S.K. Suryawanshi , as Clerk w.e.f. 8-1-2001 after completion of 240 days attendance and stopping him from services from 18-1-2001 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 2. After the reference order was received and registered in this tribunal , notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claims etc. The workman hasfiled his statement of claim. The case was at the stage offiling written statement on behalf of the management . On 17-2-2004 , the date fixed in the case for filing written statement by the management , workman moved application No. 6 with the prayer that the reference be dismissed as during the pendency of reference, the non - applicant has settled the matter on his representation and offered him regular appointment on the post of LDC . This application has not been objected to by the learned counsel for the Non-applicant.

3. It is very clear from the above that the applicant has no interest in prosecuting this reference . Under the circumstances , ' No Dispute Award ' is passed without any order as to costs .

4. The copy of Award be sent to the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi as per rules .

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2005

का०आ० 493.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय पुणे , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 356/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/ 9/1996- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th January , 2005

S.O. 493. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central 1438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 356/97 ) of the Labour Court , Pune as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-01-2005.

[No. L - 12012/ 9 / 1996 - IR (B -I ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE MRS . S.S. SAWANT PRESIDING OFFICERIST LABOUR COURT , PUNE Ref. IDA. No. 356/97

Dy. General Manager , StateBank of India , East Street, Pune -411001

Ist Party AND

Shri Ramkumar Sabhapathy , FlatNo. 7 , Sudhir Memories , Kasturba Co. Op . Hsg . Society , Vishrantwadi , Pune-411015

IInd Party

AWARD

This reference is made to this Court by Dy . Commr . ofLabour Pune under 1.D. Act 1947 .

Second party has demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages for the intervening idle period.

Second party absent when called out. Matter is too old. Matter is adjourned since 2001 for evidence of second party. However , second party did not take further steps to proceed with matter and failed to lead evidence . Hence reference stands disposed off for want of prosecution by second party . No cost .

MRS . S. S. SAWANT, Presiding Officer Pune Dated: 30-9-2004

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2005

का०आ० 494.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बीकानेरके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/143/87- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

सी० गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th January, 2005

S.O. 494. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/1997) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour- Court ,

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] Bikaner as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-01-2005 .

[ No. L - 12012/ 143 / 87 - IR(B -1 ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण , बीकानेर पीठासीन अधिकारी : श्री के ० एल ० माथुर, आर ० एच०जे० एस ० नं ०मु० केन्द्रीय औद्यो० वि० प्रसंग सं ० 5 सन् 1997

-प्रार्थी/श्रमिक रामकुमार पुत्र श्री खुशीराम, जाति शर्मा , निवासी इन्द्रपुरा , तहसील व जिला चूरु , हाल गनमैन, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, सार्दुलशहर, जिला श्री गंगानगर

विरुद्ध

- अप्रार्थी/नियोजक ब्रांच मैनेजर, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया, ब्रांच चूरु ( राजस्थान )

प्रसंग अन्तर्गत धारा 10( 1 ) घ ) , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

उपस्थिति:

1. श्री डी०डी० पारीक, ब्रीफ होल्डर अधिकृत प्रतिनिधि श्री आर ०सी० शुक्ला, प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से ।

2. श्री हरेन्द्र कुमार महोबिया, अभिभाषक, अप्राथी नियोजक के लिये।

अधिनिर्णय दिनांक 6 अक्टूबर, 2004

केन्द्रीय सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली द्वारा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिसे आगे चल कर केवल अधिनियम कहा जावेगा ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( घ) के अधीन जारी अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल-12012/ 143/ 87 दिनांक 21-1-97 द्वारा प्रेषित इस प्रसंग के अन्तर्गत प्रार्थी श्रमिक श्री आर ० के ० शर्मा की 16-1-85 की सेवामुक्तिके सम्बन्ध में एक विवाद औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर में भेजा था, जो विवाद श्रम मंत्रालय केन्द्रीय सरकार की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना दिनांक4-4-97 के अनुसरण में औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण जयपुर से दिनांक14-8-97 को इस न्यायालय में स्थानान्तरित होकर अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्राप्त हुआ है, प्रेषित विवाद निम्न प्रकार है :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Churu in terminating the services of Shri R.K. Sharma from 16-1-85 and appointing juniors to him is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief he is entitled to ? "

2. प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर प्रकरण दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया, दोनों पक्षकारों द्वारा अपने-अपने लिखित अभिवचन पेश किये गये अर्थात् प्रार्थी श्रमिक रामकुमार द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम विवरण का जबाब अप्रार्थी नियोजक पक्ष द्वारा दिया गया है । 1439 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2005/ माघ 23 , 1926

छुपाया है कि लीव वैकेन्सी में कार्य किया है , शर्तें समाप्त होने पर नवीनीकरण नहीं होने पर हुई सेवा समाप्ति छंटनी की परिभाषा में नहीं आती है, अस्थाई कर्मचारियों की श्रेणी स्थाई कर्मचारियों से भिन्न रखी गयी है, लीव वैकेन्सी में ही नियोजित किया है अतः छंटनी का मामला नहीं बनता है, प्रार्थी ने यह तथ्य भी छुपाया है कि तथाकथित हरफूलसिंह, श्री दुर्गादान, श्री मोहनसिंह, मिश्रीलाल, छाजूराम, बलबीर तथा श्रीचन्द नायक अप्रार्थी के अधीन चूरु में कार्यरत नहीं है और उनका मुकाबला प्रार्थी से नहीं हो सकता, स्थाई कर्मचारी की नियुक्ति के अधिकार अप्रार्थी शाखा प्रबन्धक को प्राप्त नहीं हैं । स्थाई कर्मचारी के चयन के नियम बने हुए हैं, निर्धारित प्रक्रिया है जो प्रक्रिया बोर्ड पूर्ण करके ही नियमित स्थाई कर्मचारी की नियुक्तिकरता है । जहां तक अप्रार्थी को मालूम हुआ है किश्री दुर्गादान सीकर शाखा में, श्री मोहनसिंह रायसिंहनगर में, मिश्रीलाल गंगानगर शाखा में, श्री बलबीर भिवाडी शाखा में, छाजुराम अलवर शाखा में तैनात है और यह लोग अप्रार्थी शाखा प्रबन्ध के अधीन नियोजित नहींहैं, अंतः प्रार्थी स्वयं का मुकाबला उनसे नहीं कर सकता है, न्यायालय चयन समिति का कार्य न तो करता है ना ही कर सकता है, धारा 25-जी का उल्लंघन नहीं किया गया है । यूनियन एवम् मैनेजमेंट के मध्य हुए समझौते के बाद जब भी नियोजन किया गया तब प्रार्थी की स्थाई नियुक्ति चयन समिति ने कर दी है । समझौते की शर्तों के अन्तर्गत पीछे की अवधि का क्लेम करने से प्रार्थी एस्टाप्ड है इसलिये भी प्रार्थी श्रमिक कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । अंत में स्वयं के विरुद्ध प्रार्थी का क्लेम खारिज करने की प्रार्थना की गयी है ।

5. पक्षकारों द्वारा अपने-अपने पक्ष समर्थन में साक्ष्य पेश की गयी है, प्रार्थी पक्ष की साक्ष्य में स्वयं प्रार्थी श्रमिक रामकुमार ने अपना शपथपत्र पेश किया है जिससे अप्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा प्रतिपरीक्षण किया गया है । इसके विपरीत अप्रार्थी पक्ष की साक्ष्य के दौरान गवाहन आर ० एन ० शर्मा तत्कालीन शाखा प्रबन्धक अप्रार्थी चूरु बैंक एवम् परशुराम खेमका शाखा प्रबन्धक ने अपने- अपने शपथपत्र प्रस्तुत कराये हैं । जिन दोनों से प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा जिरह की गयी है और पक्षकारों द्वारा प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी पेश की गयी है ।

6. विद्वान पक्षकरों की बहस सुनी गयी एवम् पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया । हमारे समक्ष लंबित इस प्रसं के निस्तारण के लिये प्रमुख रूप से विचारणीय प्रश्न यही है कि:

क्या प्रार्थी श्रमिक श्री रामकुमार शर्मा को अप्रार्थी बैंक द्वारा 16-1-85 से सेवापृथक करना उचित एवम् वैद्य था यांद नहीं तो प्रार्थी श्रमिक क्या राहत प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ?

3. संक्षेप में, प्रकरण के तथ्य इस प्रकार से बतलाये गये हैं कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक रामकुमार शर्मा द्वारा इस आशय का क्लेम विवरण प्रस्तुत किया था कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक रामकुमार शर्मा ( जिसे आगे चलकर केवल प्रार्थी श्रमिक कहा जावेगा ) अप्रार्थी संस्थान- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक चूरु (जिसे आगे चलकर केवल अप्रार्थी बैंक कहा जावेगा ) के नियोजन में अप्रार्थी के अधीन 5-2-84 को सुरक्षा गार्ड गनमैन के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी श्रमिक नियुक्त हुआ और 15-1-85 तक कार्यरत रहा, दिनांक 16-1-85 से अप्रार्थी द्वारा अपने मौखिक आदेश से उसकी सेवा बतौर छंटनी के समाप्त कर दी और उससे पूर्व अधिनियम एवम् नियम 1957 के आज्ञापक प्रावधानों की पालना नहीं की गयी, इसी दौरान जिला सैनिक बोर्ड के पत्रांक 396-403 दिनांक 7-2-84 द्वारा अप्रार्थी संस्थान के नियोजन में गार्ड पद की भर्ती हेतु सूचित करने पर प्रार्थी ने अपना आवेदन प्रस्तुत किया उसे साक्षात्कार हेतु आमंत्रित किया गया और अप्रार्थी द्वारा 28-2-85 के पत्र से सूचित किया गया कि बैंक में प्रचलित अनुदेशानुसार भूतपूर्व सैनिक जो कि ए० एस ० सी० सैन्य निकाय से सम्बन्धित है रक्षक की नियुक्ति के पात्र नहीं है इसके पूर्व ही प्रार्थी की सेवा मौखिक आदेश द्वारा 16-1-85 से बतौर छंटनी के समाप्त की गयी जबकि अप्रार्थी बैंक में गार्ड के स्थाई पद रिक्त रहते हुए, प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मचारी को सेवा में बनाये रखने व अवैधानिक रूप से सेवापृथक करने के पश्चात् उसकी जगह नई नियुक्ति किये जाने पर प्रार्थी द्वारा अपना विवाद सहायक श्रम आयुक्त ( केन्द्रीय ) जयपुर के समक्ष उठाया जहां से प्रेषित असफल वार्ता प्रतिवेदन पर यह विवाद अधिनिर्णयार्थ भेजने से इंकार करने पर माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत रिट याचिका सं० 985/88 में पारित निर्णय 1-5-96 की पालना में जयपुर न्यायाधिकरण में भेजा गया था जो प्रार्थी की प्रार्थना पर इस न्यायालय में स्थानान्तरित हुआ है तथा रैफरेंस की कार्यवाही के दौरान 14-1-92 के पत्र द्वारा गार्ड पद भर्ती हेतु साक्षात्कार के लिये आमंत्रित किया और प्रार्थी को गार्ड के लिये योग्य पाये जाने पर पत्र दिनांक 30-3-92 से जारी नियुक्ति आदेश की पालना में प्रार्थी 2-4-92 से अप्रार्थी के नियोजन में नियमित कार्यरत है । अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त करने के कारण वह 16-1-85 से 2-4-92 तक की अवधि का समस्त लाभ दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना करते हुए बताया है कि प्रार्थी को 16-1-85 से मौखिक रूप से सेवा पृथक करने के पश्चात् अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा श्री दुर्गादान, हरफूलसिंह, मोहनसिंह, श्रीचन्द, मिश्रीलाल तथा छाजुराम व बलबीर कोअप्रार्थी संस्थान में विभिन्न जगह गार्ड ( गनमैन ) के पद पर नियोजित किया एवम् सर्वश्री हरफूलसिंह व दुर्गादान को चुरु में नियुक्ति दी जबकि प्रार्थी को जानबूझकर उसके नियोजन के हक से वंचित रखा गया, नियोजक की इस कार्यवाही को श्रमिक विरोधी नीति बताते हुए अधिनियम की धारा 25 -जी व एच के विपरीत होने से निरस्त करते हुए 16-1-85 से 3-4-92तक की अवधि काल के देय समस्त लाभ सहित 16-1-85 से पुनः बहाल करने की प्रार्थना की गयी है ।

अप्रार्थी बैंक द्वारा प्रस्तुत उत्तरवाद में प्रार्थी श्रमिक के क्लेम का प्रतिवाद करते हुए 16-1-85 से छंटनी करने के तथ्य को इंकार किया है, 28-2-85 को पत्र जारी करना स्वीकार करते हुए अन्य सभी तथ्यों को इंकार किया है और यह जबाब दिया है कि प्रार्थी चाहा गया अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है और अतिरिक्त आपत्तियों में यह भी अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी ने जब - जब भी कार्य किया उसने गार्ड की लीव वैकेन्सीमें निश्चित अवधि के लिये कार्य किया है , उसे मालूम था कि उसने निश्चित अवधि में निश्चित व्यक्ति के छुट्टी पर जाने पर उसके एवज में अस्थाई रूप में कार्य किया है और वह हमेशा उसके संवर्ग में अकेला अस्थाई कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति के रूप में कार्यरत था इस तथ्य को उसने

