This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 भारत सममेव जस्तते का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 4 सितम्बर10, 2005 , शनिवार / भाद्र 13- भाद्र 19, 1927

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 4 SEPTEMBER 10, 2005, SATURDAY/BHADRA 13-BHADRA 19, 1927 सं० 37 ] No. 37 ]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक 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 औरअधिसूचनाएं 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, 26 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3184.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं को विचारण न्यायालयों में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा उन्हें सौंपे गए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना (के.अ. ब्यूरो ) द्वारा आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य में विशाखापतनम में संस्थित मामलों के अभियोजन तथा विधि द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपील न्यायालयों में इन मामलों से उद्भूत अपीलों/ पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषय का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोज्रक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है: -

सर्वश्री

1. पुसुलुरि वेंकट विश्वनाथ

2. मेनदादला प्रभाकर राव

[फा. सं. 225/08/ 2005 -ए.वी.डी.- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव 2558 GI/05

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi, the 26th August, 2005

S.O. 3184.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central Govern- ment hereby appoints the following Advocates as Spe- cial Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution ofcases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establish- ment ( CBI ) in the State of Andhra Pradesh at Visakhapatnam as entrusted to them by the Central Bu- reau of Investigation in the Trial Courts , and appeals/revi- sions or other matter arising out ofthese cases in revisional orAppellate Courts established by law.

1. Shri Pusuluri Venkata Viswanath 2. Mendadala Prabhakara Rao

[F. No. 225/08/2005 AVD - II]

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

(9989) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

9990

नई दिल्ली, 1 सितम्बर, 2005

का.अ. 3185.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, नैनीताल के अधिवक्ता और उत्तरांचल उच्च न्यायालय, नैनीताल में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के रिटेनर काउंसेल श्री उमा कांत उन्नीयाल को उत्तरांचल उच्च न्यायालय, नैनीताल में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्भूत अभियोजनों, अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों का संचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 225/22/ 2005 - ए.वी.डी.- II ]

चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st September, 2005

S.O. 3185. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Govern- ment hereby appoints of Shri Uma Kant Uniyal , Advo- cate and Retainer Counsel of the Central Bureau of Inves- tigation in the Uttaranchal High Court as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution, appeals , revi- sions or other matter arising out of these cases in investi- gated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the Uttaranchal High Court at Nainital .

[F. No. 225/22/2005 -AVD -II ]

CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3186.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उप- नियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड जो कि 138 , अनगप्पा नाइकेन स्ट्रीट, चेन्नई -600001 में स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना कि प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अविध के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं ० का० आ० 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ संबंद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क मुम -1 अर्थात्, लौह अयस्क और मैंगनीज अयस्क (मैगनीज डायआक्साइड को छोड़कर ) के निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन चेन्नई में उक्त खनिजों एवं अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एतद्वारा एक अभिकरण के रुप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है अर्थात्:-

(i ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड, चेन्नई खनिज तथा अयस्क ( ग्रुप-1 ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 , के 4 के अन्तर्गत निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस संबंध में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (ii ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड, चेन्नई इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे । [फा.सं. 5 ( 1 )/2005 ( 22 ) /ई आई एंड ई पी ]

राज सिंह, निदेशक MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (Department of Commerce)

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2005

S.O. 3186.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with Sub - rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964, the Central Govern- ment hereby recognises M/s . Superintendence Com- panyof India (Private) Limited, located at 138 , Angappa Naicken Street , Chennai - 600001 , as an Agency for a period ofthree years with effect from the date of publica- tion of this notification , for the inspection of Minerals and OresGroup - 1, namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore (excluding Manganese Dioxide ) , specified in the Sched- ule annexed to the notification of the Government of In- dia in the Ministry of Commerce Number S. O. 3975 , dated 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores , at Chennai , subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(i) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited , Chennai shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule-4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores Group I (Inspection) Rules , 1965;

(ii) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Chennai in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F.No. 5 (1 )/2005 ( 22)/ΕΙ & EP ] RAJ SINGH, Director .

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3187.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट) लिमिटेड जो कि प्लाट नं० वाई-23 , ब्लाक- ईपी, सेक्टर- V, साल्ट लेक, कोलकाता-700091 में स्थित है , को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005 / भाद्र 19, 1927

9991

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2005 तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय, भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं ० का ०आ० 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ संबंद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्टं खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप- अर्थात्, लौह अयस्कऔर मैंगनीज अयस्क ( मैगनीज़ डायआक्साइड को छोड़कर ) के निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन कोलकाता में उक्त खनिजों एवं अयस्कोंका निरीक्षण करने के लिए एत‌द्वारा एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है अर्थात्:-

( i ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिंटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट) लि. , कोलकाता खनिज तथा अयस्क ( ग्रुप-1 ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965, के नियम 4 के अन्तर्गत निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस संबंध में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;

का.आ. 3188.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियिम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण.) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिंटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया (प्राइवेट) लिमिटेड जो कि. प्लाट नं ० 396 , गौतम नगर, ( हरिनाथ विद्यापीठ के पीछे) , भुवनेश्वर-751014 में स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं० का० आ० 3975 , तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ संबंद्धअनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्कग्रुप- I अर्थात्, लौह अयस्कऔर मैंगनीज़ अयस्क (मैगनीज डायआक्साइड को छोड़कर) के निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन भुवनेश्वर में उक्त खनिजों एवं अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एतद्वारा एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है अर्थात्:-

( ii ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्रईवेट ) , लि. , कोलकाता इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षणरिषद् द्वारा समय -समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 5 (1 ) /2005 ( 24 )/ईआई एंड ईपी ]

राज सिंह , निदेशक

New Delhi , the 29th August, 2005

( i ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया (प्राइवेट) लिमिटेड, भुवनेश्वर खनिज तथा अयस्क ( ग्रुप- I ) का निर्यात (निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965 के नियम 4 के अन्तर्गत निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस संबंध मेंनिर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;

( ii ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड, भुवनेश्वर इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय-समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 5 ( 1 ) /2005 ( 25 )/ईआई एंड ईपी ]

राज सिंह, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2005 S.O. 3187.- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub- section ( 1) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with Sub - rule ( 2 ) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964, the Central Govern- ment hereby recognises M/ s . Superintendence Com- pany of India (Private) Limited loacated at Plot No. Y-23, Block-EP Sector- V, Salt Lake, Kolkata - 700091 , as an Agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection ofMinerals and Ores Group - 1 , namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore (excluding Manganese Dioxide) , speci- fied in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 , dated 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores , at Kolkata , subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(i) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Kolkata shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule-4 of the Export ofMinerals and Ores Group- I (Inspection ) Rules , 1965 ;

S.O. 3188. In exercise of the powers conferred by the Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with Sub - rule ( 2) of rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules, 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s. Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, loacated at Plot No. 396, Gautam Nagar, (Opp . Harihara Bidyapitha ) , Bhubaneshwar - 751014 , as an Agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification, for the inspection of Minerals and Ores Group - I , namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore ( exclud- ing Manganese Dioxide) , and Group - II namely Manga- nese Dioxide and Chrome Ore including Chorome Con- centrates, specified in the Schedule annexed to the noti- fication of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated 20th December, 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores , at Bhubaneshwar, subject to the following conditions , namely:-

(ii) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Kolkata in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F.No. 5 ( 1 )/2005 (24)/ΕΙ & ΕΡ ]

RAJ SINGH, Director.

(i) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Pri- vate ) Limited , Bhubaneshwar shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

9992

by them ingranting the certificate of inspection under rule-4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores Group - I (Inspection) Rules , 1965;

date ofpublication of this notification, for the inspection ofMinerals and Ores Group - I, namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore, specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975 , dated 20th December , 1965, prior to export of the said Minerals and Ores , at Vishakhapatnam, subject to the following conditions . namely:-

(ii) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Bhubaneshwar in the perfor- mance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Direc- tor ( Inspection and Quality Control ) . Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 5 (1 )/2005 ( 25 )/ΕΙ & ΕΡ ] RAJ SINGH , Director

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2005

(i) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited , Vishakhapatnam shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated bythe Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspec- tion under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores-Group- I ( Inspection) Rules , 1965;

(ii) that M/s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited , Vishakhapatnam in the per- formance of their function under this notifica- tion shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) . Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time .

[F. No. 5 ( 1 )/2005 (21 )/E1 & EP ] RAJ SINGH, Director

नई दिल्ली, 29 अगस्त, 2005 का.आ. 3189. केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्वात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनयिम, 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लिमिटेड, जो कि 25-9-14/4 , गोदावरी स्ट्रीट, मैरीन टावर्स , विशाखापत्तनम 530001 में स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना केप्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अविध के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं० का.आ. 3975, तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965के साथ संबंद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप -1 अर्थात्, लौह अयस्क और मैंगनीज़ अयस्क के निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन विशाखापतनम में उक्त खनिजों एवं अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एत‌द्वारा एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है अर्थात्: -

(i ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्रईवेट ) लि. , विशाखापत्तनम खनिज तथा अयस्क ( ग्रुप -1 ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1965, के 4 के अन्तर्गत निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस संबंध में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;

का.आ. 3190.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियिम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम (2) के साथ पठित, निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनयिम, 1963 ( 1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया (प्राइवेट) लिमिटेड जो कि लक्ष्मी भवन 161 , पी.डी. मेल्लो रोड, मुम्बई-400001 में स्थित है, को इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अविध के लिए वाणिज्य मंत्रालय भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना सं ० का ० आ० 3975, तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ संबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप-1 अर्थात्, लौह अयस्क और मैगनीज अयस्क ( मैंगनीज़ डायआक्साइड को छोड़कर ) के निर्यात से पूर्व निरीक्षण हेतु निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन मुम्बई में उक्त खनिजों एवं अयस्कों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एतद्वारा एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है अर्थात्: - (ii ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्रईवेट ) लि. , विशाखापत्तनम इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय -समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फा.सं. (1 )/2005 ( 21 ) /ईआई एंड ईपी ]

राज सिंह, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2005

( i ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट) लि. , मुम्बई खनिज तथा अयस्क ( ग्रुप- I ) का निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965, के नियम 4 के अन्तर्गत निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस संबंध में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा नामित अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी;

(ii ) कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कम्पनी ऑफ इंडिया ( प्राइवेट ) लि. , मुम्बई इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के पालन में निदेशक (निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) , निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फा.सं. 5 ( 1 ) /2005 ( 23 )/ईआई एंड ईपी ]

राज सिंह, निदेशक S.O. 3189. In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 ( 22 of 1963 ) , read with Sub -rule (2) of rule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules , 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M/ s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, located at 25-9-14/4 , Godavari Street, Marine Towers , Vishakhapatnam - 530001 , as an Agency for a period of three years with effect from the 9993

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th August , 2005

S.O. 3190.- In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub - section of Section 7 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Act , 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub - rule (2) of Rule 12 of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules , 1964 , the Central Govern- ment hereby recognises M/ s . Superintendence Com- pany of India (Private) Limited located at " Laxmi Bhavan" 161 , P.D. Mello Road, Mumbai -400001 , as an Agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification , for the inspection ofMin- erals and Ores Group - I , namely, Iron Ore and Manga- nese Ore (excluding Manganese Dioxide ) , specified in the Schedule annexed to the notification of the Govern- ment of India in the Ministry of Commerce number S.O. 3975, dated 20th December, 1965 , prior to export ofthe said Minerals and Ores , at Mumbai , subject to the follow- ing conditions , namely:-

(i) that M/s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited , Mumbai shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores Group- I (Inspection ) Rules , 1965;

84. यूनिवर्सिटी आफ वेस्टर्न सिडनी, आस्ट्रेलिया

भारतीय विश्वविद्यालयों के पी.जी. डिप्लोमा इन कम्यूनिटी डेंटिस्ट्री के समकक्ष अतिरिक्त अर्हता के रूप में मेंमास्टर इन पब्लिक हैल्थ डेंटिस्ट्री । (यदि दिसंबर 1999 में अथवा उसके बाद दी गई हो )

85. सेंट लुईस यूनिवर्सिटी, मिसूरी (यू.एस.ए. )

भारतीय विश्वविद्यालयों के एमडीएस ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स) केसमकक्ष एक अतिरिक्त अर्हता के रूप में मास्टर आफ साइंस इन डेंटिस्ट्री ( रिसर्च ) आर्थोडोंटिक्स। (यदि10-01-1997 को अथवा उसके बाद दी गई हो )

भारतीय विश्वविद्यालयों के पी. जी. डिप्लोमा कोर्स इन कम्यूनिटी डेंटिस्ट्री के समकक्ष एक अतिरिक्त अर्हता के रूप में मास्टर आफ साइंस इन डेंटल पब्लिक हैल्थ ।

86. किंग्स कालेज स्कूल आफ मेडीसिन एवं डेंटिस्ट्री, लंदन (यू.के. )

(यदि01-11-1996 को अथवा उसके बाद दी गई हो )

87: यूनीवर्सिटी आफ हांगकांग , हांगकांग

भारतीय विश्वविद्यालयों के एम.डी.एस. ( पेडियाट्रिक डेंटिस्ट्री, ) के समकक्ष एक अतिरिक्त अर्हता के रूप में मास्टर आफ डेंटल साइंस ( पेडियाट्रिक डेंटिस्ट्री ) । (यदि 09-12-2002 को अथवा उसके बाद दी गई हो ) ।

88. ओहियो स्टेट यूनिवर्सिटी, ओहियो (यू.एस.ए. )

भारतीय विश्वविद्यालयों के एम.डी.एस. (आर्थोडोंटिक्स) के समकक्ष एक अतिरिक्त अर्हता के के रूप में मास्टर आफ साइंस इन आर्थोडोंटिक्स । (यदि 1-7-1988 को अथवा उसके बाद दी गई हो ) ।

(ii) that M/s . Superintendence Company of India (Private) Limited, Mumbai in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[F. No. 5 ( 1 ) /2005 ( 23 )/ΕΙ & ΕΡ ] RAJ SINGH, Director स्वास्थ्यएवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3.191.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 4 ) खंड (ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग- III में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; नामत: -

2. दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भाग- III में क्रम संख्या 83 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों केसामने स्तंभ 1 , 2 एवं 3 की वर्तमान प्रविष्टियों के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी , नामत: -

एमपीएच ( डेंटिस्ट्री ) यूनीवर्सिटी आफ वेस्टर्न सिडनी, आस्ट्रेलिया

एम.एस.सी. डेंटिस्ट्री ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स) सेंट लुईस यूनिवर्सिटी, मिस्सूरी (यू.एस.ए. )

एम.एस.सी. ( डीपीएच ) किंग्स कालेज स्कूल आफ मेडीसिन एण्ड .डेंटिस्ट्री, लंदन ( यू.के. )

एम.डी.एस. ( पेडियाट्रिक डेंटिस्ट्री) यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हांगकांग

एम.एस.सी. ( आर्थोडोंटिक्स ) ओहियो स्टेट यूनिवर्सिटी, ओहियो, यू.एम.ए.