इस बिन्दु को सिद्ध करने का भार प्रार्थी श्रमिक पर था । इस सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी रामकुमार शर्मा ने साक्ष्य के दौरान प्रस्तुत किये गये अपने शपथपत्र में क्लेम के तथ्यों की पुनरावर्ती करते हुए स्वयं को सेना से 1-6-79 से सेवानिवृत होना एवम् अप्रार्थी बैंक की नीति के अनुसार 5-2-84 से अप्रार्थी के अधीन मौखिक आदेश से दैनिक वेतन सुरक्षा गार्ड के स्थाई पद पर नियुक्ति होना बताया और यह भी अंकित किया है किउस समय वृत में 11 सुरक्षा गार्ड व 2 मैसेन्जर के पद रिक्त थे । प्रार्थी कीउक्तनियुक्ति को स्थाईकरण करने के लिये जिला सैनिक बोर्ड ने पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू 1 दिया जो प्रार्थी ने बैंक द्वारा प्रदत्त किये गये अनुभव प्रमाणपत्र के साथ अप्रार्थी बैंक को प्रेषित कर दिया । इस पर गार्ड के पद पर स्थाई नियुक्ति हेतु साक्षात्कार के लिये प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-3 द्वारा आमंत्रित किया जहां प्रार्थी 11-6-84 को उपस्थित हुआ। प्रार्थी ने अपनी नियुक्ति दिनांक 5-2-84 से 16-1-85 तक निष्ठा और मुस्तैदी से कार्य किया । दुर्गादान भी आर्मी सर्विस कौर में नियुक्त कमी है जिसे सुरक्षा गार्ड के 311 G1/05-16 1440

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

इण्टरव्यूकरके की गयी थी । हरफूलसिंह व श्योनारायण की नियुक्ति बोर्ड द्वारा चयन करने के उपरान्त मुझे निकालने के बाद चूरु शाखा में 2-4महीनों के बाद की गयी थी । इस बाबत मैंने कोई कागजात पेश नहीं किये हैं ।

1 स्थाई पद पर नियुक्ति दी गई थी और 16-1-85 को अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को बिना कोई कारण बताये व सुरक्षा गार्ड को वरिष्ठता सूची प्रकाशित किये 16-1-85 से प्रार्थी को मौखिक आदेश से सेवामुक्त करदिया और एक माह का नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन एवम् सेवा सम्बन्धित मुआवजा भी नहींदिया । प्रार्थी अधिकारियों से बहाली हेतु निरन्तर प्रार्थना करता रहा परन्तु प्रार्थी को बहाल नहीं किया और प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्ति के पश्चात्सर्वश्री मोहन सिंह, श्रीचन्द, मिश्रीलाल, बलबीर, छाजुराम आदि को अन्यत्र सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर नियुक्तियां प्रदान कर दी गयीं जबकि 11-6-84 को प्रार्थी सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद हेतु साक्षात्कार दे चुका था, प्रार्थी द्वारा इस विसंगति के सम्बन्ध में प्रतिवेदन प्रस्तुत करने पर कार्मिक प्रबन्धक के पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 व 5 द्वारा सूचित किया गया कि ए०एस ०सी० सैन्य निकाय से सम्बन्धित भूतपूर्व सैनिकों को सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर नियुक्ति के पात्र नहीं माना जाता है जबकि इसी सैन्य निकाय से सम्बन्धित अन्य व्यक्तियों श्री दुर्गादान आदि को नियुक्तियां दी गयी और अन्य स्थानों से चूरु स्थानान्तरित किया गया । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-6-7 से स्पष्ट है कि ए ० एस ० सी ० से सेवानिवृत सैनिक अप्रार्थी बैंक व अन्य बैंकों में सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर नियुक्त है ।16-1-85 से इस सेवामुक्ति के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी द्वारा 25-10-86 को विवाद प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें असफल समझौता वार्ता केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-5-87 को प्राप्त हुई परन्तु केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा विवाद अधिकरण को प्रेषित करने से इन्कार करने पर माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय में रिट याचिका प्रस्तुत की गयी जिसमें केय सरकार को उसकी सेवामुक्ति 16-1-85 से सम्बन्धित विवाद अधिनिर्णयार्थ प्रेषित करने का निर्देश दिया गया जिस पर विवाद केन्द्रीय सरकार श्रम न्यायालय जोधपुर 21-1-97 को प्रेषित किया था जो4-4-97 को इस अधिकरण में स्थानान्तरित हुआ है । मेरी सेवामुक्ति 16-1-85 प्रथमदृष्टया अनुचित एवम् अवैध थी इसी कारण सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद हेतु पुनः साक्षात्कार लिया गया और 2-4-92 से नई नियुक्ति करने की योजना की गयी और मैं 3-4-92 से अप्रार्थी बैंक की सार्दुलशहर शाखा में कार्यरत हूं। मैं 16-1-85 से 2-4-92 तक बेरोजगार रहा हूं और इस दौरान आर्थिक कठिनाई उठाई है फिर भी अप्रार्थी ने मुझे परेशान व हैरान करने के लिये प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-9 व 10 जारी किये हैं । गवाह ने प्रतिपरीक्षण में बताया है कि मेरे द्वारा किये गये गार्ड के कार्य का इन्द्राज प्रदर्श एम -1 में होता था परन्तु मैसेन्जर के कार्य का इन्द्राज नहीं होता था । क्लेम में मैंने मेरे द्वारा मैसेन्जर के कार्य का उल्लेख भूल से रह गया है तथा शपथपत्र में भी मैसेन्जर के कार्य करने का उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है, इस शपथपत्र में भी कोई उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है । यह सहीहै किगार्ड की अस्थाई नियुक्ति के लिए बैंक मैनेजर ही नियुक्ति देते हैं और स्थाई नियुक्ति बोर्ड द्वारा की जाती है । पत्र प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-4 व 5 प्राप्त हुए थे, मैं सेना में आर्मी सर्विस कौर में था जिसमें गनलेकर चौकी पर ले जाना और इसके बाद पुनः खाली होने पर सफाई करके पुनः जवानों के पास ले जाने का काम था । मैंने 1965 व 1971 के युद्ध में भाग लिया था जिसका उल्लेख डिस्चार्ज बुक में होता है जो मैंने बैंक में पेश कर दिया था । यह कहना गलत है कि किसी गार्ड के नहीं आने पर मैं काम करता हूं, मुझसे 5 दिन गार्ड कीऔर 2 दिन मैसेन्जर की ड्यूटीलेते थे । मुझे गार्ड की ड्यूटी का पेमेन्ट मिल चुका है, मैसेन्जर के काम का वेतन नहीं मिला है । मैं स्थाई व्यक्ति था, मैसेन्जर का भुगतान नहीं मिलने की मैंने कोई शिकायत नहीं की । मैं दिनांक 2-4-92 से लंगातार सार्दुलशहर भारतीय स्टेट बैंक शाखा में काम कर रहा हूं । 16- 1-85 से 1-4-92 के बीच मैं घर पर ही रहा कहीं पर काम नहीं किया । 15-1-85 के बाद मुझसे कनिष्ठ कोई गार्ड नियुक्त नहीं हुआ । स्थाई गार्ड के रूप में हरफूलसिंह व अन्य को इस शाखा में नियुक्ति दी गयी है । इनको अस्थाई गार्ड के पद पर नहीं रखा था । इनकी नियुक्ति बोर्ड द्वारा

इसी सम्बन्ध में नियोजक के गवाह आर ०एन ० शर्मा ने अपने शपथपत्र में जवाब के तथ्यों की पुनरावर्ती करते हुए बताया कि यह गलत है कि 5-2-85 से प्रार्थी को सुरक्षागार्ड गनमैन के पद पर नियुक्त किया हो और वह 15-1-85 तक लगातार कार्यरत रहा हो , सुरक्षा गार्ड की ड्यूटी मैसेन्जर की नहीं होती है । यह गलत है कि 16-1-85 से अप्रार्थी के मौखिक आदेश से प्रार्थी की सेवायें बतौर छंटनी समाप्त की हों । प्रार्थी ने पिछले एक वर्ष में 240 दिन लगातार कार्य नहीं किया था । यह कहना गलत है कि बैंक में स्थाई पद होते हुए भी प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त करके कनिष्ठ कर्मचारियों को सेवा में बनाये रखा हो और नई नियुक्तियां दी गयी हों और इसी कारण प्रार्थी ने सहायक श्रम आयुक्त जयपुर के समक्ष विवाद उठाया हो । यह गलत है कि प्रार्थी को सेवा की निरन्तरता और वरिष्ठता तथा सभी देय लाभों से वंचित होना पड़ा । प्रार्थी 16-1-85 से 2-4-92 तक की अवधि में बकाया वेतन भत्ते, सेवा की निरन्तरता व वरिष्ठता का लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । यह गलत है कि अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी को अवैध , अनुचित व गैर कानूनी रूप से सेवा से पृथक किया हो । प्रार्थी ने यह तथ्य छुपाये हैं कि उसने जब भी कार्य किया तब किसी अन्य गार्ड की लीव वैकेन्सी में निश्चित अवधि के लिये अस्थाई रूप से ही कार्य किया जिसकी जानकारी प्रार्थी को थी । प्रार्थी हमेशा उसके संवर्ग में अकेला अस्थाई कनिष्ठ व्यक्ति के रूप में कार्य करता था । एक प्रकार से प्रार्थी आवश्यकता होने पर बदली कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य करता था, समझौते में अस्थाई कर्मचारियों की श्रेणी स्थाई कर्मचारी से भिन्न रखी गयी है । वर्ष 1985 तक प्रार्थी को जब- जब रखा गया अस्थाई तौर पर निश्चित अवधि के लिये लीव वैकेन्सी में ही रखा गया था जो सेवामुक्ति का मामला नहीं बनता है , प्रार्थी का हाजरी रजिस्टर प्रदर्श एम -1 है । हरफूलसिंह पुत्र शिवनारायण नाम का कोई गार्ड अप्रार्थी के यहां चूरु में कार्यरत नहीं रहा । प्रार्थी ने यह तथ्य छुपाया हैं कि हरफूलसिंह , दुर्गादान , मोहनसिंह, मिश्रीलाल, छाजुराम , बलब्बीर तथा श्रीचन्द नायक अप्रार्थी के अधीन चूरु में कार्यरत नहीं रहे थे और अन्यत्र कार्यरत रहे कर्मचारियों का मुकाबला प्रार्थी से नहीं हो सकता । स्थाई कर्मचारी की नियुक्ति के अधिकार अप्रार्थी शाखा प्रबन्धक चूरु को नहीं है , स्थाई कर्मचारियों के चयन के लिये नियम व प्रक्रिया बनी हुई है जो प्रक्रिया पूर्ण करके ही स्थाई कर्मचारी नियुक्त किये जाते हैं, अप्रार्थी की जानकारी के अनुसार श्री दुर्गादान सीकर शाखा में, मोहनसिंह रायसिंहनगर शाखा में, हरफूलसिंह रतनगढ़ शाखा में , मिश्रीलाल गंगानगर शाखा में, बलबीर भिवाड़ी शाखा में और छाजुराम अलवर महल चौक शाखा में तैनात हैं जो अप्रार्थी शाखा प्रवन्धक चूरु के अधीन नियोजित नहीं रहे , प्रार्थी इनसे मुकाबला नहीं कर सकता । अप्रार्थी स्थाई नियमित कर्मचारियों की नियुक्ति हेतु सक्षम व्यक्ति नहीं है बल्कि उसकी नियुक्ति साक्षात्कार व चयन समिति करती है , प्रार्थी का जब से चयन हुआ तब से वह कार्यरत है । न्यायालय चयन कमेटी का कार्य नहीं कर सकता है । प्रार्थी ने ऐसे किसी कर्मचारी का नाम नहीं बताया है जो 18-1-85 को प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ सुरक्षा गार्ड हो और चूरु शाखा में कार्यरत हो । दुर्गादान को चयन 7-4-80 , हरफूल , मूलचन्द व श्योनारायण को जून , 84 में चयनित किया गया था । मोहनसिंह को बीकानेर के लिये 26-11-87 को छाजुराम को सार्दुलशहर के लिये 22-5-90 को व मिश्रीलाल को 1993 में चयनित किया गया था । इनमें से किसी भी व्यक्ति की नियुक्ति शाखा प्रबंधक द्वारा नहीं की गयी है । बैंक का सेटलमेंट प्रदर्श एम -2 , एग्रीमेंट प्रदर्श एम-3 व पत्र प्रदर्श एम -4 व 6 तथा रामकुमार का 1441 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

प्रार्थना पत्र प्रदर्श एम-5 है । शाखा प्रबन्धक द्वारा अल्प अवधि के लिये बदली के रूप में अस्थाई तौर पर आवश्यकतानुसार पूर्व स्वीकृति पर काम चलाने के लिये नियुक्ति की जाती है जो निश्चित अवधि के बाद स्वतः ही समाप्त हो जाती है । गवाह ने प्रतिपरीक्षण में बताया कि रामकुमार कोकाम पर मेरे पूर्व मैनेजर ने नियुक्त किया था । प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-2 पर ए तथा बी मेरे हस्ताक्षर हैं जो प्रमाण पत्र सही है, मैंने मेरे चूरु कार्यकाल में दुर्गादान को नियुक्त नहीं किया । उस समय चूरु में दो पद मैसेन्जर के और तीन पद सुरक्षा गार्ड के थे जिन पर तीन आदमी लगे हुए थे । यह कहना गलत है कि चूरु में उस समय सुरक्षा गार्ड के 11 पद हों । रामकुमार को हटाते समय 16-1-85 को मैं चूरु बैंक में मैनेजर नहीं था । रामकुमार बदली श्रमिक था इसलिए जितने दिन काम किया उतने दिनों का भुगतान किया जा चुका है । मोहनसिंह , श्रीचन्द, मिश्रीलाल, बलबीर, छाजुराम , हरफूलसिंह व शिवनारायण की नियुक्तिचूरु में नहीं हुई है , नियुक्ति देने का काम रिक्रूटमेंट सेल ( रीजनल सेल ) जयपुर का है।

प्रार्थना पर ही नियोजक द्वारा श्रमिक की उपस्थिति बाबत रजिस्टर प्रदर्श एम -1 प्रस्तुत किया गया है । नियोजक के साक्षी परशुराम खेमका के ब्यान से यह सिद्ध होता है कि उसके अधीन श्रमिक ने लीव वैकेन्सी की एवज में कुल 19 दिन ही काम किया है । इस तथ्य का श्रमिक ने जरा भी खण्डन नहींकिया है और श्रमिक ने नियोजक द्वारा प्रस्तुत रजिस्टर प्रदर्श एम-1 का बिल्कुल भी खंडन नहीं किया है । प्रदर्श एम -1 रजिस्टर के अवलोकन से पाया जाता है कि श्रमिक का कार्यकाल लगातार नहीं था वर्ष 84 में फरवरी माह में श्रमिक का कार्यकाल 5-6-7-13-16-17- 18-19-20-26-27 तिथियों का था । इसी प्रकार मार्च 84 में कार्यकाल 2-3-6-7-8-9-12-13-15-16-19-20-25-30 व 31 मार्च का ही था । ऐसी ही स्थिति माह अप्रैल, मई , जून, जुलाई , अक्तूबर, नवम्बर, दिसम्बर 84 व जनवरी 85 की है । अर्थात प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा किसी भी माह में पूरे माह तक कार्य करना प्रमाणित नहीं होता है ऐसे में नियोजक के इसकथन को बल मिलता है कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति बदली श्रमिक के रूप में की गयी थी । अर्थात् जब कोई सुरक्षा गार्ड अनुपस्थित होता था तो अस्थाई तौर पर निश्चित अवधि के लिये प्रार्थी की बदली श्रमिक के रूप में सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर नियुक्त किया जाता था एवम् स्थाई नियुक्तिके अधिकार शाखा प्रबन्धक को नहीं है , स्वयं प्रार्थी स्वीकार करता है कि स्थाई गार्ड के पद पर नियुक्ति बोर्ड द्वारा ही की जाती है और वह स्वयं भी बोर्ड में साक्षात्कार देने गया था । प्रदर्श एम -1 से प्रार्थी श्रमिक द्वारा मैसेन्जर की ड्यूटी देना प्रमाणित नहीं होता है । प्रार्थी ने किसी भी रूप में यह सिद्ध नहीं किया है कि उसकी सेवा समाप्ति के समय उससे कनिष्ठ गार्ड अप्रार्थी के अधीन कार्यरत था । प्रार्थी ने ऐसे किसी कर्मकार का नाम भी नहीं बताया है जो प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ हो और 16-1-85 को अप्रार्थी के नियोजन में कार्यरत हो । प्रार्थी ने जिन अन्य श्रमिकों का उल्लेख किया है उनकी नियुक्ति अप्रार्थी शाखा प्रबन्धक चूरू के अधीन होना एवम् शाखा प्रबन्धक द्वारा किया जाना किसी भी रूप में प्रमाणित नहींहोता है । स्वयं प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथपत्र की चरण सं० 13 में स्वीकार किया है कि सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर प्रार्थी का साक्षात्कार लिया जाकर उसे चयनित किया गया और उसे 2-4-92 से नियुक्ति दी गयी । परन्तु प्रार्थी ने यह नहीं बताया है कि यह नियुक्ति क्याा शाखा प्रबन्धक चूरू द्वारा दी गई है बल्कि प्रार्थी ने स्वीकार किया है कि वह साक्षात्कार के पश्चात् 3-4-92 से अप्रार्थी बैंक को सार्दुलशहर शाखा में सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर कार्यरत है । इससे यह भी स्पष्ट होता है कि अप्रार्थी शाखा प्रबन्धक चूरू स्वयं से भिन्न ईकाई शाखा शादुलपुर में प्रार्थी को नियुक्त कैसे कर सकता है ।

इसी सम्बन्ध में नियोजक के एक अन्य साक्षी परशुराम खेमका ने भी अपने शपथपत्रमें जबाब के तथ्यों की पुनरावर्ती करते हुए बताया है कि मेरे समय में रामकुमार शर्मा से मैसेन्जर के पद का काम नहीं करवाया गया । जब कोई अन्य गार्ड नहीं आता था तब उसकी लीव वैकेन्सीमें ही अस्थाई निश्चित अवधि के लिये ही प्रार्थी से काम करवाया जाता था । जिसका इन्द्राज प्रदर्श एम -1 रजिस्टर में है एवम् फोटो प्रति प्रदर्श एम -1 / 1 ए से एम-4 ए है । यह गलत है कि 16-1-85 से पूर्व प्रार्थी ने 240 दिन लगातार काम किया हो और मैने 16-1-85 से रामकुमार कीसेवायें समाप्त की हों । प्रार्थी को यह मालूम था कि उसे 15-1-85 तक लीव वैकेन्सीमें ही काम करना है इसलिए वह स्वयं ही 16-1-85 से कार्य पर उपस्थित नहीं आया । मेरे कार्यकाल में कोई वैकेन्सी नहीं निकली तथा जब भी लीव वैकेन्सी होती तो हम गार्ड के काम के लिये रख लेते थे । मेरी कार्य अवधि में रामकुमार से कनिष्ठ कोई व्यक्ति कार्यरत नहीं था । मैं दिनांक 5-2-84 को चूरु शाखा में पदस्थापित नहीं था। मैंने जुलाई 84 में ड्यूटी ज्वाइन की थी तब रामकुमार शर्मा वहां पदस्थापित नहीं था । रामकुमार ने मेरे कार्यकाल में 22-7-84, 24-7-84, 15/16-10-84, 22/ 23-10-84 , 7-11-84 , 12/13- 11-84, 19-11-84, 21-11-84 , 11 /12-12-84, 17-12-84, 27- 12-84 , 7-1-85 , 8-1-85, 9-1-85 एवम् 15-1-85 को मेरे कार्यकाल में कार्य किया है जो लीव वैकेन्सी की एवज में काम किया है । किन-किन गार्ड की एवज में काम किया है नाम याद नहीं है । रामकुमार से गार्ड रजिस्टर में उपस्थिति लगाकर कार्य लिया जाता था । यह कहना गलत है कि रामकुमार रोजाना मेरे पास आकर अपनी हाजरी देता हो , मेरेहिसाब से रामकुमार ने मेरे अधीन कुल 19 दिन ही काम किया है और 16-1-85 के बाद मेरे कार्यकाल में कोई लीव वैकेन्सी नहीं हुई । दुर्गादान की नियुक्ति 1980 के आस - पास गुजरात में हुई थी । गार्ड या गनमैंन की नियुक्तिके लिये अलग से चयन समिति है जिसकी अलग प्रक्रिया है । यह सही है कि चैस्ट ब्रांच में कम से कम तीन गार्ड होने चाहिए तथा तीन गार्ड से कम होने पर अस्थाई लीव वैकेन्सी पर अस्थाई गार्ड रखे जाते हैं एवम् गार्ड की कमी को पूरा करने का अधिकार मैनेजर को है ।

इस उपरोक्त विवेचन से एक तथ्य भली प्रकार सिद्ध होता है कि अप्रार्थी व्यवस्थापक भारतीय स्टेट बैंक चूरू प्रार्थी को स्थाई नियुक्ति , देने में किसी भी रूप में सक्षम नहीं था । शाखा प्रबन्धक द्वारा केवल लीव वैकेन्सीके आधार पर बदली श्रमिकं के आधार पर ही अस्थाई तौर पर सुरक्षा गार्ड के पद पर नियुक्ति की जाती है । जब प्रार्थी की बदली श्रमिक के रूप में ही नियुक्त किया गया था तो उक्त अस्थाई अवधि समाप्त होने पर प्रार्थी का अस्थाई कार्यकाल 16-1-85 से आगे नहीं बढ़ाने के कारण हुई सेवामुक्ति को छंटनी नहीं माना जा सकता। प्रकरण में विचारणीय बिन्दु यही है कि क्या प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मकारों को सेवा में रखते हुए प्रार्थी को सेवामुक्त किया गया। इसकी पुष्टि में प्रार्थी ने तो किसी प्रकार की कोई सारवान साक्ष्य अथवा प्रमाण प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है । प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य से तो अप्रार्थी द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति अथवा छंटनी करना ही नहीं पाया जाता है । अतः तथ्यों की भिन्नता के कारण 1997 ( 2 ) एल० एल ० एन ० 31 में सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया विरुद्ध एस ० सत्यम व अन्य के प्रकरण में माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा 7. विद्वान पक्षकारों की बहस एवम् पत्रावली के अवलोकन से हम देखते हैं कि प्रार्थी ने तो गार्ड के स्थाई पद पर अपनी नियुक्ति 5-2-84 से होनी एवम् 15-1-85 तक निरन्तर इस पद पर कार्य करना एवम् 16-1-85 से अपनी सेवायें समाप्त करना बतलाया है , गार्ड के रिक्त पद पर आवेदन प्रदर्श डब्ल्यू-1 बतलाता है तथा श्रमिक की 1442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

एवम् 2002 ( 2 ) एल ० एल ० एन ० 700 में अरावली क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक विरुद्ध पीठासीन अधिकारी , केन्द्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण व अन्य के प्रकरण में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा प्रतिपादित सिद्धान्त कालाभ प्रार्थी को नहीं दिया जा सकता है । प्रार्थी ने बदली श्रमिक के रूप में भी 240दिन कार्य नहीं किया है। प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै। प्रार्थी यह सिद्ध नहीं कर सका है कि16-1-85 से उसकी सेवाएं बतौर छंटनी समाप्त की गयी एवम् प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मकारों को सेवा में नियोजित रखा । अतः प्रार्थी कोई राहत व राशि प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

8. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित इस प्रसंग को उत्तरित करते हुए यह पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक आर ० के ० शर्मा को अप्रार्थी प्रबन्धक, भारतीय स्टेट बैंक चूरू द्वारा 16-1-85 से बतौर छंटनी सेवामुक्त किया जाना प्रमाणित नहीं है एवम् प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मकारों को सेवा में नियोजित नहीं रखा है । अतः प्रार्थी कोई राहत व राशि प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

उक्त अधिनिर्णय अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत प्रकाशनार्थ केन्द्रीय सरकार को भेजा जावे ।

9. आज्ञा आज दिनांक 6-10-2004 को विवृत न्यायालय में सुनाई गई ।

के० एल ० माथुर, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2005

का०आ० 495.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 59/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-41012/215/ 2002- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

बी० एम० डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th January , 2005

S.O. 495. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. 59/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Luknow now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workınan, which was received by the Central Government on 20-01-05 .

[No. L-41012/215/2002 - IR (B - I ) ]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer I.D. No.: 59/2003 Ref. No : L-42012/215/2002 - IR (B - I) Dated: 13-5-2003

[PART II S3 (ii) ] BETWEEN:

The Divisional Organization Secretary. Uttar Railway Karmchari Union, 283/63, Kha Garhi Kanora (Premvati Nagar ) PO-Manaknagar, Lucknow- 226001

(In matter ofRam Adhar Mishra)

AND

The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, DRM Office, Hazratganj , Lucknow - 226001 / DME (P)

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L - 41012/ 215/ 2002 ( IR (B - I ) dated : 13-5-2003 has referred following issue for adjudicationto the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court, Lucknow.

" क्या प्रबन्धन उत्तर रेलवे , लखनऊ द्वारा श्री राम अधार मिश्रा पुत्र श्री यदु मिश्रा को वर्ष 1996 से ' शन्टर ' पद पर पदोन्नति नहीं किया जाना न्यायोचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं वो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का अधिकारी है ? "

Brief facts of trade union are that worker, Shri Ram Adhar Mishra was selected as cleaner at Serial No. 1 ofthe panel in the year 1978-79 . Further , he was promoted as second fire man on 25-5-83 and again on 20-9-89 he was promoted to post of first fire man and vide letter No. 847 E/ 1-4/First Fire Man/Diesel Asstt . dated 7-7-93 , he was made as Diesel Asstt . Juniors to Shri Ram Adhar Mishra were promoted as Shunter in the year 1996 but Shri Ram Adhar Mishra was not promoted though he was senior to those promoted in the year 96. It is further alleged that the worker was promoted in the year 98 as Shunter .

Theopposite party has filed written statement and has denied the claim of the worker and it has been alleged thatShri Ram Adhar Mishra was guilty and punished by Railway management after issuing the SF - 5 . The Railway management imposed the punishment for two years w.e.f. 11-4-96. The worker preferred the departmental appeal under D & A Rules and the punishment was reduced for one year instead of two years lower grade . This real fact is concealed by the worker union and raised the present industrial dispute on the fake and frivolous grounds . On the basis of aforesaid punishment the worker , Shri Ram Adhar Mishra could not be promoted in year 1996 as Shunter along with other junior workers. The Railway management promoted the workman on the post of Shunter on 12-11-97 when the punishment was completed and provided him all benefits according to the rules. It is also pointed out that Shri Ram Adhar Mishra is posted as DriverGoods w.c.f. 25-3-03 by Railway management and no discrimination against the workman is done by Railway management .

The trade union has filed rejoinder and has not specifically denied the punishment imposed upon him . However, in para 5 of the rejoinder the trade union has alleged that the worker oughtto have been made Shunter inthe year 1998.

1443

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग-II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 24th January , 2005 The worker has filed photo state copy of Notice No. 755 E/ 1-3/88 dated 29-9-89 , wherein the name of Shri Ram Adhar Mishra finds place at serial No. 177. The trade union has also filed the photo copy of Notice No. 757 E / 1-1 /Dr . Goods dated 4-8-98 regarding posting of Driver Goods.