[फा. सं. वी-12018 / 1 / 2004 - पीएमएस ]

ए. के. सिंह, अवर सचिव 9994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health & Family Welfare) New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2005 S.O. 3191. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub - section (4) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of1948 ) , the Central Government, after con- 84. University of Western Sydney, Australia

Master in Public Health Dentistry as an additional qualification equivalent to PG Diploma in Community Dentistry of Indian Universities.

(When granted on or after December 1999) .

85. St. Louis University, Missouri (USA)

Master of Science in Dentistry (Research) Orthodontics as an additonal qualification equivalent to MDS ( Orthodontics) of Indian Universities .

(Whengranted on or after 10-01-1997) .

86.Kings College School ofMedicine & Dentistry, London (UK)

Master of Science in Dental Public Health as an additional qualification equivalent to PG Diploma Course in Community Dentistry of Indian Universities .

(Whengranted on or after 01-11-1996) .

87. University of Hong Kong , Hong Kong

(Whengranted on or after 09-12-2002 ) .

88. Ohio State University, Ohio (USA)

Master of Science in Orthodontics as an additional qualification equivalent to MDS (Orthodontics) of Indian Universities .

(When granted on or after 01-07-1988 ) .

विदेश मंत्रालय

( सी. पी. वी. डिविजन )

नई दिल्ली , 17 अगस्त , 2005

का. आ. 3192.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) को धारा 2 के अंक (क) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावास , डाकार में श्री जी. अजीत कुमार, सहायक को 17-08-2005 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[ सं. टी-4330/01/2005 ] एस. एन. वी. रामन्ना राव , अवर सचिव ( कौंसुलर )

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] sultation with the Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following further amendments in Part - III of the Sched- ule to the said Act , namely:-

2. Under the existing entries of column 1 , 2 & 3 against serial number 83 in Part- III of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) the following serial number and entries shall be added, namely :-

MPH (Dentistry) University of Western Sydney, Australia .

M.Sc. Dentistry (Orthdontics) St. Louis University, Missouri (USA)

M.Sc. (DPH) Kings College School of Medicine & Dentistry, London(UK)

MDS (Paediatric Dentistry) University of Hong Kong

Master of Dental Science (Paediatric Dentistry) as an additional qualification equivalent to MDS (Paediatric Dentistry) of Indian Universities .

M.Sc. (Orthodontics) Ohio State University, Ohio, USA.

[F. No. V- 12018/1/2004 -PMS ]

A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C.P.V. Division)

New Delhi , the 17th August , 2005

S.O. 3192. In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 ( 41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri G. Ajith Kumar , Assistant in the Embassy of India , Dakar to perform the duties ofAssis- tant Consular Officer with effect from 17-08-2005 .

[No. T. 4330/01/2005| S. N.V. RAMANA RAO , Under Secy. ( Cons . ) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

9995 .

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005 / भाद्र 19, 1927

संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय

( दूरसंचार विभाग )

(राजभाषा अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3193.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 (4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्यागिकी मंत्रालय, दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

मुख्य महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार, भारत संचार निगम लि० , कर्नाटक परिमण्डल, बेंगलूर -560008

1. मंडल अभियंता ( आंतरिक ) , दावनगेरे

2. मंडल अभियंता ( ग्रामीण ) , दावनगेरे

3. तारघर, दावनगेरे

4. उप - मंडल अधिकारी (फोन्स) , दावनगेरे

5. उप- मंडल अभियंता ट्रंक्स मोबाइल, दावनगेरे 6. मंडल अभियंता शहरी/ग्रामीण, चित्रदुर्ग

7. उप - मंडल अभियंता सी डाट, चित्रदुर्ग

8. तारघर, चित्रदुर्ग

9. मंडल अभियंता, चलकेरे

10. मंडल अभियंता, होल्लकेरे

11. मंडल अभियंता, हिरियूर

12. उप- मंडल अभियंता, होसदुर्ग समूह

13. उप- मंडल अभियंता (फोन्स ) , हरिहर

14. उप- मंडल अभियंता ( समूह ) , मलेबेनूर

15. उप- मंडल अभियंता ( समूह ) , जगलूर

16. उप- मंडल अभियंता, मोल्कलानूर

[सं. ई-11016/1 /2005 ( रा.भा. ) ]

हरीश चन्द्र जयाल , संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications) (O.L. SECTION)

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2005

S.O. 3193. In pursuance of the Rule 10(4) ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) , Rules , 1976 (as amended-1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices under the adminis- trative control of Ministry of Communications and Infor- mation Technology, Department of Telecommunications whereof more than 80 % of staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi ..

Chief General Manager Telecom , BSNL , Karnataka Circle, Bangalore -560008.

1. Divisional Engineer ( Internal) , Davangere 2. Divisional Engineer (Rural) , Davangere 3. Telegraph Office, Davangere

4. Sub -Divisional Officer (Phones) , Davangere 5. Sub - Divisional Engineer , Trunks Mobile , Davangere

6. Divisional Engineer Urban/Rural , Chitradurg 7. Sub - Divisional Engineer, C Dot, Chitradurg 8. Telegraph Office, Chitradurg

9. Divisional Engineer, Chalkere

10. Divisional Engineer, Hollkere

11. Divisional Engineer , Heriyur

12. Sub -Divisional Engineer, Hosdurg Group 13. Sub -Divisional Engineer (Phones) , Harihar 14. Sub- Divisional Engineer (Group) , Malebenoor 15. Sub- Divisional Engineer (Group) , Jagloor 16. Sub- Divisional Engineer, Molklanoor

[No. E - 11016/1/2005/ (O.L .) ] HARISH CHANDRA JAYAL, Jt . Secy.

9996

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय (माध्यमिक तथा उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 3194.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम 4 के अनुसरण में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ( माध्यमिक तथा उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग के अन्तर्गत कार्यरत निम्नलिखित 10 केन्द्रीय विद्यालयों को, ऐसी संस्थाओं के रूप में , जिनमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कार्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है : -

1. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, ( द्वितीय पाली ) , जनकपुरी , नई दिल्ली-58 2. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , (द्वितीय पाली ) , उत्तम नगर, नई दिल्ली -56 3. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , (द्वितीय पाली ) , गोल मार्किट , नई दिल्ली -110001 4. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , सैक्टर-3, रोहिणी , नई दिल्ली-85

5. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, सैक्टर-3 , फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा

6. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, सैक्टर-5, द्वारका , नई दिल्ली-75

7. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, ई.बी.एस. , बाबूगढ़ कैंट, गाजियाबाद

8. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, सैक्टर-8 , द्वारका, नई दिल्ली -75

9. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय, सैक्टर-25, रोहिणी, नई दिल्ली-85

10. केन्द्रीय विद्यालय , सैक्टर -8 , रोहिणी, नई दिल्ली-85

[सं. 11011-7/2005 - रा.भा.ए. ] डी.पी. बन्दूनी , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Sec . and Higher Education) NewDelhi , the 28th July, 2005

S.O. 3194. In pursuance of sub - rule ( 4) of rule 10 ofthe Official Language ( use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Govt . hereby notifies the following 10 Kendriya Vidyalayas under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Deptt. of Sec . and Higher Education) whose more than 80 % members of the staff have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

1. Kendriya Vidyalaya, (IInd Shift) Janak Puri , New Delhi -58 2. KendriyaVidyalaya , (IInd Shift) Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 56 3. Kendriya Vidyalaya, (IInd Shift) Gol Market, New Delhi - 110001

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

4. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Sector-3 , Rohini , New Delhi -85

5. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-3 , Faridabad, Haryana

6. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector- 5, Dwarka, New Delhi - 75

7. Kendriya Vidyalaya, E.B.S. Babugarh Cantt, Ghaziabad

8. Kendriya Vidyalaya, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi - 75

9. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Sector- 25 , Rohini , New Delhi - 85

10. Kendriya Vidyalaya , Sector-8 , Rohini , New Delhi - 85 [No. 11011-7/2005 -O.L.U.J D. P. BANDOONI , Director (O.L. )

परमाणु ऊर्जाविभाग (सामान्यसेवा संगठन ) कल्पाक्कम , 6 जून, 2005

का.आ. 3195.-सक्षम अधिकारी , श्री विवेक आनंद प्रशासनिक अधिकारी , सासेस को सार्वजनिक परिक्षेत्र ( अनधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम 1971 की धारा 3 के तहत कल्पाक्कम और अणुपुरम स्थित परमाणु उर्जा विभाग, भारत सरकार के अथवा उसके प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन परिक्षेत्रों के संपदा अधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करते हैं ।

[सं. सासेस/ 17 (27 )/2005 - भर्ती ] टी. वाई. प्रहलाद राव, मुख्य प्रशासनिक अधिकारी

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY (General Services Organisation) Kalpakkam , the 6th June, 2005

S.O. 3195. The Competent Authority appoints Shri Vivek Anand, Administrative Officer - III , GSO as Es- tate Officer under Section 3 of Public Premises ( Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act 1971for the Premiscs belonging to or under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India in Kalpakkam and Anupuram.

[No. GSO/ 17 (27 )/2005 -R ]

T. Y. PRAHALAD RAO , ChiefAdministrative Officer

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 1 सितम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 3196.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग ) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन भारतीय खाद्य निगम के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों, जिनके 9997

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है:-

2. भारतीय खाद्य निगम, जिला कार्यालय , गुरदासपुर

1. भारतीय खाद्य निगम, जिला कार्यालय, चंडीगढ़

3. भारतीय खाद्य निगम, जिला कार्यालय , कोच्चि

4. भारतीय खाद्य निगम, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, तिरूवनन्तापुरम

[सं. ई-11011/1/2001 -हिन्दी]

अनिता चौधरी, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Deptt. of Food and Public Distribution) New Delhi , the 1st September, 2005 S.O. 3196. In pursuance of Sub- rule (4) of rule 10 ofthe Official Language (use for Oficial purpose of the Union) Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of Food Corporation of India under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public Distribution (Deptt . of Food and Public Distribution) , whereof more than 80 % of staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:-

1. Food Corporation ofIndia, District Office, Chandigarh

2. Food Corporation of India, District Office, Gurdaspur

3. Food Corporation ofIndia, District Office,Kochi

4. Food Corporation of India, Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram [No. E - 11011 /1 /2001 -Hindi]

ANITA CHAUDHARY, Jt . Secy.

(उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 2 मई , 2005

का.आ. 3197.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय मानक

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

स्थापित तिथि

द्वारा अतिक्रमित

संख्या मानक ( कों ) की

भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों,

संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

यदि कोई हो, की

संख्या और वर्ष

मार्च 2005

कुछ नहीं

1. IS15464: 2004 स्वचल ईंधन में प्रयुक्तके लिए इन्हाईड्रस ईथनॉल-

विशिष्टि

2558 G1/ 05--- 2

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नईदिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों, अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ] डा. ( श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' निदेशक एवं प्रमुख DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS) New Delhi, the 2nd May, 2005

S.O. 3197.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of

No. and year

Sl . No. and year and

Established

of Indian

No. title ofthe Indian

Standards

Standards , if

Established

any Superseded

by the New

Indian Standard

March 2005 1 IS 15464: 2004 None

Anhydrous Ethanol for use in Automotive fuel- Specification

Copyof this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau ofIndian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110 002 and Regional Offices New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices:Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore,Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. PCD/G-7 (Gazette)] DR. (Smt. ) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ' E ' Director & Head नई दिल्ली, 28 फरवरी , 2005

का.आ. 3198.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो 9998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधित भारतीय संशोधन की संख्या संशोधन लागू

और तिथि

होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

तत्काल प्रभाव IS 15410 2003 संशोधन संख्या 2 ,

से

अप्रैल 2005

पैकेजबंद खनिज जल

और पैकेजबंद पेय

जल की पैकेजबंदी के

लिए धारक विशिष्टि

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन 9 बहादुर शाह जफरे मार्ग नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ] डॉ( श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' निदेशक एवं प्रमुख New Delhi , the 28th February, 2005

S.O. 3198-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifices that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued

SCHEDULE

No. and year

ofthe amend-

ment

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

Datefrom which the amendment shall have effect

Amendment

No. 2April,

2005

With immediate effect 1 IS 15410 : 2003 Containers for packaging of natural mineral waterandpackaged drinkingwater- Specification

Copyof ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau ofIndian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

Date: 2-5-2005

[No. PCD/G-7 (Gazette) ] DR. (Smt.) VIJAY MALIK, Scientist ' E ' Director & Head

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ⅱ) ] नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2005

का.आ. 3199.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम

संशोधन की संख्या

औरतिथि

संशोधित भारतीय संख्या मानक की संख्या

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि और वर्ष

1. IS 4135 : 1974 संशोधन संख्या 1 , अप्रैल 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से 2. IS 4588 : 1986 संशोधन संख्या 2 , अप्रैल 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से 3. IS 5915 : 1970 संशोधन संख्या 2, अप्रैल 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ]

डॉडी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञ. एफ एवं प्रमुख New Delhi , the 31st May, 2005

S.O. 3199.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule of Rule 7 of theBureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifices that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Datefrom Sl . No. and year of No. and year

of the amend

No. the Indian

Standards

ment

which the amendment shall have effect

With. immediate effect

Amendment No. 1April 2005

1 IS 4135 : 1974 Specification for hospital rubber sheetings ( first revision)

-do-

Amendment No. 2April 2005

2. IS 4588 : 1986 Specification for rubber, raw, natural (third revision)

Amendment No. 2April 2005 -do- 3. IS 5915 : 1970 Specification for single texture rubberized water prooffabrics [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

9999

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau ofIndian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram .

[No. PCD/G - 7 (Gazette) ]

Dr. D. K. CHAUDHURI , Sc . F & Head नई दिल्ली, 31 मई , 2005

का.आ. 3200.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

नये भारतीय मानक ' स्थापित क्रम संख्या

तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हो, कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1. IS 1460: 2005

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

मोटर वाहन डीजल ईंधन- विशिष्टि ( पाँचवाँ पुनरीक्षण)

मार्च 2005

कुछ नहीं

2. IS13360 (Part 8/Sec 14): 2005 प्लास्टिक- मरीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 8 स्थायित्व/ रासायनिक गुणधर्म अनुभाग 14 अवमंदन ताप, जल छिड़काव और साल्टमिस्टके प्रभाव ज्ञात करना

इन भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7( गजट) ] डा. डी.के. चौधरी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख New Delhi , the 31st May, 2005

S:O . 3200.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( I ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No. & Year and title

No. of the Indian Standards Established

Date of Establi- shed

No.& year of Indian Stand- ards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

None

May2005 1. IS 1460: 2005 Auto- motive Diesel fuel- Specification ( fifth revision)

None

March 2005 1. IS 13360 (Part 8/Sec 14) : 2005 ISO 4611 : 1987 Plastics Methods of testing Part 8 Per- manence/ chemical properties Section 14 Determination of the effects of exposure to damp heat , water spray and salt mist

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau ofIndian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore,Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. PCD/G-7 (Gazette) ] Dr. D.K. CHAUDHURI , Sc . F & Head नई दिल्ली, 30 जून, 2005

का.आ. 3201.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

द्वारा अतिक्रमित

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) नये भारतीय मानक संख्या की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

भारतीय मानक अथवा

मानकों, यदिकोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

IS326 (Part 4) : 2005/ ISO 592: 1998 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ प्राकृतिकऔर संश्लेषित सुगन्ध सामग्री भाग 4 - प्रकाशिक घूर्णन ज्ञात करना ( तृतीय पुनरीक्षण ) [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 10000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

(4)

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

(2)

(1)

अप्रैल 2005

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

IS326 (Part 6) : 2005/

8. IS 3708 (Part 7) : 2005/ ISO 506 : 1992 प्राकृतिक रबड़ लैटेक्स की परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 7 वाष्पशील वसा- अम्ल संख्या ज्ञात करना (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अप्रैल 2005

कुछ नहीं

2. ISO 875 1999 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ प्राकृतिक और संश्लेषित सुगन्ध सामग्री भाग 6 - ऐथेनाल में मिश्रणीयता अंश ज्ञात करना (तृतीय पुनरीक्षण)

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

9. IS 3708 (Part 8 ) : 2005/ ISO 1656: 1996 प्राकृतिक रबड़ लैटेक्स की परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 8 रबड़ , कच्चा प्राकृतिक और रबड़ लेटेक्स, प्राकृतिक, नाइट्रोजन का अंश ज्ञात करना ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

3. IS326(Part 8): 2005/ ISO 709 2001 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ प्राकृतिकऔर संश्लेषित सुगन्ध सामग्री भाग 8 - ऐस्टर मान ज्ञात करना ( तृतीय पुनरीक्षण )

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

10. IS 8481 : 2005 खिजाब , तरल, जैल और क्रीम- विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अप्रैल 2005

कुछनहीं

4. IS 326 (Part 10) : 2005/ ISO4715: 1978 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ प्राकृतिक और संश्लेषित सुगन्ध सामग्री भाग 10- वाष्पन पर अपशिष्ट का ज्ञात करना (तृतीय पुनरीक्षण )

11. IS 3400 (Part 6): 2005/ ISO 1817: 1999 वल्कनीकृत रबड़ के लिए परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 6 रबड़ वल्कनीकृत- तरल का प्रभाव ज्ञात करना ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

मई 2005

अप्रैल 2005 कुछ नहीं

कुछ नहीं

12. IS 1677 : 2005 /ISO 1401 1999 कृषि छिड़काव के लिए रबड़ के हौज़ ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अप्रैल 2005

कुछनहीं 5. IS326 (Part 12): 2005/ ISO1270: 2000 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ प्राकृतिक और संश्लेषित सुगन्ध सामग्री भाग 12 फनालें का ज्ञात करना ( तृवीय पुनरीक्षण )

मई2005

कुछ नहीं

6. IS 326 (Part 13 ) : 2005/

13. IS 5894: 2005 /ISO 3861 1995 बालूऔर ग्रिट विस्फोटन के लिए रबड़ के हौज़- विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरुवनन्तापुरम मेंबिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

ISO 1202: 1981 नमूने लेने और परीक्षण की पद्धतियाँ प्राकृतिक और संश्लेषित सुगन्ध सामग्री भाग 13-1 , 8 साइनओल अंश ज्ञात करना (तृतीय पुनरीक्षण)

अप्रैल 2005

कुछ नहीं

डॉडी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख [सं. पीसीडी जी/-7 ( गजट) ]

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2005

S.O. 3201. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) ofRule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

IS4511 (Part 5) : 2005/ ISO 7781 : 2001 स्टाइरीन- ब्यूटाडाइन रबड़ एसबीआर, लेटेसिस की परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ भाग 5 साबुन एवं कार्बनिक अम्ल का अंश ज्ञान करना (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) 10001 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10 , 2005/भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

None

May2005 Sl . No. and Year and title

Date of Establi- shed

No. of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Indian Stan- dards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

6. IS 326 (Part 13 ) : 2005/ ISO 1202 : 1981 Methods of Sampling and Test for Natural and Synthetic Perfumery Materials Part 13 Deter- mination of 1 , 8 - Ceneole Content (Third Revision)

None

May2005

None

April2005

7. IS 4511 (Part 5) :2005/ ISO 7781 : 2001 Methods of test for styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), latices Part 5 Determination of soap and organic-acid content (Second Revision)

1. IS 326 (Part 4):2005/ ISO 592 : 1998 Methods ofSampling and Test For Natural And Synthetic Perfumery Materials Part 4 Deter- minationofOptical Rotation (Third Revision)

None

April2005

May 2005

None

8. IS 3708 (Part 7): 2005/ ISO 506 : 1992 Methods of test for natural rubber latex Part7 Determination of volatile fatty acid number (Second Revision)

None

April2005 2. IS 326 (Part 6): 2005/ ISO 875 : 1999 Methods of Sampling and Test for Natural and Synthetic Perfumery Materials Part 6 Evalua- tionofMiscibility in Ethanol (Third Revision)

None

May 2005

9. IS 3708 (Part 8): 2005/ ISO 1658 : 1996 Methods of test for natural rubber latex Part 8 Rubber, raw natural and rubber latex , Natural -Determination of nitrogen content (Second Revision)

May2005

None

3. IS 326 (Part 8): 2005/ ISO709 : 2001 Methods of Sampling and Test for Natural and Synthetic Perfumery Materials Part 8 Determi- nation of Ester Value (Third Revision)

May 2005

None

10. IS8481 : 2005 Oxidation hair dyes , liquid, gel and cream- Specification (Third Revision)

None

April2005 4. IS 326 (Part 10): 2005/ ISO4715: 1978 Methods of Sampling and Test for Natural and Synthetic Perfumery Materials Part 10 Deter- mination of Residue on Evoporation (Third Revision)

May2005

None

11. , IS 3400 (Part6) :2005/ ISO 1817 : 1999 Methods of test for vulcanized rubbers Part 6 Rubber, vulcanized- Determination of the effect of liquids (Second Revision)

April2005

None

12. IS 1677 : 2005/ ISO 1401 : 1999 Rubber hoses for Agri- cultural spraying (Second Revision)

5. IS 326 (Part 12): 2005/ ISO 1270: 2000 Methods of Sampling and Test for Natural and Synthetic Perfumery Materials Part 12 Deter- mination of Phenols (Third Revision) 10002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

4 13. IS 5894 : 2005/

None

April2005 ISO 3861 : 1995 Rubberhases for sand gritblasting- Specification (Second Revision)

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 30th June , 2005

S.O. 3202.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Burearu of Indin Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standads hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich aregiven in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

Sl . No. and year

No. of the Indian

Standards

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkatta , Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. PCD/G-7 (Gazette) ] Dr. D.K. CHAUDHURI , Sc . F & Head नई दिल्ली, 30 जून , 2005

का.आ. 3202.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या औरतिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संशोधित भारतीय सं. मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1 . IS 1206 ( Part 3): 1978

संशोधन संख्या 1 , मई2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से 2. IS 3926 : 1986 संशोधन संख्या 1 , मई 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से 3. IS 3928 : 1986 संशोधन संख्या 1 , मई2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से 4. IS 4603 : 1991 संशोधन संख्या 1 , मई2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS 1206 (Part 3 ) :

diate effect

Amendment No. 1 With imme- 1978 Methods for May 2005

testing tar and bitu- minous materials:

Determination of Viscosity Part 3 KinematicViscosity (First Revision)

2. IS 3926 : 1986- Specification for Methyl Cinnamate (First Revision) Amendment No. 1 May 2005 -do-

3. IS 3928 : 1986 Amendment No. 1 -do- Specification for Styralyl Acetate May 2005 (FirstRevision)

4. IS4603: 1991 Amendment No. 1 -do- Pheny ethyl alco- May 2005 hol-Specification (FirstRevision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. PCD/G -7 (Gazette) ] Dr. D.K. CHAUDHURI , Sc . F & Head नई दिल्ली, 9 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3203.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

7 अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय

सं. मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नईदिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयोंः नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीढ़, चेन्नई मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7(गजट) ]

डॉडी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS 2796 : 2000

संशोधन संख्या 5, जुलाई 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005 / भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

( 2)

(1)

2. IS 9381 : 1979

संशोधन संख्या 2, जुलाई, 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से 3. IS 15462 : 2004 संशोधन संख्या 1 , जुलाई, 2005 तत्काल प्रभाव से इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ]

डॉडी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञा. एफ एवं प्रमुख New Delhi , the 9th August, 2005

S.O. 3203. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Burearu of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and year of

Sl . No. and year

No. of the Indian the amendment

Standards

Date from whichthe amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

Amendment No. 5

IS 2796 : 2000

With imme- date effect

July, 2005

Motor Gasolines

Specification-

(Third Revision)

Amendment No. 2 -do- 2. IS 9381 : 1979

July, 2005

Methods for test-

ingtar andbitu-

minous materials:

Determination of

FrassBreaking

Point ofBitumen

Amendment No. 1 -do- 3. IS 15462: 2004

Polymer and July, 2005

RubberModi-

fiedBitumen

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau ofIndian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. PCD/G-7 (Gazette) ] Dr. D.K. CHAUDHURI, Sc . F & Head (PCD)

10003 नई दिल्ली , 30 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3204.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय संशोधन की संख्या

और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि सं. मानक (कों) की

संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

31मार्च, 2005 1. IS 1651 : 1991

01 मार्च, 2005

स्थिर सैल और बैटरियाँ,

सीसा अम्ल प्रकार

(धनात्मक नलिकाकार

प्लेट वाली) -विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. ईटी 11 /टी-20 ] पी.के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी) New Delhi , the 30th August , 2005

S.O. 3204. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( I ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. and Year No. and year of

the amendment

No. of the Indian

Standards

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

1. IS 1651 : 1991

31 March, 2005

01 March, 2005

Stationary cells

and batteries

lead-acid type

(with tubular positive

plates)-Specification

Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. ET 11/T-20 ] P. K. MUKHERJEE, Scientist F and Head (El . Tech) 10004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

2004-01-04

2004-02-17

2004-01-21

2004-03-01

2004-03-01 2004-03-01

प्रचालन

तिथि

दर शेष

0 0

0 इकाइयाँ

स्लैब2मेंइकाई

0 0

स्लैब-2

दर

इकाइयाँ

स्लैब1मेंइकाई

सभी

11.2

3.25

0.30

0.07

0.03 इकाई स्लैब1

दर

117000

24000

26000

24000

47000

पर

130000

55000 33000 30000

30000 30000 न्यूनतममुहरांकनशुल्क

पर

बड़ेपैमानेछोटेपैमाने

अनुसूची

6 वर्गमीटर

इकाई

1नग

100मी.

नईदिल्ली,31अगस्त,2005

1किग्रा.