S.O. 496. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-1-2005

[No. L - 12011/ 9/2004 - IR(B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

The worker has also filed photo state copy of Northern Railway letter No. 220 - E/ 1-5 /Screening/ 79. dated 23-10-79 , regarding panel ( Screened lists ) of loco cleaners and other class IV categories in Mechanical Loco Deptt . , together with statement showing names of candidates found suitable by the screening committee for the post of Cleaners in Mech. (Loco ) Department , wherein the name of worker finds place at serial No. 1 .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT

" Shram Sadan" , G.G. Palya, Tumkur Road , Yeshwantpur , Bangalore- 560 022 .

DATED : 12th January 2005 The opposite party has filed the carbon copy of letter ofNorthern Railway No. E/A.K . Mishra/ Shunter/Loose dated 26-12-2003 , wherein it is written that Shri Ram Adhar Mishra could not be promoted as Shunter in the year 1996 as he was punished and as a result of his appeal the punishment was reduced for 1 year and due to this reason Shri Ram Adhar Mishra was not promoted in the year 1996. It is further written that immediately after punishment was over Shri Ram Adhar Mishra was promoted on 12-11-97 .

PRESENT : Shri A. R SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 32/2004

IParty

IIParty The trade union has not examined the worker to disprove that he punished on 11-4-96 and thereafter he was promoted on 12-11-97. The worker has not specifically denied the allegation of punishment .

The State Secretary . Canara Bank Employees Union C. S. Sadan, 11 Floor , No. 88 , J. C. Road , Shell House, BANGALORE -560002 .

The Management , Canara Bank , HeadOffice , No. 112 , JC Road , P B. No. 6648 , BANGALORE - 560 002 .

APPEARANCES :

The issue referred is whether the action of the Norther Railway management is not promoting the worker. Shri Ram Adhar Mishra in the year 1996 is legal and proper. Since the worker was punished in the year 1996 and after the punishment period was over he was promoted on 12-11-97. Therefore , the action of the management is not illegal or unjustified.

Shri N. S. Narasimha

1Party

Swamy Advocate

IlParty

Shri T. R. K. Prasad Advocate The worker in para 5 of rejoinder has alleged that the worker ought to have been promoted in the year 98 as Shunter. It is noteworthy that worker has been promoted as Shunter on 12-11-97 .

AWARD

On the discussion I come to conclusion that the management's action in not promoting the worker as Shunter in year 1996 is neither illegal nor unjustified. The issue is therefore , answered in affirmative and the worker therefore is not entitled to any relief. 10-1-2005

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby Clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 hasreferred this dispute vide Order No. L - 12011/ 9/2004/ IR(B - II ) dated 2-06-2004 for adjudication on the following schedule :

Lucknow

SCHEDULE

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2005

"Whether the management of Canara Bank is justified in denying regularization of services of Sh . -Channavenkataiah , Partime employee of SuggenahalliBranch w.e.f. 27-8-1998 ? If not, what relief theworkman is entitled to and from which date ? " का.आ. 496.- 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 बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/9/2004- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

2. After the receipt of the reference from the Government , it was registered and notices were taken against the parties . Both the parties made appearances through counsels . From 31-08-2004 till 06-12-2004 case under went several adjournments giving opportunity to the I party to register his Claim Statement, but he failed to do so. II party management also have not filed their Counter Statement .

1444

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

3 In the instant case though as per the points of reference preliminary burden was cast upon the management to justify its action in denying Regularizations of Services of the I party workman , but , as iz same time , itwas the burden duty for the I party workman to have put forth his claim giving out facts on the basis of which he claimed Regularization of his services by the Management. For the conduct of the I party workman in not filing his Claim Statement despite the reasonable opportunity was given to him to do so , what appears that he is no more interested in the prosecution of his case . Therefore , no useful purpose will be served in keeping the case any more pending. Hence , the following award :

ORDER

Reference is rejected for non - prosecution.

(Dictated to the L.D.C. transcribed by him , correct and signed by me on 12th January, 2005 )

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी, 2005

का.आ. 497.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिसेस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बैगंलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/321/99- आई. आर. ( डी यू.) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th January, 2005

S.O. 497. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 14/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Lab our Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sr. Superintendent of Post off ices and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-05 .

[No. L-40012/321 / 99 - IR (IOU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT " SHRAM SADAN" ,

III MAIN , III CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAID , YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE- 560002.

DATED : 4th January 2005

PRESENT : Shri A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer C. R. No. 14/2000

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii )]

IParty

Shri Shivanagowda

Basavangowda Patil,

The Sr. Superintendent ofPost Offices , Postal Department , Bijapur Division, Bijapur.

C/ oMallikarjuna , Conductor , KSRTC , Bidarakundi Muddebihal,

Bijaipur - 586 104.

AWARD

1. The Central Governmentby exercising the powers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L - 40012 /321 /99 / IR (DU ) dated 27th January 2000 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Bijapur Division , Bijapur in terminating the services of Shri Shivana Gowda Basana Gowda Patil w.e.f. 18-4-98 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2. The case of the first party workman , as made in his Claim Statement , in brief, is that he was appointed as EDBPM atBidarkundi but no written order of appointment was issued to him stating that his appointment was temporary and was liable for termination at any time and without any prior notice; that first party was being paid Rs . 1285 per month since 3-10-96 and he has completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the aforesaid post: that the Second party is governed by the Employment Exchange's Act which required the management to call for unfilled postfrom the Employment Exchange office and accordingly a list was issued by Employment Exchange including his name and he was issued a notice to appear in the selection test and he participated in the selection process . The management issued a letter of appointment to the first party and one other name Shri M.N. Arsanal . Butthercafter to his shock the Respondent cancelled the said appointment letter; that the first party sent legal notice but there was no answer from the management . That the action of the management taking charge of the said post from the first party without payment of retrenchment compensation and without notice in violation of Section 25F ofIndustrial Dispute Act . Therefore , he is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages , continuity of service and all other consequential benefits .

3. The Management have filed their counter statement and have contended that the first party was appointed as EDBPM at Bidarkundi in the place of the regular incumbent as a timely arrangement as the regular incumbent was put off for a disciplinary action involved in a fraud case . The first party was taken on stop gap arrangement to look after the work. This was only a timely arrangement made by the Second Party Respondent No. 2 and there was no appointment letter issued to the first party , as he was only a substitute in the place of the regular incumbent . While admitting the fact that the party being paid Rs. 1285 per month from 3-10-86 , it further contended 1445 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2005/ माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

that he was not completed 240 days of continuous service while working as a substitute on a stop gap anrangement . He is covered by Extra Departmental Agents conduct and service rules and therefore , does not come under the Industrial Dispute Act and this tribunal is not a proper forum to claim reinstatement with backwages . While , admitting the fact that the management is governed by the Employment Exchange Act and the first party was issued notice to appear in the selection test , it was contended that he was not selected as he had secured less marks than the other candidates , therefore , after tlte selection of candidate the first party was issued termination letter accordingly as he was only a stop gap arrangement . Therefore , he is not entitled for the relief sought for.

to supra I find substance in the arguments advanced by the Second Party Management . In his affidavit the above said Assistant Superintendent has reiterated the various contentions taken by the management in their counter statement and has also spoken to the aforesaid 3 documents at Ex . M1 to M3 . This statement of MW1 , as noted above , has gone un - challenged and uncontroverted on the part of the first party there being no cross examination to him on his behalf . From the above statement of MW1 it is very much evident that services of the first party were taken on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement for the post fell vacant on the regular employee being suspended from service facing a disciplinary proceeding . It is further seen from the statement of MW 1 that in order to fill up the vacancy for the above said post held by the first party temporarily , name of the first party as well as names of other candidates were got sponsored through Employment Exchange and in pursuance to that a selection test was held and at the result of the said test one Mr. Ibrahim . N , Bidarkundi was selected for the said post and thereafter services of the firstparty were terminated.

4. During the course of trial the management examined one withness by filing an affidavit of one A.V. Gaikwad , Assistant Superintendent, Office of the Senior Superintendent of post offices , Bijapur and he was examined in chief further to mark the documents at Ex . MI to M3. There was no cross examination to the said witness on behalf of the first party . Whereas the first party examined himself as WWI and got marked one docuinent atEx. WI .

5. When the inatter was taken up for argument: s , learned counsel for the first party remained absent and whereas the learned counsel for the Second Party after having advanced the arguments filed a meino with a copy ofa decision dated 18-8-01 rendered by the Division Bench ofHon'ble High Court in Writ Petition Nos . 213-333/2000 and a copy of the award passed by this tribunal dated 2-8-02 in CR No. 75/00 .

7. From the persual of the appointment order issued infavour of the first party marked before this tribunal at Ex. Ml it is further seen that his appointment was on temporary basis as a short gap arrangement ' . This fact is further admitted by the first party in his cross examination statirag that he was taken as temporary worker but he denied that any appointment order was issued in his favour. He further admitted that the post held by him was vacant on account of enquiry and he was taken on temporary basis .He further admitted that he was taken as daily wager . Therefore , froin the statement of MW1 , the appointment order at Ex. Ml as well as from the statement of the first party himself in his cross examination there remains absolutely no doubt to come to the conclusion that the appointment of the first party to the aforesaid post was by way of substitute in place of regular employee who was away from the post facing the disciplinary action . It is further borne out from the records as well as from the very avermeints made in the claim by the first party thatto fill up the above said vacancy there was a regular selection test held by the management calling for the names of the candidates through employment exchange and list furnished by the employment exchange of the candidates included the name of the first party. It is admitted by the firstparty himself that he participated in the selection test but was riot given regular posting despite his selection . This statement of first party that he was selected, but not giventhe posting has been falsified in the affidavit filed by the management witness referred to supra making it clear that in the selection test the first party did not secure the desired marks and that one Mr. Ibrahim who secured the higher marks , was selected for the post and accordingly the vacancy was filled up and the services of the first party were terminated. There is no reason for this tribunal to discard the statement of MWI made before this tribunal by way of affidavit , that too , when it was undenied and unchallenged on the part of the first party . Moreover, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions of our 6. Learned counsel for the management in his argument submitted that the services of the first party were taken on temporary basis on stop gap arrangement in the absence of regular official whose services were suspended pending Disciplinary action against him for a misconduct committed by him . Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the first party worked as a substitute in the place of the regular incumbent on a stop gap arrangement and cannot claim any relief against the manageinent and cannot make out a case that termination of his services illegally by the management . Learned counsel submitted that in support of this contention taken by the manageinent , affidavit of said Gaikwad , Assistant Superintendent has been filed before this tribunal along- with the copy of the appointment order issued in favour ofthe first party , the application filed by the first party seeking appointinent as well as tabular statement marked before this tribunal at Ex . Ml to M3 . He submitted that as per Ex. MI it is crystal clear that the first party was appointed temporarily as short gap arrangement and erefore, he has no right to challenge the order terminating his services . He further submitted the fact that the first party was appointed on temporary basis as a substitute to the regular employee is further proved from the very statement of the first party made in his cross examination before this tribunal . After going through the records and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case referred 1446

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23, 1926

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Hon'ble High Court , would make it abundantly clear that a person appointed as a substitute and as a stop gap arrangement so to say as a provisional employment has got no right to claim the status of a regular employce . In this instant case also the services rendered by the first party were provisional in nature discharging his duties temporarily as a stop gap arrangement when the above said post fell vacant on account of regular employce facing the disciplinary proceedings .

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 a period of six inonths from the 5th February , 2005.

[No. S - 11017/ 11 /97-1R( PL) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2005

8. In the result the action taken by the management terminating the services of the first party to fill up the aforesaid vacancy by selecting the candidates under the process of law is not challengeable and no relief can be given to the first party and therefore the present dispute raised by first party challenging the order terminating his services cannot be entertained and is liable to be rejected . Hence the following award :

AWARD

There reference is dismissed . No order to cost .

का.आ. 499.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( शुद्धि पत्र) ( संदर्भ संख्या 156/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । (Dictated to the PA transcribed by her, corrfted and signed by me on 4th January , 2005) A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2005

[सं. एल-20012/421/99- आई. आर. ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 25th January , 2005

S.O. 499. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the ( Corrigendum ) Award (Ref. No. 156/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Dhanbad - Il now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tisco and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-01-2005

का.आ. 498.-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 ( द ) के उप - खण्ड ( II ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसचूना संख्या का.आ. 1720 दिनांक 9-7-2004 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 5-8-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

No. L -20012/421/ 99 - IR( C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT (NO . 2), DHANBAD

No. Ref . 156/2001/151 Dated: 22nd December , 2004

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 5-2-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

| संख्या एस -11017/11/97- आई. आर. ( पी. एल. ) ]

जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 25th January, 2005

To Mr. N. P. Keshwan , DeskOfficer , Ministry of Labour, I: R. (C- I) Government of India . Shram Shakti Bhayvan New Delhi .

Subject : Corrigendum . [ Ministry's order of reference No. L - 20012 ( 421 ) 99 - IR ( C - I) dt . 2-2-2000 ] .

Sir,

With reference to Award passed in Ref. case No. 156/2001 sent througlı this office letter No. Ref. 156 /2001 / 3445 dt . 20-7-2004, it is intimated that above Award passed S.O. 498. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required that in pursuance of the provisions of sub - clause ( vi ) of the clause ( n ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 1720 dated 9-7-2004 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 a period of six months from the 5th August , 2004.

1 1448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 502.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चण्डीगढ़-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/ 96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/196/1995 - आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January , 2005 S.O. 502. ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 112/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court-1 . Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2005.

[No. L - 12012/ 196/ 1995 - IR(B - 1 ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL: CUM - LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER

CASE NO . L. D. 112/96

Dharam Raj S/ o Sh . Fateh Singh . Vill , & Post Sanghi , Distt . Teh . Rohtak , Haryana .

Applicant VERSUS Asst. General Manager . State Bank of india , Zonal Office . Haryana , Sector 8 - C. Chandigarh.

Respondent REPRESENTATIVE

For the workman:

Shri J.G. Verma

Shri V.K. Sharma

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 16.12.2004

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L - 12012/ 196/ 95 - I.R. ( B ) dated 18th December 1996. Has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Whether the action of the management of S.B.I. in not giving reference to Shri Dharam Raj at the time of

PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | re - employment as per Section 25 - H of 1.D. Act in just and legal ? If not , what relief is he entitled to . "

1. On the request of both the parties case taken up in Lok Adalat for settlement/disposal . Statement of A/R of workman recorded on SA. The representative of the workman made a statement to withdraw the present reference in the Lok Adalat as the case has been settled . In view of the statement of the rep. of the workman and management having no objection the reference is returned to Central Govt . as withdrawn . Central Govt . be informed File be consigned to record.

Announced. 16.12.2004

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2005

का.आ. 503.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 मार्च, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 (धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78, 79 ओर 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात:-

" जिला तथा तालुक कोल्लम में पुदुकुलम राजस्व ग्राम"

[सं. एस-38013/04/2005 - एस.एस.- 1 ]

के.सी. जैन, निदेशक MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 2nd February , 2005 S.O. 503. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (Except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI ( Except sub - section ( i ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely:-

"Revenue village of Puthukulam in Kollam Taluk of Kollam District . "

[No. S - 38013/04/2005 - SS - I ]

K.C. JAIN, Director नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2005

का.आ. 504-केन्द्रीय सरकार, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-91 क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त अधिनियम प्रवर्तन से मैसर्स जैसे संलग्न सूची में दर्शाया गया है में नियुक्त नियमित कर्मचारियों को [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

by this Tribunal but due to typegraphical mistake the name of Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Dhanbad instead of Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal No. 2. Dhanbad was typed in the head line of the 1st page of this Award . The mistake has duly been rectified . You are intimated to issue necessary Notification in this regard. A copy of the Notification is enclosed herewith for the needful .

Yoursfaithfully.

Enclo : As above .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005 का.आ. 500.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय चण्डीगढ़- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/96) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं . एल-12012/197/1995- आई. आर. ( बी. - 1 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delli . the 28th January , 2005

S.O. 500.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 54/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court- I . Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-01-2005

[No. L - 12012/ 197/ 1995 - IR (B - I ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - I , CHANDIGARH Case No. I. D. 54/96

Sh . Ram Phal S/ o Sh . Fateh Singh , Vill . & Post Sanghi , Tch . and Distt. Rohtak.

-Applicant Versus

DeputyGeneral Manager , State Bank of India , Region - III Zonal Office , Haryana , Sector 8 - C , Chandigarh .

-Respondent REPRESENTATIVE

For the workman :

Sh. J. G. Verma

Sh. V.K. Sharm For the management

311 GI 05 1

1447

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

AWARD

Passed on 16-12-2004

The Central Govt. Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L - 12012/ 197/ 95-1.R . (B ) dated 10th June . 1996.

Has referred the follwoing dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action of the managment of State Bank of India in not giving preference to Sh . Ram Phal , ex- casual worker at the time of re - emloyment as per Section 25 - H of the 1.D. Act, 1947 is just . fair & legal ? If not , what relief he is entitled? "

1. On the request of both the parties case taken up in Lok Adalat for settlement/disposal. Statement of A/ R ofworkman recorded on SA. The representative of the workman made a statement to withdraw the present reference in the Lok Adalat as the case has been settled . In view of the statement of the rep . of the workman and ınanagement having no objection the reference is returned to Central Govt . as withdrawn . Central Govt . be informed File be consigned to record.

Announced.

16-12-2004

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 501.- इस मंत्रालय के अधिसूचना संख्या एल- 12014/5/2004- आईआर( बी-1 ) दिनांक 15-12-2004 जो भारत सरकार मुद्रणालय, मायापुरी , नई दिल्ली में पंचाट दिनांक 28-8-2004 को प्रकाशन हेतु भेजा गया था जो कि श्रम न्यायालय , सोलापुर द्वारा औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 9/95 में पारित किया गया था, में प्रबंधतंत्र का नाम ' स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया ' के बजाय ' बैंक आफ इण्डिया ' पढ़ा जाए । अधिसूचना में संदर्भित मिसिल संख्या ' एल-12014/5/2004- आई आर ( बी- Ⅰ ) ' के बजाय ' एल -1.2011/40/1993 आई आर (बी- II ) ' पढ़ा जाए ।

[सं. एल-12011/40/1993- आई. आर. ( बी.- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरन, अवर सचिव CORRIGENDUM .

New Delhi . the 28th January . 2005

S.O. 501. In the Notification No. L - 12014/5 /2004- IR(B -I ) dated 15-12-2004 for publication of tlie award dated 28-8-2004 passed by Labour Court . Solapur in Industrial Dispute No. 9/95 in the Government of India Press. Mayapuri . New Delhi , the name ofthe management appearing as " State Bank of India" may be read as " Bank of India ". The File number contained in the Notification may be substituted as L - 12011/40 /93 - IR (B - II ) " .

[No. L - 12011 /40 /1993-1R (B - II ) | C. GANGADHARAN Under Secy .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

30-9-2006 तक की जिसमें यह दिनांक भी सम्मिलित है की अवधिके लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

2. पूर्वोक्त छूट की शर्तें निम्नलिखित हैं, अर्थात्: - ( 1) पूर्वोक्त कारखाना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगा, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदाभिधान दिखाये जायेंगे ,

( 2 ) इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे , जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अभिधायों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं,

(3 ) छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों तो वे वापस नहीं किए जायेंगे, (4) उक्त कारखाने का नियोजक, उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने पर उक्त अधिनियम प्रवर्तमान था, (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् " उक्त अवधि " कहा गया है ) ऐसी विवरणियों, ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देती थी । (5) निगम द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारीः

(i) धारा 44 की उक्तधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ,

( ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथा अपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं, या

(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी , नियोजक द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं, या

(iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबन्ध प्रवृत्त थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबन्धों का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं,

निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगाः

(अ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है,

(ब ) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और

1449 मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी देंजिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं, या

(स ) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की , उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्तिकी , जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए या ऐसे किसी व्यक्तिकि जिसके बारे में उक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के पास यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना, या

( द) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ।

फैक्टरी/संस्थान का नाम

क्रमांक

1. मैसर्स इन्डियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लि. ( मार्केटिंग डिवीजन ) , नई दिल्ली की सभी इकाइयां ।

2. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लि. मुंबई की सभी इकाइयां ।

3. मैसर्स भारत पैट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लि. मुंबई की सभी इकाइयां । 4. मैर्म्स इन्डियन ऑयल ब्लेण्डिंग लि. कोलकाता और ट्रांबे । 5. मैसर्स इन्डियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन ( रिफाइनरीज एण्ड पाइपलाइन डिवीजन ) गुवाहाटी ।

6. मैसर्स भारत हैवी इलैक्टीकलस लि. , बीएचईएल हाउस , सिरी फोर्ट रोड, नई दिल्ली की सभी इकाईयां । 7. मैसर्स मारूति उद्योग लि. गुडगांव, हरियाणा ।

8. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान ऐरोनॉटिक्स लि. , लखनऊ।

9. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान ऐरोनॉटिक्स लि. , कानपुर

10. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. , विशाखापट्टनम। 11. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. , उदयपुर एवं चित्तौडगढ़ , राजस्थान ।

12. मैसर्स नेशनल एल्यूमिनियम कम्पनी, लि. , विशाखापटटनम । 13. मैसर्स सैन्ट्रल इलैक्ट्रनिक्स लि. , साहिबाबाद ( उ. प्र. ) । 14. मैसर्स नेशनल फर्टिलाइजर्स कॉपरेटिव लि. , भटिंडा (पंजाब) ।

15. मैसर्स इन्डियन रेयर अर्थस लि. , उद्योगमंडल, केरल । 16. मैसर्स इन्स्ट्रूमेंटेशन लि. , कोटा ।

17. मैसर्स भारत इलैक्ट्रनिक्स लि. , गाजियाबाद ( उ.प्र. ) नई दिल्ली में उनका क्षेत्रिय कार्यालय और आगरा का सम्पर्क कार्यालय सहित ।

18. मैसर्स इन्डियन टेलीफोन इन्डस्ट्रीज लि. , रायबरेली ( उ.प्र. ) 19. मैसर्स कम्प्यूटर मेंटेनेन्स कार्पोरेशन, नई दिल्ली । 20. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान शिपयार्ड लि. , विशाखापट्टनम । 1450

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

क्रमांक

फैक्टरी/संस्थान का नाम

21. मैसर्स न्यूमंगलौर पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, मंगलौर ।

22. मैसर्स कोचीन शिपयार्ड लि. , कोचीन, केरल । 23. मैसर्स मारमुगाव पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, भारमुगाव ।

24. मैसर्स फील्ड वर्कशॉप एण्ड मैरिन वर्कशॉप ऑफ तूतीकोरिन पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, तूतीकोरिन ।

25. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान फोटो फिल्म्स मैनुफैक्चरिंग कम्पनी लि. चैन्नई ।

26. मैसर्स पवन हन्स लि. , नई दिल्ली ।

27. मैसर्स सैन्ट्रल सिल्क बोर्ड, बंगलौर की सभी इकाइयां । 28. मैसर्स नेशनल सीड्स कार्पोरेशन लि. , नई दिल्ली एवं इसकी भटिंडा, जालंधर, सिकन्दराबाद, कुरनूल, गुन्दूर और नांदयाल स्थित इकाइयां ।

29. मैसर्स हैंडक्राफ्टस एण्ड हैंडलूम एक्सपोर्ट कार्पोरेशन लि. (मार्केटिंग डिवीजन ) , नई दिल्ली

30. मैसर्स इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ डिजाइन एण्ड इलैक्ट्रीकल मीजरिंग इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स. मुंबई ।

31. मैसर्स नेशनल टैक्सटाइल कार्पोरेशन ( तमिलनाडु एवं पांडिचेरी ) लि. चैन्नई के कार्पोरेट कार्यालय ।

32. मैसर्स नेशनल टैक्सटाइल कार्पोरेशन ( दिल्ली, पंजाब, राजस्थान एवं नई दिल्ली)

33 मैमर्स हिन्दुस्तान लेटैक्स लि. , त्रिवेन्द्रम ( पूजापुरम ) , एण्ड त्रिवेन्द्रम ( कांगला एवं पेरूकाडा स्थित इसकी निरोध फैक्ट्री और कांगला के ठेका कर्मचारी सहित )

34. मैसर्स सैन्ट्रल टूल रूम , लुधियाना ।

35. ब्रिटिश इंडिया कार्पोरेशन लि. कानपुर ।

36. मैसर्स टेलीफोन इन्डस्ट्रीज, पालाक्कड, केरल । 37. मैसर्स फैक्ट, उद्योगमंडल, केरल ।

38. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान न्यूजप्रिंट्स लि. , कोट्टयम ।

मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान ऑर्गेनिक कैमिकल्स लि. , एर्नाकुलम , केरल । 39 .

40. मैसर्स एचआईएल, उद्योगमंडल, केरल।

41. मैसर्स भारत इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , चैन्नई ।

42. मैसर्स भारत इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , पुणे ।

43. मैसर्स भारत इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , पंचकुला ।

44. मैसर्स भारत इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , हैदराबाद ।

45. मैसर्स इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , मछलीपट्टनम , ( आं.प्र. ).। 46 मैसर्स भारत इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स लि. , बंगलौर ।

मैसर्स भारत अर्थ मूवर्स लि. , बंगलौर/केजीएफ/मैसूर । 48 . मैसर्स आई टी आई , बंगलौर ।

49. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लि. , बंगलौर । 50. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान एयरोनॉटिक्स लि. , हैदराबाद । 51. मैसर्स एचएमटी, बंगलौर ( कर्नाटक स्थित इसकी अन्य इकाइयों सहित)

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 52. मैसर्स नेशनल इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ स्मॉल इन्डस्ट्री एक्सटेंशन ट्रेनिंग ( एनआईएसआई ईटी ) , हैदराबाद ।

53. मैसर्स इन्स्ट्रमेंटेशन लि. , पालाक्कड, केरल ।

54. मैसर्स इंडियन फार्मरर्स फर्टिलाइजर्स कार्पोरेशन लि. , नई दिल्ली।

55. मैसर्स मंगलौर रिफाइनरी एण्ड पैट्रोकैमिकल्स लि. , मंगलौर । 56. मैसर्स हिन्दुस्तान एंटीबॉयटिक्स लि. , पिम्पी, पुणे । 57. मैसर्स चैन्नई पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लि. , चैन्नई । 58. मैसर्स कोची रिफाइनरी लि. एर्नाकुलम , जिला-केरल। 59. मैसर्स राष्ट्रीय कैमिकल्स एण्ड फर्टिलाइजर्स लि. , मुंबई । [संख्या एस -38014/3/2003 - एसएस -1 ]

संयुक्ताराय , अवर सचिव स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन. इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकि छूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा था, किन्तु यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्ति के हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पहीं पड़ेगा ।

New Delhi , the 3rd February , 2005

S. O. 504. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91 - A of the Employees State Insurance Act . 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees of factories/ establishments specified in the schedule from the operation ofthe said Act for a period up to and inclusive of the 30th September, 2006.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely :--

( 1 ) the aforesaid establishment wherein the employers are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exeinpted employees

(2) Not withstanding this exemption . the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates:

(3) the contributions for the exempted period. if already paid , shall not be refundable:

(4) The employer of the said factory/ establishment shall submit in respect of the period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the said Act ( hereinafter referred as the said period ) . such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due front it in respect of the [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

said period under the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations , 1950 ;

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the Said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf shall , for the purpose of:-

(i) Verifying the particulars contained in any returned submitted under sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 44 for the said period ; or (ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees State Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 for the said period ; or (iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or

(iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(b) enter any factory , establishment , office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce such inspector orother official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary ; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant , or any person found in such factory, establishment , office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee; or

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment . office or other premises .