उत्पाद

परिसज्जितचमड़ेकेलिएइको

हवायुक्तगुच्छितकेबल

मॉड्यूलरनिचलेअंगउर्ध्व

स्थितिजपुर्जे

मॉड्यूलरनिचलेअंगउर्ध्व स्थितिजपुर्जे

संबंधीमापदंड

स्ट्रेचरतथास्ट्रेचरवाहक

भुनीएवंपीसीकॉफी

भाग2पदाधानास्थिस्प्लिट

1967

1980

1992

1995 1980

2001

वर्ष

0 2

0 0

भागअनु.

का.आ.3205.-भारतीयमानकब्यूरो(प्रमाणन)विनियम,1988केविनियम6केउप-विनियम(3)केअनुसरणमेंभारतीयमानकब्यूरोएतद्वारानीचेअनुसूचीमेंदिएगएउत्पादोंकीमुहरांकन

सं.

3077 4037

9471

14898 14255

मानक

भारतीय

शुल्कअधिसूचितकरताहै:-

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

2004-03-01

2004-03-01 2004-03-01

2004-0 -03-01

सभी

0.02

0.05

1.5

24000

24000 24000

24000

30000

1नग

मॉड्यूलरनिचलेअंगउर्ध्व

स्थितिजपुर्जे

निचला)

स्थितिजपुर्जे

टखनातथाघुटना(उपरीतथा

भाग3पदाधानास्थिप्लेट

भाग5संयुक्तइकाई,घुटना

भाग4संयुक्तइकाई,टखना मॉड्यूलरनिचलेअंगउर्ध्व

भाग7आर्थोटिकसंयुक्तछड़ें,

भाग6आर्थोटिककूल्हेकाजोड़ (संयुक्त'इकाईकूल्हा-पानबंध)

1980

9471

9471 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2004-04-22

2004-04-26

2004-03-09

2004-03-17

2004-03-01

2004-03-01 2004-03-01

2004-03-01

0 13

0 0

0 11

0 0

सभी

200

662

0.4 0.5

0.2

62000

24000

62000

22000

26000

24000

32000

24000

24000 24000

70000

33000 70000

30000

30000 29000

30000

39000

30000

किलो

100 6

बेयरिंग लिटर

1नग

एकटन

1नग

100लि.

1नग

हैक्साकोनाजोलईसी

बहुप्रयोगीजलीयफिल्मबनाने सर्वाइकलकालर

एसीफेट,एसपी

अग्रमेरूअतिप्रसार(एएसएस)

बेयरिंग

एकलपंक्तित्रिज्यबाल

कडा

दृष्टिविक्लांगोंकेलिएछडी

हाइड्रोजनऔरध्रुवीविलायक 1 कीआगबुझानेकेलिए

बैलशार्टहैंडमशीन

भाग2फोल्डहोनेवाली

हाथ,यांत्रिक

ब्रेलस्लेट

1972 2003

1990

2000 1988

4 1985

1986

1997

1986

0 0

ง 0 0

0 0

6455 4989

14550

12916

14429

11708

11646

14879

11569

11279

2558 G1/05-3

10005

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10 , 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

2004-07-05

2004-06-22 2004-06-16

2004-05-12

2004-06-21

2004-05-05

शेष शेष

5000

सभी 5000

सभी

1.25

0.5

1.6

180000

17000 135000

47000

99000

135000

24000 200000

110000

55000

150000

मीटर

1नग

1टन

1वर्ग

100नग

1लैम्प

1जोड़ा

वेल्डकृतइस्पाततार एचपीएमवीलैम्पोंकेलिए बेलास्ट

सामान्यउपयोगकेलिए

दरवाजे

संचकितरेज्डउच्चघनत्ववाले रेशा(एचडीएफ)पैनल

भाग2सुरक्षाजूते

लैम्प

उच्चदाबपारेकेवाष्पलैम्प अपेक्षाएंतथापरीक्षण

सामान्यप्रकाशसेवाओंके लिएस्वतःबैलास्टहोनेवाले लैम्प

सांमान्यप्रकाशसेवाओंके लिएस्वतःबैलास्टहोनेवाले

व्यवसायिकउपयोगकेलिए सुरक्षासंरक्षीतथाव्यवसायिक जूते

वालेझागएवंसांद्र

1982

2002

2003

2002

1981

2002

6616

4948

15380

9900 15298

15111

15111 10006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

2004-07-19.

2004-08-19

2004-09-08

2004-10-0 -05

2004-0 -09-08

2004-0 -09-27

2004-0 -09-30

2004- 4-09-24

0 0

12 शेष शेष

00 00

120शेष

1.5

0 0

0 0 12000

800

150

10 सभी

सभी सभी

सभी

1.75

240

50 60

10 72 3

41000

24000

29000

60000

35000 8

49000

42000 36000 36000 36000 30000

30000 72000 7

1टन

1नग

100नग

1टन

1नग

100मी.

1कि.ग्रा.

भूमिगतनालोंवसीवरप्रणाली

एल्युमीनियमफॉसफाइड पाउडरनिर्मितयाँ

अग्निशामक-135लिटर क्षमतायांत्रिकझागटाइप

कवरपेपर

अग्निशमनकेलिएयुग्मक ब्राँचपाइप,होजरीलनलिका

धातुअग्निहेतुशुष्कपाउडर वालेअग्निशामक

सूतीअस्तरवालेकपड़े

बुशकालेजूतेकेलिए

मेंप्रयोगकेलिएगैर-दाब पॉली-विनाइलक्लोराईड

(यूपीवीसी)पाइप

1976

2001

1986

2002

2001

1979

2003 3 0

0 0 2 0 0

0 1.

6956

1535 8090

3008

15219

11833

15328

14951

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 2004-10-20

2004-10-20

2004-12-02

2004-10-20

2004-11-30

2004-12-10

2004- 4-10-11

2004- -12-15

2004- 4-10-28

[सं.के.प्र.वि./13:10] 0

0000

बलवंतराय,उपमहानिदेशक(मुहर) शेष

0 0

25000

सभी

सभी सभी

सभी सभी सभी

सभी

0.10

1.5

2.4

3.2

0.5

32000

24000

29000

41000 24000 24000 24000

29000

26000

49000

39000

30000

30000 33000

30000

36000

30000

फिल्टर वर्गमीटर

1टन

100नग

एकनग

100किग्रा

1एम.टी.

क्विनालफॉसकेदाने

फिल्टर

सिंचाईउपस्कर-हाइड्रोसाइक्लोन1

सिलिकॉनसेबनेवाटररेपीलेंट1लिटर टिकटबोर्ड 1टन

मेनहोलकेढक्कनकेलिए ढलवालौहेकेस्टेप

शेविगक्रीम

सामान्यप्रयोजनकेलिए कॉयरवेनीयरबोर्ड

पल्पबोर्ड

बुश,जूतोंपरप्ालिशकरने वाले

2002

1986

2000

1987

1999

1969

1986 1981

1987

0 0

4664

2483

5455

9366

12027

9740

3009

14842

14743 10007 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II-खण् खण्ड 3( ii) ]

20040301 20040301

20040301

20040217

20040121

20040104 20040301

Enforcement Date

Units Rate Rest

0 0

0 0 0

Unit in Slab2

00 Unit Rate Slab2

0 0 0

All All

All

All All

All

Units in Slab1

0.05

0.07 0.02

0.05

11.2

3.25 0.03

0.4 0.2

1.5

Unit Rate Slab1

0.3

117000

24000

24000 24000

26000

47000

MarkingFee Small Scale

24000 3000024000

30000 130000

30000

30000 30000

33000

55000

Min. Large Scale

SCHEDULE

100M

UNIT

1piece

1kg

1piece

1SQM

1piece

NewDelhi,the31stAugust,2005

herebynotifiestheMarkingfortheproductsgivenintheschedule:

Stretchersandstretcher

CervicalCollar

Modularlowerlimp

orthoticcomponents

Modularlowerlimp

Modularlowerlimp orthoticcomponents

orthoticcomponents

Modularlowerlimp

carriers Modularlowerlimp

Product

orthoticcomponents

BrailleSlate leather

RoastedandGround Coffee

AerialBunchedCables

orthoticcomponents

part3strirrupsplates

part4jointunit,ankle

part5jointunit,knee

part2strirrupssplit

Ecocriteriaforfinished

orthoticcomponents part7orthoticjoint Bars,AnkleandKnee (UpperandLower) 5

part6orthotichipjoint (Jointunit,hipdriplock)

1985

1986

2000

1980 2000

1980 1980

1995 1980

1992 1967

Year

2001

Sec.

0 0

9471

11279

9471 9471

11569

4037 9471

1498 3077 14255

IS.No.

S.O.3205.-Inpursuanceofsub-regulation(3)ofregulation6oftheBureauofIndianStandards(Certification)Regulations1988,theBureauofIndianStandards, 10008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

20040317

20040422

20040426 20040301

20040301

20040309

20040301

000

0 0

0 000

0 0 0

All

Ali All

All All

All

662 200 0.5

24000

24000 32000

26000

22000

62000

62000 7

30000

30000 39000

33000

70000

29000

30000

Onetonne

100lts.

100bearings70000

1kilolitre 1piece

1piece

HexaconazoleEC

Multipurposeaqueous

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

20040622

20040616

20040505

20040512

20040621

0 Rest

Rest

0 0

5000 5000

All

1.25

1.6

22 30

180000

135000

17000

47000

99000

200000 110000

150000 150000

55000 24000 1lamp

100pieces

oflamps

1tonne 100pieces oflamps

Isqm

1pair

concentartefor

extingushinghydro

AcephateSP

Machine

bearing handicappedpart2 foldingtype

carbonandpolar

BrailleShorthand

Anteriorspinal Hyperextension9ASHO Brace SinglerowradialBall

HandMechanical

Caneforvisually

filmformingfoamliquid

Weldedsteelwire

solventfires

Mouldedraisedhigh densityfibre(HDF)panel

doors fabricforgeneraluse Highpressuremercury vapourlamps requirementandtests

Selfballastedlamps

Safetyprotectiveand occupationalfootwear forprofessionaluse part2safetyfootwear

Selfballastedlamps

forgenerallighting

services

1986

1972

1986

1990

1987

2003

1998

2000

0 (0

0 4

2 2

6455 4989 14429

11646 11708 11879

12916

14550

forgenerallighting services

2002 2002

2002

2003 2002 1981

()

0 9900

4948

15298 15380

15111

15111 10009 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2004-12-10

2004-12-15

2004-10-28

2004-12-02

2004-11-30

2004-10-20

2004-10-11

2004-10-05

2004-09-24

2004-09-30

2004-09-27

2004-09-08

2004-07-05

2004-08-19

2004-07-19

[No.CMD/13:10]

000

Rest

0 0

rest

0 0

000

BALWANTRAI,Dy.DirectorGeneral(Marks)

0 0

120

1 0

1.5

12 0

25000

All All

12000

All

All All

All

150

All

800

All All

0.10

3.2 90

0.5

2.4

1.5

1.75

240

0.5 50

24000

26000

24000

29000

41000 29000

32000

60000

24000 35000

24000

29000

41000

33000

30000

36000

49000

30000

39000

72000

30000 42000

36000

30000

36000

49000

piece

100pieces

100kg

1m.t.

100meters

1filter

1piece

1sqmeter

100pieces

1litre

1tonne

1tone

1kg

1piece

1tonne

1piece

hydrocyclonefilters

Quinalphosgranules

repellents Irrigationequipment-

extinguisherformetal

Shavingcreams

Siliconebasedwater

systems

generalpurposes Brushes,shoepolishing

Ticketboard

Couplingbranchpipe,

Castironsteps.

Aluminiumphosphide powderformulation

mechanicalfoamtype Brushes,shoeblacking

Coirveneerboardfor

Cottonliningcloth

formanholecovers nozzleusedinhosereel

BallastsforHPMVlamps1

Pulpboard

tubingforfirefighting

Non-pressurepolyvinyl

Coverpaper

fires

chloride(UPVC-U)pipes

foruseinunderground

drainageandsewerage

Fireextinghisher-135

Itrscapacity

Drypowderfire

1969

2002

1987

1981

1999 2000

1986

1987

2003

1979

2002

2001

1976

1986

1982

2001

0 ()

0 0

5455

9366

3009

9740

4664

2483

14842

14743

1535

12027

3008

15328

15219

8090

6616

6956

14951

11833 10010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

2003-01-08

2003-03-13

प्रचालन

तिथि

दर

शेष

0 इकाइयाँ

स्लैब2मेंइकाई

0 इकाई स्लैब-2

दर

0 इकाइयाँ

स्लैब1में

10 सभी सभी सभी इकाई स्लैब1

600

दर

9 8

3 शुल्क

41000 26000 66000

छोटेपैमाने

पर

49000

न्यूनतममुहरांकन

33000 75000

पर

बड़ेपैमाने

अनुसूची

इकाई

100नग

1टन

नईदिल्ली,31अगस्त,2005

उत्पाद

उपसाधनोंकाआष्टन

ब्यूटाईलेटेडहाइड्राक्सी- एनीसोल,खाद्यग्रेड

घरेलूऔरऐसेहीस्थायी

विद्युतसंस्थापनोंकेलिए

ढककेबल-66कि.वो.से 200कि.वो.तककीकार्य-

अनुप्रस्थजुड़ेहुएपोलीइथाई1मीटर लीनविद्युतरोधीतापस्थापी

2000

वर्ष

1996 1993

3 0

0 भागअनु.

2 0

सं.

5543

मानक

7098

14772

भारतीय

का.आ.3206.-भारतीयमानकब्यूरो(प्रमाणन)विनियम,1988केविनियम6केउपविनियम(3)केअनुसरणमेंभारतीयमानकब्यूरोएतद्वारानीचेअनुसूचीमेंदिएगयेउत्पादोंकीमुहरांकन शुल्कअधिसूचितकरताहै:-

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 2003-04-14

2003-04-24

2003-06-24 2003-08-05

2003-08-05

2003-07-09

0 00 000

000

0 0 सभी सभी सभी सभी

सभी

सभी सभी सभी

सभी 2.9

86.4 0.35 25 15 11

1.3 5

47000

26000 26000 26000 24000 17000 26000

24000 55000 55000

33000 33000 33000 30000 24000 33000

30000

1000 एक

पेंच स्टरलाइजर्स 1000नग

एकनग 1एमटी

1एमटी

एकवाल्व

एकजोड़ा जस्तीकृतलड़

धातुकारआरीब्लेड

लेमिनेट-सामान्यप्रयोजन

खाँचदारकाउंटरसंकशीर्ष

निकासवाल्व

जलकलकेलिएरेजीलिएंट सीटिडढलवांलोहेकेवायु

रेजिनउपचारितसंपीडितकाष्ठ1वर्गमीटर

क्षैतिजबेलनाकारटाइप

कारीवोल्टताकेलिए

काष्ठपेंच

तारकीछोटीरस्सियाँ

भापस्टरलाइजर्स-दाबवालें

भू-सम्पर्कनकेलिए

नेत्रसंरक्षक

एकसिरावालेखुलेमुंह केसमायोज्यरिंच 1989 2003

2000

1977

2002

1972 1985 1980

1984 0

0 0

0 0 3

0 0 0

0 0 2594

3513

3459

12776 14845

3829

6149

6760

5983 10011 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2003-08-12

2003-08-07

2003-08-06

2003-08-06 2003-08-06

2003-08-06

2003-08-05

2003-08-05 2003-08-05

2003-08-05

2003- 2003-08-07 14

0 0

सभी0

सभी

सभी सभी

सभी

0.15

120

2.5

6.5

32000 24000

57000

41000

47000

26000

35000

26000 26000

29000

24000

47000

30000

39000

33000 49000

36000

33000

55000

33000

65000 36000

36000

30000 42000

कि.लि.

1000

मीटर नंग

असेम्बली

1ट्रे

एकटन

1000लि.

100मी.

1वाल्व55000

एककुर्सी

1पैकेट

500सुइयाँ

1क्यूबिक 1कि.लि.

1एम.टी.

उपयोगात्मकवाल्वअसेम्बली

स्टेरलाइज्डफ्लेवर्डमिल्क

लेमिनेटिडसंजावटीलुम्बर 5

विस्थापितउपकरण-पहिए

सम्मिश्रणसंश्लिष्टरेशोंकी

कन्ड्यूटप्रणाली

सामान्यउपयोगकेमशीनएवं1

पीवीसीजलरोधक

हैलिकलप्रसरणकमानियाँ

रस्सियाँ

वस्त्रादि-उच्चसामर्थ्यपॉली

वृत्ताकारखंडतारऔरछड़ें

सोडियमहाइपोक्लोराइटघोल

जुनियरसाइज

तकुआतेल-मशीनीतेल

चिनाईऔरकंक्रीटवाले

औद्योगिकउपयोगकीसिलाई मशीनोंकेलिएसुइयाँ

सामान्यप्रयोजनहेतुफैलने

बाँधोंमेंप्रयोगमेंआनेवाले अनुप्रस्थसंकोचजोड़ोंपर

विद्युतसंस्थापनोंकेलिए

बनानेकेलिएअतप्तकुडलित

स्प्रिंग

वालीकुर्सी,फोल्डिंग,

गैसआधानोंकेलिएबहु-

मोटरवाहनोंमेंप्रयुक्तस्थायी रूपसेबनेद्रवितपैट्रोलियम

वालेसपाटपैकेट

मालकेट्रांसिटकेलिए

ओलीफाइन्सकोपालीमर कीरस्सियाँ

ट्रे,किडनी

1968

1999

1981

2001

2002

1992

1991

2001 2002

1976

1989

02001

2 0

493

4709

3992

8086

14616 7276

7907

15058

14930

15100

14928

15169

14929

11673 10012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2003-08-18

2003-09-02

2003-08-18

2003-09-19

2003-09-23

2003-10-06

2003-10-06.

2003-08- 8-19

2003-09- 9-10

2003- 3-09-11

200309-24

200309-29

सभी

सभी0

सभी

सभी सभी

सभी

0.22

0.38

100

130

0.5

32000

84000 32000

26000

29000

52000

29000

52000

47000

35000 29000

41000

33000

96000 39000

36000

33000

60000

36000

49000

55000

36000

42000

39000

60000

एक

एक टेक्सीमीटर

100नग

1000नग

100नग

एकनग

1000नग

एमटी

एकनग

100लि.

1लिटर

100किग्रा

एककिग्रा.

1एमटी.

डेल्टामेथ्रीनयूएलवी

सीबीआरसाँचाऔरइसके

सहायकांग

हैलिकलप्रसरणकमानियाँ

कुडलितस्प्रिंग

टैक्सीमीटर-कार्यकारी अपेक्षाएं

टूथपेस्ट

स्किनक्रीम

सांकलऔरकुण्डे

वृत्ताकारखंडतारऔरछड़ें बनानेकेलिएअत्तप्त

रिवायरेबलटाइपविद्युत फ्यूजोंमेंप्रयुक्तकैरियर औरबेस

प्लास्टिकइमल्शनरंग रोगनबाहरीउपयोगके लिए

गर्मतथाठंडेपानीकेलिए प्लास्टिककीबिबटोटियाँ, एंगकवाल्वतथारोकवाल्व

विद्युतसंस्थापनकेलिए धातुकंडयूटफिटिंग

अस्तरवलेपनवालेसरिये/ तारसेलिपटेहुएइस्पातके बेलनाकारपाइप(विशेष सहायकांगसहित)

50किग्रा./25किग्रा.चीनी पैककरनेकेलिएउच्च घनत्वपोलीइथाईलीन पोलीप्रोपाईलीनके बुनेहुएबोरे 4

1972

2000

1980

1990

1975

1978

2002 2002

2003

1993

2001

2 0

0 0

363

2747

6608

5411

7906

9763

2086

9669 15227

6356

15155

14768

14968 10013

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10 , 2005 /भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2003-12-18

2003-12-26

2003-11-24

2003-11-21

2003-11-04

2003-10-24

सभी

120

7 1 8

26000

35000

26000

29000

32000

47000

33000

42000

36000

39000

55000

100

वर्गमीटर

1टन

एकटन

1मीटर

100किग्रा.

नमकीन पोजोलानाऔरकंक्रीट अधिमिश्रणकेरूपमें प्रयुक्तउड़नराख

न्यूनतम48%पोलिएस्टर- पोलिएस्टरमिश्रितसूटिंग

2003-12-31 2003-12-31

2003-12-31

2003-12-26

2003-1 -12-31

[सं. के०प्रा०ि०वि/13:10]

बलवंतराय,उपमहानिदेशक(मुहर)

सभी

200

130

0.5

26000

35000

41000

24000

26000

33000

42000

49000

30000

33000

एम.टी.

100लि.

1जोड़ा

1एम.टी.

सिफ्लूथ्रीनईडब्ल्यू

वस्त्रादि-50किग्रा./25किग्रा.1 खाद्यान्नपैककरनेकेलिए

सोडियमबाईसल्फेट तकनीकी

पूर्वढलितकंक्रीटकेबल कवर

लीन(पीपी)केबुनेहुएबोरे

सीधेसंचकितपोलिविनायल क्लोराइड(पीवीसी)तलेके साथचमड़ेकेसुरक्षाजूते

वस्त्रादि-पट्टेकेलिए

कनवेयरऔरउत्थापक

भाग5सतहउपयोगहेतु

आगप्रतिरोधीपट्टे

वस्त्रादि-सीमेंटभरनेके बोरे-उच्चघनत्वपोलि- इथाइलीन(एचडीपीई) पोलिप्रापलीन(पीपी)

एस्बेस्टॉससीमेंटकेदाब पाइप(हल्कीड्यूटी)

2003

1993

2000

1980

1986

4 2003

1891

9627

15271

11652

3812

9517

2558 G1/05-4

उच्चघनत्वपोलीइथाईलीन (एचडीपीई)/पोलीप्रोपाई-

2002

2000

1998

1987

1970

248

15228

14887

14544

5820

हमारासंदर्भ:सीएमडी-4/13/:10 10014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

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

2003-01-08 2003-03-13

2003-06-24

2003-03-13 2003-04-14 2003-04-24

2003-04-24

2003-08-05

2003-07-09

Date

Rate

Rest

Unit

0 0 00

000

Units

in Slab2

0 0 0

0 00 Unit

Rate Slab2

0 0 0 0

0 0 00 Units Slab1

All

All All All

All

All Rate

Slab1

Unit

600

86.4All

2.9

9 8

1.3 0.35

Small Scale

26000 66000 47000

4100

47000

26000

24000 17000 26000

24000 8

MarkingFee

33000

Scale 49000

Large

75000

33000

550000

55000

Min.

33000 33000

30000

33000

24000

SCHEDULE

UNIT

1000PCS

100Pieces

1000Screws30000

1Tonne

1MT.

ISQ

IMT.

1Valve

1Pair

1Piece

1Sterlizer

NewDelhi,the31stAugust,2005

Enclosuresfor

GalvanizedStrandfor

Butylated

Product

ElectricalInstallations

HacksawBlades

ResilientSeatedCast

Earthing

PressureSteamSter-

pressedwoodLaminates-Meter

GeneralPurposes

Hydroxyanisole,Food Grade(BatchProcess)

ResinTrcatedCom-

ThermoplasticSheathed CablesforworkingVoltage from66Kvto200Kv

AccessoriesforHouse HoldandSimilarFixed

SmallWireRopes

XlpéInsulated

SlottedCountersunk HeadWordScrews

lizers,VerticalCylin-

dricalType 5

IronAirReliefValves forWaterWorksPurposes

EyeProtectors

Single-EndedOpen- JawAdjustableWrenches 4

Year

2000

1996 1993

1989

1977

2002

2003

1985

1972

1984

2000

1980 3

Sec.

()

() 0 0

()

0 PT

2 0

10 10

()

() 1

5343 7098

14772

3513

3459

2594

6760 3829

12776 14845

5983

6149 IS.No.

S.O.3206.-Inpursuanceofsub-regulation(3)ofregulation6oftheBureauofIndianStandards(Certification)Regulations1988,theBureauofIndianStandards, herebynotifiestheMarkingfortheproductsgivenintheschedule:

10015 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

2003-08-06 2003-08-06

2003-08-05

2003-08-06

2003-08-05

2003-08-07 2003-08-05

13 0

0 0

All

All All

All

Ali

All

0.15

120

6.5 36

2.5

36 36

41000

24000

32000

47000

29000

26000

29000

35000

26000

47000

29000

49000

33000

55000

33000

36000

39000

30000

55000

36000 33000

36000

42000

Needles

1K.L. 1K.L.

chair

1000PCS

100M.

500

1M.T.

1Valve Assembly

1Tonne

1Tray

1Wheel-

1Pallet

CompositeSynthetic

MultifunctionValve AssemblyforPer-

ConduitSystemsfor ElectricalInstallations

NeedlesforSewing MachineforIndustrial Purpose

GeneralPurpose MachineryandSpindle SodiumHypochlorite Solution

JuniorSize

RehabilitationEquipment WheelChairs,Folding,

Textiles-HighStrength PolyolefinsCopolymer Ropes

HelicalExtensionSpring

Trays,Kindney

PVCWater-Stopsat

FibreRopes

manentlyFixedLique- fiedPetroleumGas

PransverseContraction JointsforUseinMasonry andConcreteDams

Oils ColdCoiledSpringMade FromCircularSectionWire andBars

Oils:Part1Machinery Non-ExpendableGeneral

PurposeFlatPallets forThroughTransitof Goods

(LPG)Confainersfor Automotiveuse 4

1992

1989

2002

2002 1992

1976

1991

2001

1981

2001

3 0

493

8086

3992

7276

7907

15058

15100

149280

15169

14929

116730

1493 930 10016

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/ BHADRA 19 , 1927

2003-09-02

2003-08-19

2003-10-24

2003-10-06

2003-09-10

2003-08-07

2003-10-06

2003-09-2 -23

2003-09-1 -19

2003-09-1 -11

2003-09-2 2003-09-2 -24

2003-09- 9-29

0 0

000

0 0

000

0 0 0

0 0

(0)

()

All

All All

All

All All

All

0.22

0.38All

130

100All

310

0.5

52000

29000

35000

26000 47000

26000

29000

24000 57000

29000

52000

32000 32000

41000

47000

84000

36000

60000

42000

60000

33000

36000

39000

36000

30000 65000

49000

39000

55000

96000

33000

Pieces

Meter

Litres

1000

100Pieces

OnePiece

OneMT.

100Pieces

OneTonne55000

100Pieces

100Litres

OnePiece

OneKg.

100Kg.

1MT.

1Litre

1Cubic

1Taxi-

Accessories

DeltamethrinULV

Requirement

Toothpaste

LaminatedVeneerLumber

Taximeter-Performance

Pozzolanaincement.

SterilisedFlavoured

Springs-ColdCoiled

SpringsMadefrom CircularSectionWire

PlasticEmulsionPaint,

HelicalCompression

HaspsandStaples

SteelCylinderwith MortarLiningand Coating(IncludingSpecials)

SkinCream

CBRMouldsandits

Milk

PulverizedFhuelAsh: Part1foruseas

HighDensityHDPE/PP WovenSacksforPacking andBar

Bar/WireWrapped

forExterioruse

MetalConduitsFittings forElectricalInstallation

PlasticBibTaps,Angle ValvesandStopValves forHotandColdWater Services

CarrierandBasesused inRewireableType ElectricFuses

50KG/25KGSugar 4

1975

1968

1972

1999

1990

1993

2002 2002

2000

1978

2003 1993

2003

2001

0861、

()

(0 ()

()

0 0

()

() 1

363

4709

7906

9763

2086

6608

2747 9669

6356

3812

5411

14616

15227

14768

15155

14968 10017 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2003-12-31

2003-12-26

2003-12-31

2003-12-18

2003-11-24

2003-11-21

2003-11-04

[No.CMD/13:10]

0 0

BALWANTRAI,Dy.DirectorGeneral(Marks)

All

All All

All

130

200

0.5

120

7 1

26000

35000

24000 41000

26000

35000

26000

29000

32000

33000

42000

49000

33000 30000

33000 42000

33000

36000

39000

100KGS

1M.T.