Sl . No. Name of the Establishments/Factory 1 . All the Units of M/s . Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Marketing Division ) , New Delhi .

2. All the Units of M/ s . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai .

1451 3. All the Units of M/ s . Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai .

4. M/s . Indian Oil Blending Ltd. , Kolkata and Trombay.

5. M/s . Indian Oil Corporation ( Refineries and Pipelines Division) Guwahati .

6. All the Units of M/ s . Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. BHEL House , Siri Fort Road, New Delhi .

7. M/s . Maruti Udyog Ltd. , Gurgaon , Haryana .

8. M/ s . Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Lucknow .

9. M/ s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Kanpur .

10. M/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Visakhapatnam.

11 . M/s . Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , Udaipur and Chitorgarh , Rajasthan.

12. M/ s . National Aluminium Company Ltd .. Visakhapatnam.

13. M/s . Central Electronics Ltd. , Sahibabad(UP ) .

14. M/ s . National Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd .. Bhatinda (Punjab) .

15. M/s . Indian Rare Earths Ltd. , Udyogmandal , Kerala.

16. M/s . Instrumentation Ltd. , Kota .

17. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Ghaziabad (UP) including their Regional Offices in New Delhi and Liaison Office at Agra .

18. M/s. Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. , Raibareli (UP).

19. M/ s . Computer Maintenance Corporation , New Delhi .

20. M/s . Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. , Visakhapatnam.

21 . M/s . New Mangalore Port Trust , Mangalore .

22. M/s . Cochin Shipyard Ltd. , Cochin , Kerala 23 . M/ s. Mormugao Port Trust , Mormugao .

24. M/ s . Field Workshop and Marine Workshop of Tuticorin Port Trust , Tuticorin .

25. M/s . Hindustan Photo Films Manufacturing Co. Ltd. , Chennai:

26 . M/s . Pawan Hans Ltd. , New Delhi .

27. All the Units of M/ s . Central Silk Board, Bangalore.

28. Central Stores and Supply Division of M/ s . National Seeds Corporation Ltd. , New Delhi and its Units at Bhatinda . Jallandhar , Secunderabad , Kurnool , Guntur and Nandyal .

29. M/ s . Handicrafts and Handloom Exports Corporation Ltd. , (Marketing Division ), New Delhi .

1452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005/MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] Sl . No. Name of the Establishments/ Factory

30. M/ s . Institute of Design and Electrical Measuring Instruments , Mumbai .

Explanatory Memorandum. It has become necessary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time. However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not effect the interest of any body adversely.

31. Corporate Office of M/ s. National Textile Corporation (Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry) Ltd. , Chennai .

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2005

32. Corporate Office of M/ s . National Textile Corporation (Delhi, Punjab , Rajasthan and New Delhi ).

33. Corporate Office of M/ s . Hindustan Latex Ltd. , Trivandrum ( Poojapura) and Trivandrum (Including its Nirodh Factory at Kanagala and Perokada Unit and contract employees of Kanagala unit) .

34. M/ s . Central Tool Room , Ludhiana.

35. British India Corporation Ltd. Kanpur..

का.आ. 505- केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खंड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2497 दिनांक 27-9-2004 द्वारा बैंकिंग उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 2 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 30-9-2004 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

36. M/s . Indian Telephone Industries, Palakkad , Kerala .

37. M/ s . FACT, Udyogmandal, Kerala .

औरकेन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

38. M/ s . Hindustan Newsprints Ltd. , Kottayam.

39. M/ s . Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. , Ernakulam, Kerala .

40. M/ s. HIL , Udyogmandal , Kerala .

41. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd., Chennai .

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खंड ( 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 30-3-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । 42. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Pune .

43. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Panchkula .

[फा. सं. एस-11017/ 5/97- आईआर ( पीएल ) ] 44. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Hyderabad.

जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव 45. M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Machilipatnam , A.P.

46. M/s . Bharat Electronics Ltd. , Bangalore .

New Delhi , the 4th February , 2005

47. M/s . Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. , Bangalore/KGF/ Mysore.

48. M/s . ITI , Bangalore .

49. M/s . Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Bangalore .

50. M/ s . Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. , Hyderabad.

51. M/ s . HMT, Bangalore ( Its all Units based in Karnataka) .

52. M/s. National Institute of Small Industry Extension Training (NISIET) . Hyderabad.

53. M/s . Instrumentation Ltd. , Palakkad . Kerala .

S.O. 505. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so required that in pursuance of the provisions of sub- clause ( vi ) of the clause ( n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2497 dated 27-9-2004 the service in Banking Industry which is covered by item 2 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 30th September, 2004.

54. M/s . Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited, New Delhi .

55. M/ s . Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Limited, Mangalore .

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

56. M/s . Hindustan Antibiotics Limited, Pimpri , Pune .

57. M/s. Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Chennai .

58. M/ s. Kochi Refineries Limited, Ernakulam distt.. Kerala.

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 ofthe said Act , for a period of six months from the 30th March, 2005 .

59. M/s . Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Limited, Mumbai .

[No. S- 38014/3 /2003 -SS - I ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy.

[F. No. S- 11017 /5/ 97 - IR (PL) ] J. P. PATI, Jt . Secy .

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 506- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत गोल्ड माईन्सके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-43012/2/94- आई.आर. (विविध ) ]

1453 2. The case of the first party as made out at Para 2 to 8 of the Claim Statement is as under:-

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi . the 28th January , 2005 S.O. 506. ln pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 5/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court. Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Gold Mines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005.

[No. L-43012/ 2/ 94 - IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN" , III MAIN , III CROSS , II PHASE , TUMKUR ROAD , YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE- 560 022

Dated : 5th January , 2005

PRESENT :

Shri A.R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 5/97

II PARTY

I PARTY

The President .

K.G.F. Electricity Department ,

TheManaging Director , Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. Oorgaum,

That the employce, Gopinath, is the member of the first party union and on account of injustice caused to him by denying the promotion , he represented to the first party union and the union has taken up the cause with the Management . Since the management did not pay heed to the grievance of the employce. Gopinath , it approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner by raising a dispute.and since the dispute ended in failure , the matter , came for adjudication before this Hon'ble Court for adjudication .

That the first party was working as General Labour in Mysore Mines which is belonging to the Second Party management and he had an excellent record of service throughout .

That the first party Gopinath, Token No. 2763 /PE No. 158282 was called by the Selection Comnittee by the Second Party Management and the Committee was constituted consisting of the Secretary , two members . the Chairman and the Director Technical , and the said committee interviewed the first party and he was selected . The Committee , it needs to be mentioned that Nine employees have been called for interview and they were all selected . Out of the nine , one was the said Gopinath. It needs to be mentioned . he was selected for the post of Cap Lamp Attender- 2 Service E - Grade and lus pay was fixed at Rs. 581/ - and the same was ordered to be effected from 1-7-1989 and the promotion committee who selected the first party. Gopinath , also approved by the Director -Technical .

That out of the 9 employees who have been promoted, in case of 8 employees , those are D. Selvaraj . Narayana Rao , S. George, Gabriel , Manuel Das , Jayaramaiah , A. Budan, Arokya Das , the promotion was given effect to . Only in the case of the first party, Gopinath , the saine has been denied to him.

KolarGold Fields

Labour Association , OorgaumP.O. Oorgaum. KolarGold Fields - 563 120

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 -43012/2/94 - IR (Misc.) dated 16th December, 1994 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Bharat Gold Mines Limited is justified in denying promotion to Shri Gopinath, P.E. No. 158282 with effect from 1-2-89 ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

That after the promotion he was asked to go and report to Nandidurg Mines and it as a transfer from MysoreMines to Nandidurg Mines . In response to the order of the Second party , he went and reported and he worked therefore one day . Thereafter, he was sent back to Mysore Mines on the alleged reason that there were enough staff. It needs to be mentioned that the Second Party has violated its own transfer order issued to the first party workman.

That after he was denied promotion , the Assistant PersonalManager of Nandidurg Mines clarifiedto the Chief Personal Manager pertaining to the transfer and promotion of Shri Gopinath and the letter was also forwardedto the Assistant Personnel Manager (Electrical) for his comments by the Chief Personnel Manager on 22-7-1989 .

That though the second party management promoted him and approved the candidature of the first party 1454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

workmen . Gopinath, the same was not implemented and his pay was also fixed by the Second Party Management at Rs . 581/ - which had to come into effectfrom 1-2-1989 and the same has been denied to the first party workınan. Gopinath and on account of denying promotion to the first party workman , he has to face Civil consequences and he has to lose monetarily and this is continued since 1989 and this has also been affected further because he could not get benefits of various wage agreement.

3. Therefore, the first party union requested this court to answer the points of dispute in favour of the first party with all consequential benefits .

4. Whereas , the management vide its Counter Statement at Para 3 to 9 challenged the case of the first party as under :--

That the Second Party Management is not aware that the first party workınan is a member of the first party union. It is denied that injustice was caused to the first party workman by denying him the promotion . As the demand of the first party workman was unreasonable the conciliation ended in failure .

Thatthe first party workman was initially appointed asGeneral Labour ( underground ) w.e.f. 27-1-1982 and he was transferred to P& C w.e.f. 1-6-1986 . Hence it is denied that the first party workman was working in Mysore Mine, however he was allowed to work in Mysore Mine on temporary basis . Although he is a P& C cnmployee he was permitted to work at Mysore Mine on Medical grounds .

That the averments made by the first party at para 4 is false and hereby denied that the first party workman was called by the selection committee . It is further subinitted that there was a Departinental Promotion Committee meeting for Electrical Department and ninc candidates were considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the first party workınan was also one among the candidaters . The Departmental Promotion Cornmittee had selected him for 2nd Grade caplap attendant ( surface ) in 'E' Grade. The committee was consisting of a Secretary , two members and the Manager as Chairman . The committee does not consist of Director ( Technical ) . Although the Director ( Technical ) approved the recommendations but it was observed by the managenient that the selection of the first party workman for surface E grade for surface is erroneous as he was an underground workman and that too in P & C roll retained at Mysore Mine on medical grounds . He is not eligible for consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee for surface vacancy , and therefore , the promotion was not given effect to in the service card . There is no entry regarding his promotion and therefore. he was continuedto work as General Labour ( underground ) . His transfer from Mysore Mine to N.D. Mine was also objected by the workers of N.D. Mine and the Manager, N.D. Mine sent back him on the mond

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] that he could not be accommodated on the surface job at Nandidroog Mine and the surface employee objected to posting to surface as he was appointed as an underground employee .

That the other 8 employees were given promotion since they were already working in the higher grade atCamp Lamp Room whereas the first party workınan was General Labour ( In ' F' grade in underground) in P& C roll altogether a different unit and not eligible for promotion in another unit . Since promotion is unitwise and line of promotion for surface employees whereas the first party worknian was appointed as underground General Labour .

Thatwhen the first party transferred to Nandidroog Mine the other employees working in Cap Lamp Room brought to the notice of the management that the firstparty workman is not eligible for working in cap Lamp Room on surface being an underground employee and objected to retain him in Nandydroog Mineand therefore he was sent back to Mysore Mine .

That the recommendation for promotion of the first party workman was against the rule of the company and recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee in his case was not given effect .

That altough the Director ( Technical ) has approved the Departinent Promotion Committee's recommendations the same was not given effect to the first party workman since it was not in accordance with the rules as he is an underground employee of P &C . The Departmental Promotion Committee is only recommeding body and unless the promotion is effect and communicated to the first party workman he has no right to demand for promotion that to in other unit for surface vacancy being an underground employee of another department .

5. The management therefore , requested this court to reject the reference .

6. During the course of trail , as could be seen from the records . the management examined MWI in chief partly on 8-6-99 and thereafter for a substantial period there was no progress in the matter for want of Presiding Officer . Therefore , by order dated 28-4-2004 the Second Party Management was called upon to keep his witness MWI present for further examination in chief giving the date as 27-5-2004 . On which date neither the counsel for the management nor MWI remained present and therefore . evidence of the Second Party was taken closed and case was posted for evidence of the first party. However , no evidence was also adduced on behalf of the first party and it could be seen from the order sheet maintained by this tribunal that on 8-6-2004 and 10-8-2004 when the case was posted for evidence to be led by the first party , the first party as well as his counsel remained absent there being no representation on their behalf In the result the matter came to be posted for arguments if any to the advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties . That was also not done by both the counsels as well as the parties 1455 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

AWARD

remained absent before this tribunal when the matter was takenup for hearing of the arguments .

The reference is rejected.

(Dictated to PAtranscribed by her corrected and signed by me on 5th January 2005)

A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 507-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हरियाणा मिनरल्स लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नई दिल्ली -2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-1-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/97/94- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविडं, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 28th January , 2005

S.O. 507. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/95) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, New Delhi II as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Haryana Minerals Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005 .

[No. L -29012/97/ 94 - IR (M. ) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

LD. No. 20/95

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL

IN THE MATTER OF :

Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/ o . Sh . Suraj Bhan, R/ o . Village Asaidah , Distt . Rohtak, Haryana

VERSUS

ManagingDirector, Haryana Minerals Ltd. 703-704, Arunachal Building , Bara Khamba Road, NewDelhi.