IM.T.

100 Litres 6

1M.T.

1Pair

100SQ.M.

1Tonne

CyfluthrinEW

Technical

ConveyorandElevator

Namkeen

Textiles-HighDensity Polyethylene(HDP)/Poly

Covers

SodiumBisulphate

Concrete

PrecastConcreteCable

Textiles-WovenSacks

AsbestosCement PressurePipes

PropylenePP)Woven SacksforPacking50KG/

CementMortarand

PolysterBlendedSuiting havingMin48%Polyster

LeatherSafetyFootWear withDirectMouldedPVT Sole

25KGFoodGrains

TextileBeltingpart5

FireResistanceBelting

forSurfaceApplication

Concreter:Part2for useasAdmixturein CementMortarand

forpackingcement-high DensityPolythelene (HDPE)/PolypRopylene (PP)

(LightDuty)

2002

2000

1998

1970 1987

1993

2003

2000

1980

1986

0 0

248

15228

5820

14887

14544

1891

9627

15271

9517

11652 10018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

स्थापिततिथि

अगस्त2005

August2005

जुलाई2005

DateofEstablished

July2005

[No.PCD/G-7(Gazette)]

[सं.पीसीडी/जी-7(गजट)}

डा०डी०के०चौधरी,वैज्ञा.एफएवंप्रमुख

Dr.D.K.CHAUDHARI.Sc.-F&Head (3)

कुछनहीं

None None

(3)

नयेभारतीयमानकद्वाराअतिक्रमितभारतीयमानक अथवामानकों,यदिकोईहो,कीसंख्याऔरवर्ष

No.&yearofIndianStandards,ifany, SupersededbytheNewIndianStandard

SCHEDULE

अनुसूची

नईदिल्ली,1सितम्बर,2005

NewDelhi,the1stSeptember,2005

(2)

पालीईथाइलीनकेपाउच-विशिष्टि

स्थापितभारतीयमानक(कों)फीसंख्यावर्षऔरशीर्षक

परीक्षणविधियांभाग१कुलराखज्ञातकरना(दूसरापुनरीक्षण)

rubberlatexPart9Determinationoftotalash(secondrevision)

IS3708(Part9):2005/ISO247:1990Methodsoftestfornatural

ofNaturalmineralwaterandpackageddrinkingwater-Specification

इसभारतीयमानककीप्रतियाँभारतीयमानकब्यूरो,मानकभवन,१बहादुरशाहजफरमार्ग,नईदिल्ली-110002,क्षेत्रीयकार्यालयोंनईदिल्ली,कोलकाता,चण्डीगढ़,चेन्नई,मुम्बईतथाशाखा कार्यालयोंअहमदाबाद,बंगलौर,भोपाल,भुवनेश्वर,कोयम्बतूर,गुवाहाटी,हैदराबाद,जयपुर,कानपुर,पटना,पूणेतथातिरूवनन्तापुरममेंबिक्रीहेतुउपलब्धहैं।

का.आ.3207.-भारतीयमानकब्यूरोनियम,1987केनियम7केउपनियम(1)केखंड(ख)केअनुसरणमेंभारतीयमानकब्यूरोएतद्वाराअधिसूचितकरताहैकिजिनभारतीयमानकोंके विवरणनीचेअनुसूचीमेंदिएगएहैंवेस्थापितहोगएहैं:-

संख्या

CopyofthisStandardisavailableforsalewiththeBureauofIndianStandards,ManakBhavan,9,BahadurShahZafarMarg,NewDelhi-110002andRegional OfficesNewDelhi,Kolcatta,Chandigarh,Chennai,MumbaiandalsoBranchOffices:Ahmedabad,Bangalore,Bhopal,Bhubaneshwar,Coimbatore,Guwahati,Hyderabad, Jaipur,Kanpur,Nagpur,Patna,Pune,Thiruvananthapuram.

क्रम

2. IS15609:2005प्राकृतिकमिनरलजलएवंपैकेजबंदपेयजलकीपैकिंगकेलिए

1. IS3708(Part9):2005/ISO247:1998प्राकृतिकरबड़लेटेक्सकी

Sl.No.No.&YearandtitleoftheIndianStandardsEstablished

S.O.3207.-Inpursuanceofclause(b)ofsub-rule(1)ofRule7oftheBureauofIndianStandardsRules,1987,theBureauofIndianStandardsherebynotifiesthat theIndianStandards,particularsofwhicharegivenintheScheduleheretoannexedhavebeenestablishedonthedateindicatedagainsteach:

(1)

2. IS15609:2005Polyethyleneflexiblepouchesforthepacking

(1) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

10019 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3208.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वास प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डी जी वेइंग सिस्टम्स, 5-8-1118 , नीरू हाउस, अग्रवाल चैम्बर्स किंग कोठी, हैदराबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " डी जे- जे पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सोनिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 397 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के" ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू. एम.- 21 ( 81 )/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) )

New Delhi , the 18th August , 2005

S.O. 3208. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weigh- ing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " DJ - JP " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name "SONIC " ( hereinafter referred to as the said nodel ) , manufactured by M/s D.G. Weigh Systems , 5-8-1118 . Opp .Neeru's House, Besides Agarwal Chambers , King Kothi , Hyderabad - 1 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/397;.

De weigh

No lom - 21 ( 81) /2004

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 2310 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Centr Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighin instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance to same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with veril . cation scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' c ' value of Img . to 50mg and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 81 ) /2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10021 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त , 2005

का.आ. 3209.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा साट और माप मामक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाएं रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डी जीवेइंग सिस्टम्स , 5-8 - III 8 , नीरू हाउस , अग्रवाल चैम्बर्स, किंग कोठी, हैदराबाद-1 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी जी- टी बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सोनिक " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 398 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 81 )/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2558G1/05-5 10022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 18th August, 2005

S.O. 3209. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weigh- ing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " DG - TB " series of mediuni accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SONIC" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s D.G. Weigh Systems , 5-8- III 8, Opp. Neeru's House , Besides Agarwal Chambers , King Kothi , Hyderabad - 1 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/398;

NIC

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

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 81 ) /2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10023 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3210.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डी जी वेइंग सिस्टम्स, 5-8-1118 , नीरू हाऊस, अग्रवाल चैम्बर्स , किंग कोठी, हैदराबाद द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " डी जी-पी पी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सोनिक" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आंई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 399 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 25 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा। और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. सेअधिक और 5,000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 , के है , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.- 21 ( 81 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 18th August, 2005

S.O. 3210. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) arid (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weigh- ing instrument Platform type) with digital indication of "DG- PP " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name " SONIC" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s D.G. Weigh Systems , 5-8-1118, Opp. Neeru's House, Besides Agrawal Chambers, King Kothi , Hyderabad- 1 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/399;

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with amaximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 2.5kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 50g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 ( 81 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10025 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3211.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एवरेडी स्केल्स इंडिया, एफ-48 , वैशाली नगर, जयपुर-302021 ( राजस्थान ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए एस आई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एवरेडी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2004/ 389 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक अस्वचालित ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार ) का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 10 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि.ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 5 टन से ऊपर और 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 या 5 × 10 * , के है , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 60 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd August, 2005

S.O. 3211.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights andMeasures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Weigh bridge type ) with digital indication belonging to medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) of "ASI" series with brand name " AVEREADY" ( hereinafter referred to as the Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Aveready Scales India . F-48 , Vaisalli Nagar , Jaipur - 302021 (Rajasthan ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2004/389;

The said Model is non-automatic weighing instrument (Weigh bridge type ) .The maximum capacity is 50 tonne and minimum capacity 200kg. The value of verification scale interval ( e) is 10kg . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instru- ments operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance to same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 150 tonne with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5kg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model have been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 60 )/2004 )

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10027 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3212.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डा. बेलीराम एंड सन्स प्रा . लिमिटेड, 5/12 ए, कीर्तिनगर इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, नई दिल्ली-110015 द्वारा निर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले सदृश सूचन सहित तोलन अस्वचालित उपकरण ( ऊँचाई गेज सहित यांत्रिक व्यक्तितोलन मशीन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " संमसो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/43 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल यांत्रिक स्प्रिंग आधारित अस्वचालित ( ऊँचाई गेज सहित व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) सदृश सूचक सहित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 125 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ' ई ' का मान 500 ग्रा. है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 50 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंबराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक 150 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूणर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 (313 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10028

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2005

S.O. 3212.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Mechanical Person weighing machine with height gauge ) with analogue indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , belonging to ordinary accuracy class (Accuracy class - III ) with brand name " SAMSO manufacturedby M/s . Dr. Beli Ram and Sons Private Limited, 5 / 12A, Kirtinagar Industrial Area, New Delhi - 110 015 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2005/43 .

The said model is a mechanical spring based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Person weighing machine with height gauge) with analogue indication of maximum capacity 125kg and minimum capacity of 5kg . The value of verification scale interval ' e ' is 500g .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 100kg and upto 150 kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e' value of 50g or more and with' e' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (313 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10029 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3213.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा वाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स डा. बेलीराम एंड सन्स प्रा. लिमिटेड, 5/12 ए, कीर्तिनगर इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, नई दिल्ली-110015 द्वारा निर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले सदृश सूचन सहित तोलन अस्वचालित उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " संमसो " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/44 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल यांत्रिक स्प्रिंग आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) सदृश सूचक सहित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 50 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 313 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2558 G1 /05-6 10030

THE- GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2005

S.O. 3213.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) hereinafter referred to as the said Act and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with analolgue indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , belonging to ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) with brand name " SAMSO " manufactured by M/ s . Dr. Beli Ram and Sons Private Limited, 5/ 12A, Kirtinagar Industrial Area , New Delhi - 110 015 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/44;

The said model is a mechanical spring based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with ana- logue indication belonging of maximum capacity 15kg and minimum capacity of 1kg . The value of verification scale interval (e) is 100g .

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

[F. No. WM-21 (313)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10031 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3214.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक. (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एटोमिक एन्टरप्राइजेज, सं. 78, रास्ता पेठ, पुणे -411011 , द्वारा विनिर्मित स्वतः सूचक, स्वचालित, भरण मशीन ( समय आधारित पद्धति ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ओटोपैक क्लासिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/2005/162. समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल स्वचालित आयतनिक भरण मशीन ( समय आधारित पद्धति ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 मि.ली. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि.ली. है । इसका प्रयोग सभी श्यानद्रवों जैसे जल, सोफ्टड्रिंक , सुपेय इत्यादि के भरण के लिए किया जाता है । यह 2400 पैकेट प्रतिघंटा भरती है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ली. से 1000 मि.ली. तक या समतुल्य भार तक के रेंज में क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 243 )/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2005

S.O. 3214. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the self indicating , Automatic filling machine (Time based system) with brand name " AUTOPACK - CLASSIC " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Atomic Enterprises , No. 78 Rasta Peth, Pune- 411 011 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/ 162;

1 The said model is an automatic volumetric filling machine (Time based System ) and its maximum capacity is 1000 ml . It is used for filling the all viscous liquids like mineral water , soft drink, beverage etc. It fills 2400 packs per hour. The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz, alternative current power supply.

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

AUTOPACH CLASSIC

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 243 )/ 2003 )

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10033 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10 , 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

1 भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3215.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री जी साइनटिफिक इंडस्ट्री, 25 , राज विलास , पब्लिक पार्क के सामने, बीकानेर , 334001 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस जे एस-22" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " श्री " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/03 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडलं विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन) और 100 मि.ग्रा या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णाक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 298 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2005

S.O. 3215. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of " SJS - 22 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " SHREE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Shree Ji Scientific Industries . 25, Raj Vilas , Opp. Public Park, Bikaner- 334 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/03;

The said model (see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 22 Kg and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Model : SJS Series

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e value of 1 ing to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e' value of lx 102 x 10 . or 5 x 10 k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 298 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology 10035 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ.. 3216.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्रीजी साइनटिफिक इंडस्ट्री, 25 , राज विलास , पब्लिक पार्क के सामने, बीकानेर , 334001 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस टी एस -12" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " श्री " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/04 समनुर्देशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 12 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है। उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 (298 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2005

S.O. 3216. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic (Table tep type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " STS - 12 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " SHREE" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Shree Ji Scientifc Industries, 25, Raj Vilas , Opp . Public Park, Bikaner- 334 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/2005/04;

Model: SIS

The said model ( see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 12 Kg and minimum capacity of 40g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 (298 )/ 2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology 10037 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3217.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्रीजी साइनटिफिक इंडस्ट्री, 25, राज विलास , पब्लिक पार्क के सामने, बीकानेर-334001 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले . " एस पी एस -1000 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " श्री " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/2005/05 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

Mode SPS Sene

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालम के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 * के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.- 21 ( 298)/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2558 G1/05-7 10038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2005

S.O. 3217. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating. non-automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SPS - 1000 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " SHREE " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Shree Ji Scientifc Industries , 25 , Raj Vilas , Opp . Public Park, Bikaner - 334 001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/05;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 Kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 100 g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Model : 3PS Series

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

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

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 298 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10039 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3218.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माय मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानंक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग, करते हुए मैसर्स अवेरी इण्डिया लिमिटेड, प्लाट सं. 50-59 , सेक्टर-25 , बल्लभगढ़-121004 हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " 3303 सी एल एस" श्रृंखला के सादृश सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( डायल प्रकार) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अवेरी " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05 / 241 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल संयुक्त लीवर अस्वचालित तोलन ( डायल प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 253 )/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd August, 2005

S.O. 3218. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Dial type) with analogue indication of " 3303 CLS " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "AVERY ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Avery India Limited, Plot No. 50-59, Sector-25, Ballabhgarh- 121004, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 05/241 ;

The said model is a compound lever based non - automatic weighing instrument (Dial type ) with a maximum capacity of 50 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100 g .