7. As could be seen from the points of reference , the primary burden was cast upon the shoulders of the management so as to justify before this tribunal the action takenby it in denying promotion of the first party workman. Although , it was the bounden duty of the first party union as well as the first party workman to have come forward either with oral or documentary evidence in support of their case of substantiate the various contention taken by them in the Claim Statement. Neither the President of the first party union which represented , rather , espoused the cause ofthe first party workman took pains to come forward with any sort of evidence nor the first party workman himselfhad taken any interest in the matter in establishing his right of promotion said to have been denied by the management as per the points of reference . It was the contention of the first party union that the first party workmen though was promoted and his promotion was approved by the management, however, the order of promotion was not implemented. Whereas , it is the case of the management that the committee constituted consisting of the Secretary , two members , the Chairman and the Director (Technical) to consider the case of promotion of the first party workman as well as other employees , wrongly, recommended the promotion of the first party though he was not eligible for such a promotion, he being a General Labour of ' F ' Grade working underground. Therefore , since the promotion was meant for surface employees and not for the underground General Labour employees , the management was justified in not implementing the recommendations of the said committee despite the fact that initially the recommendations was accepted by the management . Therefore , in the light ofthe respective contentions of the parties , the crux of the matter was as to " whether the first party was entitled for promotion and that he was rightly promoted by the committee constituted forthe said purpose and that the management wasnotjustified in not implementing the recommendation ofthe said committee . If we go by the contentions of the management saying that the recommendation made by the committee was against the rules and therefore , the promotion order was not implemented , then, it was for the first party to substantiate before this tribunal that he infact waseligible for promotion despite the fact that he was an underground employee . Unfortunately hither the first party union nor the first party workman , as noted above , have shown their interest in the matter by leading either oral or documentary evidence and as could be seen from the records of this tribunal the first party as well as the counsel representing for him remained absent before this tribunal right from the month of April 2004 till the matter was taken closed on 23-12-2004.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 29012/ 97/94 IR (VIVIDH) Central Government Dt. 3-2-1995 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Haryana Minerals Ltd. in terminating the 8. In the result, the tribunal has no hesitation in its inind to draw an inference that the first party union as well asthe workman represented by it is no more interested in the matter and that they have failed to substantiate the various contentions taken by them in the Claim Statement and therefore , the reference must fail . Hence the following award.

31/05 S 1456

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2005 / MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] services of Sh . Rakesh Kumar w.e.f. 4-1-93 is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what relief he is entitled to and from which date " .

was appointed . The appointments on the ad - hoc basis are purely temporary in nature . These appointments are usually made for some specific period on the basis of need/requirement.

4 The workman has filed statement of claim . In his statement of claim , it has been stated that the management/ respondents notified there vacancies to fill up the post ofclerk and the petitioner applied for the said post and the petitioner was given an offer of appointment vide dated 11-3-91 and on the basis of his offer of appointment he join his duties and since his appointment he had been continued on the said post , till the letter of retrenchment vide dated 24-3-93 , to the entire satisfaction to all his superiors and there has been no complaint of any type against the applicant . It is submitted that the petitioner completed his prescribed probation period and acquired the status of confirm employee of the management and therefore he is entitled for all the service benefits and protection provided under ID Act, 1947 .

In view of the sharp decrease /reduction of mining activities and production of minerals a set back and crisis engulfed a number of mines of the respondent company . The management had to assess the overall requirement of the staff and the matter was placed before the Board of Directors . The matter of ad- hoc/temporary employees was taken up as special agenda being 7/92 in the meeting of the board of Directors held on 18-3-93 . The Board decided that the services of some ad -hoc employees including the claimant/workman have been assessed surplus in their respective category of post and decided to dispense with their services in terms of their respective service conditions . The Board authorised the managing Director to take necessary action , consequently in terms of letter of appointment services of the workman/ claimant has been dispensed with by the managing director vide letter no . HM- MD/ 1993 / 7171 dated 24-3-93 . He has been paid one month salary in lieu of one month notice alongwith the said order.

That it is submitted that it will be relevant to submit here that the Haryana Minerals Ltd. has got its various offices/ mines spreading over in the Distt. Gurgaon , Mahindergarh , Rewari , Bhiwani, Faridabad and Alwar, which are controlled by the respondent No. 1 and therefore it can be said that all the mines/ office are under the common employer and the Haryana Minerals Ltd. , it self is a unit for all purposes including for the purposes of retrenchment.

Thatby the same aforesaid resolution dated 18-3-93 services of one Smt. Raj Bhargawa were also decided to be dispensed with . She challenged the order of the managing Director in CWP No. 1829 of 1993 whereby the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi has been pleased to dismiss the same by its order dated 24th May , 1993 thereby upholding the action of the managment to be justified .

That the claim of the workman/ claimant is wholly misconceived as he had agreed and consented to the terms and conditions of appointment . As such his claim is not maintainable . That as stated hereinabove , the order dated 24-3-93 is passed in terms of letter of appointment in consonance with the service rules . It is not an order of retrenchment under the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947. As such the claim petition is not maintainable at all and this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction.

Thatthe petitioner /workman completed his one year of probation period successfully and the period of probation was not extended and therefore the petitioner acquired the status of a conformed employee , That the management of HML vide its order dated 24-3-93 laid off the petitioner on the false reason that all the stone crushers have been closed down which is totally false as these stone crushes are still operating at various places and these stone crushers are maintaining the supply line ofraw material to the Government projects i.e. DDA and to the private requirement of the society . Hence the impugned order of lay off is mere an eye wash and it is based on false hood.

As stated hereinabove the workman/ claimant was appointed vide letter dated 11-3-91 purely on temporary and ad -hoc basis for specific period of 3 months . However, theperiod was extended from time to time , due to exigency and requirement on the same terms and conditions. There is no question of any probation period. The order dated 24-3-93 is passed in terms of letter of appointment . Thus the contents of this para are wholly wrong and baseless and are denied.

That it will be relevant to subinit here that the petitioner was not paid his three months salary at the time of his retrenchment . That the impugned order dated 24-3-93 passed by managing Director by which the services of the petitioner/ workman has been terminated is illegal , unjust against the principle of natural justice withoutanyjurisdiction against the mandatory provision of law and the same is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for his reinstatement in service along all the consequential bencfit .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder, he has denied most of the paras of the statement of claim and has reiterated the averments of the statement ofclaim . Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

Theworkman applicant is absenting from 22-4-2003. Noticehad been sent to him but he did not turn up.

The inanagement has filed written statement . In the written statement , it has been stated that he was appointed as a clerk on purely temporary and ad- hoc basis for a specificperiod of three months vide letter No. HML/DLI / 5853 dated 11-3-91 . However , keeping in view the exigency of requirement this agreement was further extended from time to time on the same terms and conditions . There was/ is no sanctioned post against which the petitioner

Heard arguments from the side of the management. The case of the workman applicant is that the workman applicant completed his one year of probation period भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

successfully and the period of probation was not extended and, therefore , the petitioner acquired the status of a confirmed employee. The management vide its letter dt. 24-3-1993 laid off the petitioner on the false reason that all the stone crushers were closed down which is totally false . The petitioner was not paid his three months salary at the time of his retrenchment.

Itwas submitted from the side of the respondent that his appointment was purely on adhoc basis for a specfic period of three months vide letterdt . 11-3-1991 . Keeping in view the exigencies of requirement, this agreement was further extended from time to time on the same terms and conditions . He was not appointed against any sanctioned post. His appointment was temporary adhoc . The services of Smt . Raj Bhargava was terminated on the basis of the same resolution. She went to the Hon'ble High Court but in CPW No. 1829/ 1993, the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the action of the management was upheld to bejustified . The workman applicant was appointed on purely temporary and adhoc basis for specific period of three months. No post was sanctioned , so his services alongwith the services of Smt . Raj Bhargava was dispensed with . The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held the dismissal valid . The workman had not been able to make out his case.

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of M/ s Haryana Minerals Ltd. in terminating the services of Sh . Rakesh Kumar w.e.f. 4-1-93 is just , fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given áccordingly.

Dt. 19-01-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer नईदिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 508- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० ओ० एन०जी० सी० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 244/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/17/2005- आई.आर. ( विविध) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January, 2005 S.O. 508. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 244/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s O.N.G.C. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005

[No. L -30025/ 17 /2005 -IR (M) ]

B.M. DAVID, Under S 311 GI/05-19

1457

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT ATAHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

SHRI B.I. KAZI B.Sc. , L.L.M. , Presiding Officer Com . C.G.I.T.A. No. 244/04 in Reference No. C.G.LT.A. No. 215/04

(Old Com. No. 198/03 in Ref. (I.T.C.) No. 139/99) Baldevbhai F Vankar,

Complainant Block No. 11 Ankur Society , Kalol.

Versus

Opponent GroupGeneral Manager ,

ONGC, Ahmedabad Project, Avani Bhavan, Ahmedabad .

APPEARANCES :

Shri Hémal K. Acharya Complainant:

Shri K.V. Gadhia

Opponent:

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the act of the opponent changing his service conditions is in violation of Section 33 and it is also prayed that the opponent should not interfere with the working of the complainant and for other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that he is working since last 10 years as a helper in D.B.G. department . The complainant and other workmen has raised the dispute which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal being reference 1.T.C. No: 139/99 . He is doing the permanent work. He is denied the wages which is given to the permanent employee of the O.N.G.C. The opponent is trying to change the service conditions and intending to terminate the services of complainant . Thus the act of the opponent being improper and illegal. Before terminating the services the permission of the Tribunal is necessary. Hence he prayed the relief as per para 10 of the complaint . By Ex. 2 the complainant has filed and ad- interim application and Tribunal has granted the status- quo.

3. The opponent has submitted the Written Statement by Ex. 10. The brief facts are that the complaint is not maintainable at law and Hon'ble Iritinal has no jurisdiction . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and hence this complaint is not maintainable . It is also submitted that the complainant is not a concerned workman . Thus the complaint is not tenable . Hence it is prayed that the complaint is required to be dismissed withcost.

1458

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

4. During the course of proceedings the complainant had submitted Ex . 11 and it was submitted that in view of order passed in Main Reference , i.c. Reference C.G.1.T.A. No. 215/04 (Old No. 139/99 ) , the present complaint is become infructious . The complaint may be disposed off accordingly .

5. Looking to the order passed in Reference C.G.I.T.A. No. 215/04 as per Ex . 46 and 48, the Tribunal has granted the application Ex . 46 and 48 of the present complainant and direction was issued that there should not be change in the service conditions of the complainant till the final di sposal of that reference .

6. Thus it is clear that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act and looking to the facts of the complaint there is no violation of Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act by ti e opponent . Hence thus complaint does not survive in law . Hence I passed the following order.

し ER

In view of Ex. 11 the complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost . Ahmedabad

Date: 25-10-04

B.I. KAZI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 509- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० ओ ० एन ० जी ० सी० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 774/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल-30011/114/2001 - आई.आर. ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January, 2005 S.O. 509.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 774/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Ahnıedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s O.N.G.C. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005

[No. L -30011/ 114/2001 -IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNL- CUM - LABOUR COURT ATAHMEDABAD

PRESENT:

Shri B.I. KAZI B.Sc. , L.L.M. , Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Industrial Dispute No. 774/04

(Old ITC No. 24/2002 transferred from I.T. Ahmedabad ) a . The Asstt . Manager ( Projects) ,

O.N.G.C.Ltd..

Ankleshwar Project .

Ankleshwar ( Gujarat) Ankleshwar-393 010 .

b . The Executive Director, ONGC, WRBC, Makarpura Road , Baroda. (Gujarat) FirstParty 1/s.

ONGC Mazdoor Sangh ,

C/o Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh ,

The General Secretary ,

Nr. Asian Paint Chokdi GIDC ,

Ankleshwar (Gujarat) Second party Appearances :

Shri C.S. Naidu , Shri P.F. Jhaveri

FirstParty:

Absent

Second Party :

AWARD

1. The Government of India has referred the Industrial Dispute between the above parties by order No. L-30011 / 114/2001 IR ( M) dated 03/05/2002 to this Tribunal for adjudication . The terms of reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management in not conducting the Training Programme three months prior to E -O Job Oriented is legal , proper and justified ? Ifnot, what directions are necessary in the matter?" 2. The second party was issued a notice to file the statement of claim by this Tribunal on 30-8-02. The date to file the statement of claim was 23-9-02 . The appropriate Government has also directed the second party who has raised the dispute to file a statement of claim with relevant document and list of reliance and witnesses to the Tribunal within 15 days of the receipt of the order .

3. However, proper opportunity was given by this Tribunal to file a statement of claim to the second party . The second party failed to submit a statement of claim after 2½ years from the date of reference. Thus this Tribunal has reason to believe that the second party is not interested in the dispute. The second party as not justified the demand that the action of the management in not conducting the Training Programme three months prior E.D. Job Oriented Test is illegal , improper, and unjust . The second party is not entitled for any direction in this matter .

Hence I hereby pass the following order ORDER

The action of the management in not conducting the Training Programme three months prior to E-O Job Oriented Test is legal, proper and just . The second party is not entitled for any direction in this matter . Hence reference is rejected. No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad

Date : 12-10-04

B.I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer

1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का.आ. 510-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० जे ० एम ० बख्शी एंड संस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1204/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-37011/2/ 2002- आई.आर. ( विविध) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January, 2005 S.O. 510. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1204/ 04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of M/ sJ.M . Baxi & Co. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005 .

[No. L-37011 /2/2002 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT ATAHMEDABAD

PRESENT :

SHRIB.I . KAZI B.SC. , L.L.M. , PresidingOfficer Industrial Dispute No. 1204/04

(Old ITC No. 19/2002 transferred from LT. Ahmedabad)

FirstParty M/ sJ.M. Baxi & Co , The ChiefExecutive, Seva Sadan- II Kandla (Kutch) -370210 V/s.