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

Furthen in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for' e ' value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 1 ( ) k 2× 10 or 5x101, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 253 )/ 2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10041 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3219.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा नैशनल स्टैण्डर्स कमिशन ऑफ आस्ट्रेलिया द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदित प्रमाण पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (३ ) के तीसरे परन्तुक और उप- धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स एल्ट्रोनिक लिमिटेड, 8 वाल्स रोड, पेन रोज, न्यूजीलैंड द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में एच टी प्रोसेस कण्ट्रोल प्रा. लि. , 99 डी एच एस आई डी सी इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, सेक्टर 31 , फरीदाबाद-121003 द्वारा निपणित " ए एस 675 " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित, इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन मशीन और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/49 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक अस्वचालित तोलन इलैक्ट्रानिक मशीन के साथ ए एस 675 डेजिगनेशन वाले श्रृंखला के हैं । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 99.9 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. जो यथार्थता वर्ग III का है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 0.1 कि.ग्रा. है । मशीन की अधिकतम व्यवकलनात्मक 45 कि.ग्रा . है ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 57 ) /2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10042

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) |

New Delhi , the 24th August, 2005

S.O. 3219. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with the model approval certificate issued by the National Standards Commission of Australia, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render acqurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub - section ( 3 ) and sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate ofapproval ofthe non - automatic electronic weighing machine of series AS 675 manufactured by M/s Actronic Limited, 8 , Walls Road, Penrose, New Zealand and marketed in India by M/s HT Process Controls Private Limited, 99 D HSIDC . Industrial Estate , Sector 31 , Faridabad- 121 003 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/2005/49 :

The said model is a non -automatic weighing electronic machine with series designation AS 675 of maximum capacity 99.9 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg belonging to class - III accuracy . The verification scale interval ' e ' is 0.1 kg the machine has a maximum subtractive tare of 45 kg .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 57)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10043

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005 .

का.आ. 3220.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स केवरटेक्स इंस्ट्रूमेंट इण्डिया , सं. 24 बी , देवछाया, ए वी रोड, गोरेगांव ( पश्चिम ) , मुंबई-400062 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्छ यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " के वी ए " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " केवरटेक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/ 153 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकर का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टबलटाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोंलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है 'कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एम ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या इससे अधिक के" ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,0000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकत्तम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णाक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21( 167)/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 25th August, 2005

S.O. 3220. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of "KVA " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name "KVERTEX" ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Kvertex Instruments (India ) , No. 24 В. Devchhaya. S. V. Road, Goregaon (W) , Mumbai - 400 062 Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2004/153;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30 Kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval (e ) is 2 g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg . to 50 mg . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 167)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10045

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 25 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3221.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्वात्, यह रमाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा जाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रत्योना अनि अवधि में श्री उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा; !

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स केवरटेक्स इंस्ट्रूमेंट इण्डिया , सं. 24 बीं, देवछाया , ए वी रोड, गोरेगांव ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई -400062 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " के वी टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " केवरटेक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 154 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता. 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तसल ( ई ) का मान ४ ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शतःप्रतिशत व्यकलवास्पंक धारित आयतुलन प्रश्भाष है । प्रकाश उत्पजीक डायोड ( एलईडी प्रदर्श तोलमः परिणाम उभदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हट्र्ज प्रस्यावती' धारा विद्युत प्रदरक के no antogo moment

के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेंट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन की खोलन से रोकने के

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा ८ की उप धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणातन्त्र के अंतर्गत कृसी विनिर्माता द्वास उसी सिद्धाप्त कियाइन के अनुसार और उस्सी सामग्री से, जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है। विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालनः के सोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तर्क ईमान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मार्यमीन अंतराल (एन और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के" ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और "ई" मान 1. x 10%, 2 × 10 या 5.10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।। 10100001

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 167)/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2558 G1 /05-8 10046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 25th August , 2005

S.O. 3221. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " KVT " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " KVERTEX" ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Kvertex Instruments (India), No. 24 -B , Devchhaya , S.V. Road, Goregaon ( W) , Mumbai -400062 Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark. IND/09/2004/154;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 20kg . and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply ;

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

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

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 167)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10047 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10 , 2005/भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3222.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स केवर्टेक्स इंस्ट्रूमेंट इण्डिया , सं. 24 बी, देवछाया, ए वी रोड, गोरेगांव ( पश्चिम ) , मुम्बई-400062 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " के वी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " केवरटेक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/ 155 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें, एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपुत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान (एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से 1000 कि.ग्रां. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 167 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 25th August, 2005

S.O. 3222. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby, issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " KVP " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " KVERTEX" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Kvertex Instruments (India), No. 24-B, Devchhaya, S.V. Road , Goregaon ( W) , Mumbai - 400062 Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/155;

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that, this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 1000 kg.with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' of value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 % or 5× 10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 167 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10049 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/भार 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3223.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथातथा बाटब और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए स्मार्ट सेन्सर एंड ट्रैन्सड्यूसर लिमिटेड, 61/1 , दमन इण्डस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, एयरपोर्ट रोड, खंणीय गांव, दमन 396210 द्वारा निर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- I ) वाले " एस बी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एस एस एन टी " है (जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदत चिह्न, आई एन डी/ 09 / 2005 / 128 समनुदेशित क्रिया,असा है अतमोहन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

YJAMA

г аг ANALYATICAL SCALE SB SERIES - Class I

उक्त मॉडल एक विद्युत चुम्बक बल प्रतिपूर्ति सिद्धांत पर आधारित अंकक सूचन सहित इ एम एफ सी सिद्धांत पर कार्य करने वाला टेवल टॉप प्रकार के ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 110 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि.ग्रा. और विशेष यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) का है । सत्यापन मापनि अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान१ मि. ग्रा. है । बुक बिकास्वता) संप्रातर्य 6 पल सी डी मार्श प्रक्रिया उपदर्शित करतम है। उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

1 और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिस करण भी होगे अनुमोदित मॉडलःविनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के। वैसे ही मेक, सक्षार्थता, और रक्षालन के बोलत 1 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " माम के लिए 50,000 से अधीक या उसके बराबर तक की रेंज में सरकाषन अपमात अक्षित 50 किग्रा तका करे अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और 144 0 210510 ओनात्मक वा ऋणात्मक किया शूम्मःकिम्पनुसया हैं ज ว ย 7 10

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू.एम. (30) 20

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 25th August , 2005

S.O. 3223-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of model of Non - automatic Weighing Instrument (Table Top Type ) with " SB " series belonging to special accuracy class (accuracy class - I ) and with brand name " SSNT" (herein after referred to as the model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Smart Sensors & Transducers Limited, 61/1 , Daman Industrial Estate, Airport Road, Village Kadaiya, Daman - 396210 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/128 ;

SSNT

Max 110g

Min 100mg 8.321

0.001g

ANALYATICAL SCALE SB SERIES - Class I

The said model is an Electromagnetic force compensation principle based Non Automatic Weighing Instrument (Table Top Type) working on the principle of EMFC with digital indication of maximum capacity of 110g and minimum capacity of 100mg, belonging to special accuracy class (accuracy class - 1) . The value of verification scale interval ' e ' is 1mg. The display unit is of liquid crystal display (LCD ) type . The instruments operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply;

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 310)/ 2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10051

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3224.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सार्टोरिअस मेकाट्रनिकस इण्डिया प्रा. लि. , 10,3 फेज, नीनया, 6 मेन, के आई ए डी बी इण्डस्ट्रील एरिया, बंगलौर-560058 द्वारा निर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- I ) वाले " जी सी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सार्टोरिअस " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/55 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्तमॉडल एक एकाश्मक टेकनालाजी सिद्धांत पर आधारित ( टेबलटोप प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 800 कैरट औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 0.5 कैरट है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 0.005 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्शन ( एल सी डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा। और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. (0.005 कैरट ) या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 और अधिक तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कैरट तक की या समतुल्य कैरट की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10% , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 339 )/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2005

S.O. 3224. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

t Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " GC " series of special accuracy (Accuracy class - I ) and withbrand name " SARTORIUS " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Sartorius Mechatronics IndiaPrivate Limited, 10, 3rd Phase , peenya , 6th Main , KIADB Industrial Area , Bangalore - 560058 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005 /55 ;

The said model is a monolithic technology principle based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 800 Carat and minimum capacity of 0.5 Carat . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 0.005 Carat. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative power supply :

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. or equivalent in Carat with verification scale interval ( n) 50,000 and above for ' e ' value of Imig . (0.005 Carat ) or more and with` e` value of 110 , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 339 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10053

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3225.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह माधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा चाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सार्टोरिअस मेकानिक्स इण्डिया प्रा. लि. , 10 , 3 फेज , नीनया , 6 मेन , के आई ए डी बी इण्डस्ट्रियल एरिया , बंगलौर -560 058 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जी सी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सार्टोरिअस " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 56 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक एकाशमक टेकनालाजी सिद्धांत पर आधारित ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 105 कैरट और न्यूनतम क्षमता 0.1 कैरट है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 0.005 कैरट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्शन ( एल सी डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मांडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. (0.005 कैरट ) या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 और अधिक तक की रेंज में सत्वापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा . तक की या कैरट में समतुल्य रूप में अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10%, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (339)/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2558 G1/05-9 10054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2005

S.O. 3225. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standtends of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

L Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "GC " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " SARTORIUS " ( herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Sartorius Mechatronics IndiaPrivate Limited, 10, 3rd Phase, Peenya , 6th Main , KIADB Industrial Area, Bangalore -560 058 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/56;

The said model is a monolithic technology principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 105 Carat and minimum capacity of 0.1 Carat . The verification scale interval ( e) is 0.005 Carat . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Display ( LCD) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 V, 50 Htz alternative power supply .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg or equivalent in Carat with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg (0.005 Carat ) or more and with ' e' value of 1x 10% , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which . the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (339)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10055 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ মার্চ 19, 1927

नईदिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3226.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट भर विचार करने के पश्चातु, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माम मानक अधिनियम, 1976 (1976 का 60.) तथा बाट और भात मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लिब्रार सिस्टम्स, बलीराम पाती कम्पाउंड, इन्द्रप्रस्थ होटल के पास , कल्याणशील रोड, सोनारमाछा , डोममीमिली (ई )-421204 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (टेबल टाम प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " लिब्रार " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एम डी/09/2004/85 सम्मुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) का अंकक सूचक तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड (एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए मशीन को सीलबंद भी किया और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रष्ट्रत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तौलम उमकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन भाफ्मान अंतराल ( एम ) और 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मानके लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित्त 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 ( 174 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 10056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 25th August, 2005

S.O. 3226. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards ofWeights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) hereinafter referred to as the said Act and the Standards of Weighits and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sectioris (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with " CW" series belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " LIBRAR " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Librar Systems , Baliram Pati Compound,Near Indraprastha Hotel, Kalyan Shil Road , Sonarpada, Dombivili (E)-421 204 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/85;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication belonging to medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) . Its maximum capacity is 20 kg and minimum capacity is40g . The value of verification scale interval ( e ) is 2g. The display unit is of Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) type . The instrument operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 ( 174)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10057 भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3227.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स लिब्रार सिस्टम्स, बलीराम पाती कम्पाउंड, इन्द्रप्रस्थ होटल के पास, कल्याणशील रोड, सोनारपाड़ा, डोमबीबिली ( ई ) -421204 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " लिब्रार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/2005/86 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

BARBAR SISTERS ERRAR LIRRAR SYSTE

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) का अंकक सूचक तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा . है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (174 )/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 25th August , 2005

S.O. 3227. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) hereinafter referred to as the said Act and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighting instrument (Plateform type) with digital indication of " CW" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name "LIBRAR" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Librar Systems , Baliram Pati Compound , Near Indraprastha Hotel , Kalyan Shil Road, Sonarpada, Dombivili (E)-421 204 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/86;

LIBRAR SYSTEMS LIBRAR LIBRAR SYSTEMS

The saidModel is a strain gauge type load cell principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type) of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) with a maximum capacity is 500 kg and minimum capacity is kg . The varification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent substractive retained tare efect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 174)/2003 )

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10059

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005

का.आ. 3228.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्तं शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स यूनिक इंडस्ट्रीज , 18 मनौली हाऊस , प्रेम नगर, अम्बाला शहर -134003 हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( वथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले सदृश सूचन सहित अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण ( स्प्रिंग तुला प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " कमल " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /05 / 175 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त मॉडल स्प्रिंग आधारित अस्वचालित सदृश तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. 21 (200 ) /2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 25th August, 2005

S.O. 3228. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) hereinafter referred to as the said Act and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument ( Spring Balance type) with analogue indication of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " KAMAL" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. Unique Industries , 18 , Manauli House, Prem Nagar, Ambala City - 134 003 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2005 / 175 ;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a spring based non - automatic analogue weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 100kg and minimum capacity of 5kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 500g .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 50kg to 300kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e ' value of 500g or more and with ' e ' value 1 x 10k , 2 × 10k of 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 (200)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10061

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10,2005/ भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

1

2

नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर, 2005

0.1152

1025

1. सनेट (जारी...).