The General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union , Room No. 21 Yogesh Building Ward 12-C, PlotNo. 58 , Gandhidham

Second party Appearances:

Absent

FirstParty: Second Party:

AWARD

1. The Government of India has referred the Industrial Dispute between the above parties by order No. L- 37011 / 2/2002 IR (M) dated 01/08/2001 to this Tribunal foradjudication. The terms of reference is as under :

1459

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of J.M. Baxi & Co. , Kandala not to regularise the service of 8 Tally Clerks as mentioned in Annexure A/ mentioned in settlement dated 26-04-1999 is justified or legal? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled for and since when?"

2. A notice was issued to the parties by Ex. 2. During the course of proceeding the parties settled the disptue and it is a bilateral settlement with the union and workers andhave signed the memorandum of settlement on mutual understanding on 18th October, 2002. A copy of memorandum is also attached with purshis at Ex . 3 .

order: Thus looking to this fact I hereby pass the following

ORDER

The parties have come to amicable settlement. The settlement is hereby recorded and the parties are hereby directed to follow the terms of memorandum of settlement dated 18th October , 2002 .

The award is passed in terms of settlement dated 18-10-02 . No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad Dated: 12-10-04

B.I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2005

का.आ. 511- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इण्डिया लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में , निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, चंडीगढ़ -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 248/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-29012/88/99- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi ,' the 28th January, 2005 S.O. 511. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 248/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Chandigarh - 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005

[ No. L - 29012/ 88 /99 - IR ( M ) ]

B. M. DAVID, Under Secy.

1460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 248/99

Sh. Gurmeet Singh , House No. 107 ) . Sector 21 -B .

.......Applicant Chandigarh

Versus

1. The Zonal Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Central Marketing Organisation , North West Zone , Jalandhar (Pb.)

2. The Branch Manager, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Branch Sale Office , SCO. 27. Sector 26, Chandigarh .

Respondent REPRESENTATIVE :

For the workman

: Shri O.P. Batra

For theManagement Shri Vaneesh Khanna

AWARD

Passed on 16-12-2004

The Central Govt . Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L - 29012/88 / 99 /IR(M) Dated 17th November, 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Zonal Manager , Steel Authority of India , Ltd. , Jalandhar and Branch Manager , Steel Authority of India Ltd. Chandigarh in terminating the Services of Shri Gurmeet Singh , Ex . M - T Driver w.c.f. 2-5-90 as voluntary abandonnment of service is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

1. On the request of both the parties case taken up in Lok Adalat for settlement/ disposal . Statement of A/R of workman recorded on SA . The representative of the workman made a statement to withdraw the present reference in the Lok Adalat as the case has been settled . In view of the statement of the rep . of the workman and management having no objection the reference is returned to Central Govt . as withdrawn. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record .

Announced.

16-12-2004

RAJESH KUMAR. Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का०आ ० 512 - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 235/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल -30025/8/05 - आई ० आर० ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 28th January , 2005

S.O. 512. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 2.3.5 /04 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government ott 28-01-2005 :

[No. L -30025/ 8 / 05 - IR(M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

Present : Shri B. I. Kazi B. Sc. , L.L.M. ,

Presiding Officer

Com . C.G.LT.A. No. 235/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT.Α. No. 215/04

(Old Com. No. 189/03 In Ref . (LT.C.) No. 139/99 ) Upadhyay Vijay Indrajit .

Complainant KaligamTal .

Dist. Ahmedabad

Versus

Opponent Group General Manager , ONGC, Ahmedabad Project Avani Bhavan , Ahınedabad.

APPEARANCES :

: Sliri Hemal K. Acharya

Shui K. V. Gadhia

Complainant Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act . praying that the act of the opponent changing his Service conditions is in violation of Section 33 and it is also prayed that the opponent should not interfere with the working of the complainant and for other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that he is working since last 10 years as a helper in D.B.C. department . The complainant and other workimen has raised the dispute which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal being reference I.T.C. No. 139/99 . He is doing the permanent work . He isdenied the wages which is given to the permanent employee of the O.N.G.C. The opponent is trying to change the service conditions and intending to terminate the services of complainant . Thus the act of the opponent being improper and illegal . Before terminating the services the permission of the Tribunal is necessary . Hence he prayed the relief as per pera 10 of the complaint . By Ex 2 the complainant has filed and ad- interim application and Tribunal has granted the status-quo .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005/माघ 23 , 1926

3.The opponent has submitted the Written Statement by Ex . 10. The brief facts are that the complaint is not maintainable at law and Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and hence this complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the complainant is not a concerned workmen . Thus the complaint is not tenable. Hence it is prayed that the complaint is required to be dismissed with cost .

4.During the course of proceedings the complainant had submitted Ex. 11 and it was submitted that in view of order passed in Main Reference , i.e. Reference C.G.I.T.A. No. 215/04 (Old No. 139/99), the present complaint is become infructuous . The complaint may be disposed off accordingly.

5. Lookingto the order passed in Reference C.G.I.T.A. No. 215/04 as per Ex. 46 and 48 , the Tribunal has granted the application Ex . 46 and 48 of the present complainant and direction was issued that there should not be change in the service conditions of the complainant till the final disposal of that reference.

1461

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

Present : Shri B. I. Kazi B. Sc. , L.L.M. , Presiding Officer

Com . C.G.LT.A. No. 234/04- In Reference No. C.G.LT.Α. No. 215/04

(Old Com . No. 188/03 In Ref. (LT.C.) No. 139/99)

Complainant Omprakash Bhagvandas Sharma,

A/5 Shyam Darshan Society , Shivaji Chowk , Krushnanagar, New Naroda , Ahmedabad

Versus

Opponent GroupGeneral Manager. ONGC , Ahmedabad Project . Avani Bhavan , Ahmedabad.

APPEARANCES :

Complainant

: Shri Hemal K. Acharya

: Shri K. V. Gadhia Opponent

6. Thus it is clear that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act and looking to the facts of the complaint there is no violation of Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Hence thus complaint does not survive in law . Hence 1 pass the following order :

ORDER

In view of Ex . 11 the complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad

B.I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer Dated: 25-10-2004

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2005

का०आ ०513- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 234/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -30025/7/05- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी० एम ० डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January, 2005 S.O. 513.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 234/04) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M /s. ONGC and their workman , which was reccived by the Central Government on 28-01-2005.

[No. L-30025/7/05 - IR (M) ]

B.M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the act of the opponent changing his Service conditions is in violation of Section 33 and it is also prayed that the opponent should not interfere with the working of the complainant and for other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that he is working since last 10 years as a helper in D.B.G. department . The complainant and other workmen has raised the dispute which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal being reference I.T.C. No. 139/99 . He is doing the permanent work. He is denied the wages which is given to the permanent employee ofthe O.N.G.C. The opponent is trying to change the service conditions and intending to terminate the services of complainant . Thus the act of the opponent being improper and illegal . Before terminating the services the permission of the Tribunal is necessary . Hence he prayed the relief as per pera 10 of the complaint. By Ex . 2 the complainant has filed and ad - interim application and Tribunal has granted the status- quo .

3. The opponent has submitted the Written Statement by Ex.. 10. The brief facts are that the complaint is not maintainable at law and Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and hence this complaint is not maintainable. It is also submitted that the complainant is not a concerned workmen . Thus the complaint is not tenable. Hence it is prayed that the complaint is required to be dismissed with cost .

4.During the course of proceedings the complainant had submitted Ex . 11 and it was submitted that in view of 1462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2005 /MAGHA 23 , 1926

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

Nadi a Lalabhai Varubhai ,

Harij anvas, Rohitvas .

Nadiwas, Post Pansar ,

order passed in Main Reference , i.e. Reference C.G.I.T.A. No. 215/04 (Old No. 139/99) , the present complaint is become infructuous. The complaint may be disposed of accordingly.

.... Complainant

Tal. Kalol, Dist: G'nagar .

Versu

Group General Manager ,

ONGC, Ahmedabad Project , Avani Elhavan , Ahmedabad.

Opponent 5. Lookingto the order passed in Reference C.G.I.T.Α. No. 215/04 as per Ex. 46 and 48. the Tribunal has granted the application Ex. 46 and 48 of the present complainant and direction was issued that there should not be change in the service conditions of the complainant till the final disposal of that reference .

Appearances:

: Shri Hemal K. Acharya

Complainant

Shri K. V. Gadhia

Opponen t

ORDER

6. Thus it is clear that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33 ( A) of the Industrial Dispute Act and looking to the facts of the complaint there is no violation of Section 33 ( A) of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Hence thus complaint does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

In view of Ex . 11 the complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

B.I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 -A of the industrial Dispute Act , praying that the act of the opponent changing his service conditions is in violation of Section 33 and it is also prayed that the opponent should not interfere with the working of the complainant and for other relief .

Ahmedabad Date: 25-10-2004

नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी, 2005

का.आ. 514- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 233/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -30025/6/2005- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that he is working since last 10 years as a helper in D.B. G. department . The complainant and other workmen has raised the dispute which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal being . reference I.T.C. No. 139/99 . He is doing the permanent work . He is denied the wages which is given to the permanent employce of the O.N.G.C. The opponent is trying to change the service conditions and intending to terminate the services of complainant . Thus the act of the opponent being improper and illegal . Before terminating the services the permission of the Tribunal is necessary . Hence he prayed the relief as per para 10 of the complaint . By Ex . 2 the complainant has filed and ad - interim application and Tribunal has granted the status -quo .

New Delhi , the 28th January, 2005

S.O. 514 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 233/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- com- Labour Court . Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s ONGC and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005

3. The opponent has submitted the Written Statement by Ex . 10. The brief facts are that the complaint is not maintainable at law and Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and hence this complaint is not maintainable . It is also submitted that the complainant is not a concerned workman . Thus the complaint is not tenable . Hence it is prayed that the complaint is required to be dismissed with cost.

[No. L - 30025 /6/2005 - IR (M )]

B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

4.During the course of proceedings the complainant had submitted Ex. 11 and it was submitted that in view of order passed in Main Reference , i.e. Reference C.G.I.T.A. No 215/04 (Old No. 139/99 ), the present complaint is become infructuous . The complaint may be disposed of accordingly .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURTAT AHMEDABAD

Present:

Shri B. L. Kazi , B. Sc. , LL.M. , Presiding Officer

5. Looking to the order passed in Reference C.G.I.T.Α. No. 215/04 as per Ex . 46 and 48, the Tribunal has granted the application Ex. 46 and 48 of the present complainant and direction was issued that there should not be change in the service conditions of the complainant till the final disposal of that reference.

Com. C.G.I.Τ.Α. No. 233/04 in Reference No. C.G.LT.Α. No. 215/04

6. Thus it is clear that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33 ( A) of the Industrial Dispute Act (Old Com. No. 187/03 in Ref . ( 1.T.C. ) No. 139/99) [भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

and looking to the facts ofthe complaint there is no violation of Section 33 ( A) of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Hence thus complaintdoes not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order :

ORDER

In view of Ex. 11 the complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.

Ahmedabad

Date: 25-10-2004

B.I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी, 2005

का.आ. 515 - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ. एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 232/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है. जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-01-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-30025/5/05- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January, 2005 S.O. 515.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 232/04) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s. ONGC and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 28-01-2005

[No. L -30025/5/05 - IR ( M ) ]

B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

Present:

Shri B. L. Kazi , B. Sc. , LL.M. , Presiding Officer Com . C.G.LT.A. No. 232/14 in Reference No. C.G.LT.A No. 215/04

Old Com . No. 186/4 ) 3 in Ref. (1.T.C. ) No. 139/99 ] Parmar Rameshbhai Manilal , New Ram Krushna Society , B/h . Market yard ,

Complainant Tal . Kalol , Dist: G'nagar.

Versur

Group General Manager, ONGC, Ahmedabad Project ,

Opponent Avani Bhavan , Ahmedabad .

1463

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2005 /माघ 23 , 1926

Appearances:

Complainant

: Shri Hemal K. Acharya

: Shri K. V. Gadhia Opponent

ORDER

1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the act of the opponent changing his service conditions is in violation of Section 33 and it is also prayed that the opponent should not interfere with the working of the complainant and for other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complainant is that he is working since last 10 years as a helper in D.B.G. department . The complainant and other workmen has raised the dispute which is pending before the Industrial Tribunal being reference I.T.C. No. 139/99 . He is doing the permanent work. He is denied the wages which is given to the permanent employee of the O.N.G.C. The opponent is trying to change the service conditions and intending to terminate the services of complainant. Thus the act of the opponent being improper and illegal . Before terminating the services thepermission of the Tribunal is necessary. Hence he prayed the relief as per para 10 of the complaint . By Ex . 2 the complainant has filed and ad- interim application and Tribunal has granted the status - quo .

3.The opponent has submitted the Written Statement by Ex . 10. The brief facts are that the complaint is not maintainable at law and Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act and hence this complaint is not maintainable . It is also submitted that the complainant is not a concerned workman . Thus the complaint is not tenable. Hence it is prayed that the complaint is required to be dismissed with cost.

4.During the course ofproceedings the complainant had submitted Ex . 11.and it was submitted that in view of order passed in Main Reference, i . e . Reference C.G.IT.A. No. 215/04 (Old No. 139/99 ) , the present complaint isbecome infructuous. The complaint may be disposed of accordingly .

5. Looking to the order passed in Reference C.G.I.T.A. No. 215/04 as per Ex. 46 and 48 , the Tribunal has granted the application Ex . 46 and 48 of the present complainant and direction was issued that there should not be change in the service conditions of the complainant till the final disposalofthat reference.

6.Thus it isclear that the opponent has not committed anybreach of Section 33 ( A) of the Industrial Dispute Act and looking to the facts of the complaint there is no violation of Section 33 (A) of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Hence thus complaint does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:

ORDER

In view of Ex. 11 the complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost .

Ahmedabad

B.I. KAZI , Presiding Officer Date: 25-10-2004

Printed by the Manager, Govi of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published introller of Publications , Delhi -110054.