0.0576

1036

0.1224

1037

0.1620

1057

0.0072

1058

0.3312

1059

0.3421

878

133

0.0864

2. कुतकपुर

0.1296

101

0.0108 का. आ. 3229.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 929 तारीख 2 मार्च, 2005, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 12 मार्च, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी:

100

0.0936

0.1260 और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 26 मई, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

104

0.0324 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

0.0050

105

0.1065

0.0875 और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

0.0050

0.0385

0.1368

0.0144

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

0.0080

0.0668

0.0576

0.0432 और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमो से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

0.0123

अनुसूची

0.0709

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: करौली

तहसील: हिण्डौन

0.0718

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

0.0842 सर्वे नंबर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

0.0020

487

1 2

488

0.0030

0.0144

733

1. सनेट

0.0864

0.0576

734

0.0216

490

0.1080

735

0.0648

491

0.0144

736

0.0216.

492

0.0180

904

0.1008

110

3. जमालपुर

0.0970

905

0.1584

107

0.0468

906

0.0576

106

0.0504

903

104

0.1800

0.0360

914

0.0108

105

0.0250

938

0.0108

0.1260

940

0.1080

0.0144

939

0.0010

0,0010

941

0.0288

0.0792

948

0.0108

0.0720

947

0.2016

0.0036

946

0.0288

0.0144

953

0.0144

0.0432

954

0.0648

0.0232

949

0.1368

4. खेड़ा

0.0216

955

0.0260

0.0072

1004

0.0025

0.0041

1028

0.0024

0.0050

1022

0.0820 1027

0.0576

0.0864

0.0010

1024

0.0181

0.0029

0.0936 1026

48/1323

2558 G1/05--10 10062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRAPADA 19 , 1927 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1 2

4 46

0.0020

4. खेड़ा (जारी...)

1662

6. काचरोली (जारी )

0.0072 66

0.0015

792

0.0432 65

0.0288

793

0.0576 63

0.1260

798

0.0936 64

0.0010

799

0.1152 62

0.0117

797

0.0432 61

0.0288

867

0.0144 60

0.0432

1552

0.0864 57

0.0036

1630

0.0504 79

0.0576

1553

0.1296 81

0.0020,

1554

0.0576 83

0.0936

1555

0.0216 82

0.0504

1554/3142

0.0432 97

0.0288

1538/3144

0.0648 98

0.1224

1538/3145

0.0720 100

0.1152

1538/3146

0.0720 101

0.0200

1499

0.0020 102

0.0738

1500

0.1296 107

0.1552

1501

0.1080 108

0.1552

1487

0.0864 462

0.0144

1474

0.0144 463

0.0216

1028

0.0360 5. पाटोंदा

1355

0.0360

1027

0.1224 1356

0.0216

1025

0.0792 1375

0.1440

1024

0.0040 1376

0.0648

1026

0.0040 1394

0.0504

1069

0.1728 1392

0.0144

1068

0.0936 1391

0.0792

1071

0.1224 1390

0.0072

1430

0.0072 1245

0.1080

1113

0.0576 1246

0.0072

1112

0.0504 1239

0.0936

1124

0.0432 1238

0.1080

1128

0.0720 1228

0.0792

1125

0.0020 1229

0.0792

1126

0.0072 1228/1448

0.0072

1127

0.0576 1224/1449

0.0144

1169

0.0648 1223

0.0936

1171

0.0432 1221.

0.1800

1173

0.0072 1220

0.0072

1172

0.0720 1202

0.0072

1191

0.1440 1219

0.0216

1188

0.1224 1203

0.0576

1202

0.0576 1218

0.0720

1195

0.0216 1217

0.0072

1196

0.0432 1215.

0.0576

1201

0.2016 1208

0.0504

1200

0.0144 1209

0.0504

1231

0.0072 1173

0.0072

1233

0.1512 1214

0.0936

1234

0.0020 -1216

0.0360

1235

0.1512 1224

0.0432

1236

0.0020 6. काचरोली

1666

0.0576

1240

0.1296 1668

0.0864

1241

0.0060 1669

0.0576

7. फुलवाड़ा

0.0930 10063 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10,2005/भाद्रपद 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

0.0010

0.0216

1877

8. सिकरोदा मीना (जारी...)

7. फुलवाड़ा (जारी...)

1913

0.1037

0.0038

0.1174

1906

0.0934

0.0936

1907

0.0864

0.0216

0.0045

1901

0.0500

0.1665

1902

0.0465

0.0323

0.0432

0.0216

331

1.0152

0.0036

387

9. हिण्डौन

0.0144

0.1224

385

0.0036

384

0.1368

0.0648 383

0.1440

0.0360

396

4004

0.0360

4005

0.1008

397

0.0072

0.0022

4006

395

0.0504

0.0858

5288

398

0.1366

0.0468

408

5154

0.1656

5153

0.0479

409

5159

0.0020

0.0036

410

0.0504

5161

0.0182

456

0.0648

5160

0.1656

463

0.1368

5167

0.0288

464

0.0864

5166

0.0824

448

0.0720

5168

0.0683

449

5176

0.0144

0.0020

455

0.0396

5129

0.0756

450

0.0720

5128

0.0648

451

0:0720

5127

0.0140

620

0.0504

5124

0.0821

566

0.0792

5181

0.0108

567

0.0288

5123

0.0923

568

0.0504

5183

0.0898

569

0.0504

5184

0.0543

594

0.0072

5185

0.0712

592

0.3240

5186

0.1152

593

0.1171

0.1260

5188

577

0.1512

5191

0.2124

1738

8. सिकरोदा मीना

0.0010

5190

0.0848

1739

0.0020

0.0577

1740

5193

0.0108

5194

0.0792

1743

0.0030

0.0098

5196

1758

0.0216

5201

0.0432 1862

0.1800

5200

0.0756

1861

8.1608

0.0144

1861/2031

0.0360

4898

0.0711

1860

0.0864

4896

0.0432

1858

4897

0.0020

0.0069

1870

0.1512

0.0072

1869/2030

4904

4908

0.0960

0.0077

1869

4907

0.0020

0.0010

1871

0.1080

4911

0.0720

1872

0.0576

4908

0.0847

1873

0.0182

0.0945

4912

1874

0.0144

0.0031

49:16

1914

0.0169

1875

0.0814

1876 10064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRAPADA 19 , 1927 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1 2

4 4917

9. हिण्डौन (जारी...

0.0246

8777

0.0144

9. हिण्डौन (जारी...)

4913

0.0229

8769

0.1080 4981

0.0020

8780

0.1080 4980

0.0871

8779

0.0144 4955

0.0504

8783

0.1080 4951

0.0432

8784

0.0036 4952

0.0020

8694

0.0201 $956

0.0360

8658

0.0612 4954

0.0072

8660

0.1152 4958

0.0360

8661

0.0036 4959

0.0144

8663

0.0144 4960

0.0144

8672

0.0360 4946

0.0252

8671

0.0360 4961

0.0216

8674

0.0252 4962

0.0360

6716

0.0180 4963

0.0216

8571

0.0324 4964

0.0020

8574

0.0144 4965

0.0216

8575

0.0360 4944

0.0036

8564

0.0108 4577

0.0648

8563

0.1332 4680

0.0216

8016

0.0144 4638

0.1728

8561

0.0036 4637

0.0576

8562

0.1656 4639

0.0576

8017

0.0504 4641

0.0020

8560

0.0792 4647

0.0864

8018

0.0612 4547/9927

0.0648

8032

0.0576 4648

0.0648

8024

0.0504 4633

0.0020

8029

0.0360 4652

0.1224

8030

0.0936 4651

0.0036

8028

0.0288 4631

0.0036

8034

0.0108 4655

0.0072

8035

0.0216 4653

0.1584

8039

0.0288 9127

0.0072

8038

0.0036 9128

0.0020

8041

0.1584 9126

0.1008

8042

0.0010 9125

0.0144

8033

0.0020 9124

0.1008

7837/9857

0.0216 9104

0.0216

7837

0.0864 9123

0.0648

7835

0.1008 9106

0.0792

7834

0.0936 9117

0.0468

7784

0.0144 9118

0.1008

7809

0.0288 9116

0.0036

7808

0.0648 8731

0.0216

7807

0.0936 8734

0.0030

7817

0.0020 8735

0.0030

7805

0.1080 8736

0.0216

7803

0.0288 8737

0.0432

7804

0.0792 8738

0.0648

7800

0.0576 8741

0.0030

7886

0.0288 8739

0.0504

7481

0.0020 8740

0.0216

7480

0.0648 8770

0.0252

7482

0.0020 8771

0.0144

7479

0.0612 10065 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10,2005/ भाद्रपद 19 , 1927

1 2

4 7478

0.0936

468

0.0020 9.. हिण्डौन (जारी...)

10. मुकंदपुरा (जारी...)

7484

0.1224

469

0.1512 7485

0.0216

402

0.0216 7486

0.0190

388

0.1296 7490

0.0900

392

0.0432 7491

0.0180

0.0288

390

7489

0.1173

0.0504

391

7458

0.0648

378

0.0103 7530

0.0180

333

0.0216 7418

0.0576

332

0.0720 7419

0.1296

334

0.0036 7420

0.0360

331

0.0996 7421

0.0432

335/1238

0.1457 7422

0.0020

329

0.0020 7423

0.1836

304

0.1116 7426

0.0070

0.0072

303

7424

0.0792

0.1152

305

7408

302

0.1237

0.0144 7409

0.0764

306

0.1296 7402

0.1223

255

0.0072 7401

0.0792

254

0.0936 7388.

0.1143

250

0.0852 7389

0.1166

249

0.0596 7390

0.1390

251

0.0020 7391

248

0.0072

0.0833 7250

0.0306

215

0.0576 7247

0.0020

216

0.0553 7253

0.1440

0.0720

245

7251

0.0072

214

0.0144 7248

0.2412

213

0.0360 7245

0.0220

211

0.0072 627

0.1944

212

0.0564 10. मुकंदपुरा

700

0.0072

203

0.0544 628

0.0936

204

0.0072 629

0.0648

202

0.0360 623

0.0144

205

0.0072 631

0.0020

201

0.0360 622

0.1368

0.0468

199

621

0.1152

200

0.0150 619

0.0432

194

0.0288 610

0.0020

193

0.0108 612

0.0216

196

0.0360 611

0.0144

192

0.0030 613

0.0432

188

0.0468 618

0.0144

191

0.0020 615

0.0072

189

0.0360 580

0.0010

0.0020

190

614

0.0210

0.0020

183

568

0.1152

184

0.0288 570

0.0216

181

0.1188 569

181/1244

0.0432

0.0216 563

0.1787

180

0.1512 565

0.0072

514

0.1368

11. बहादुरपुर

0.1368 502

0.1296

513

501

0.0774

509

0.0030

0.0743

500

376

0.0020 10066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRAPADA 19 , 1927

1 2

377

0.0288 11. बहादुरपुर (जारी...

551

0.0072.

378

0.0216

379

0.0432

419

0.2304

420

0.0936

501/713

0.0432

421

0.0504

500

0.0504

498

0.1512

422

0.0020

495

0.0648

496

0.0216

494

0.0468

493

0.0468

480

0.0720

478

0.0576

475

0.2232

477

0.0432

466

0.0864

467

0.0144

469

0.0576

13. मिल्कीपुरा

468

0.1008 12. जटनगला

1128

0.1008

1128/1467

0.1152

1125

0.1224

1134

0.0936

1135

0.0180

1149

0.0864

1150

0.0144

1110

0.1800

1148

0.0144

1152

0.0072

1162

0.0648

1161

0.0072

1164

0.0144

1168

0.1224

1166

0.0792

1167

0.0288

1182

0.0720

14. ढिंढोरा

1191

0.1728

1192

0.0576

1190

0.1584

1036

0.0072

663

0.0792

664

0.0864

665

0.0720

672

0.0576

690

0.0144

674

0.0648

673

0.0900

638

0.0144

623

0.0576

622

0.1080

628

0.1152

626

0.0072

624

0.0576

625

0.0864

593

0.0360 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 3

228

0.1152

12. जटनगला (जारी...)

230

0.0144 249

0.0864 248

0.0576 247

0.0936 246

0.0050 257

0.0576 258

0.0648 260

0.1224 295

0.1152 296

0.1080 316

0.0144 345

0.0288 343

0.0072 344

0.0020 339

0.0020 342

0.0360 341

0.0216 340

0.0576 338

0.0020 337

0.1656 3467

0.0720 3468

0.0072 3466

0.0720 3465

0.0216 3469

0.1296 3463

0.1584 3464

0.0020 3494

0.0020 3495

0.0432 3462

0.0648 3496

0.0648 3500

0.0133 3511

0.0648 3512

0.0432 3514

0.0576 3515

0.0360 3516

0.0576 3517

0.0540 3576

0.0360 3572

0.0432 3575

0.0432 3578

0.0072 3583

0.1584 3580

0.0108 3582

0.0108 3581

0.0612 3609

0.1152 3665

0.0010 3673

0.0020 3674

0.0720 3610

0.1080 3666

0.0072 3611

0.1080 3665

0.0122 3664

0.0576

3612

0.0072 3663

0.1152

3662

0.0010 10067

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10,2005 /भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

0.0864 3645

0.0144

15. खिजूरी (जारी...)

14. ढिंढोरा (जारी...)

0.1008 3646

0.1065

0.0288

3647

0.0864

0.0215

0.1800 3661

3649

0.0468

263

0.0792 3659

0.0504

1303

16. धंघावली

0.0576

0.0030

3651

1305

0.0020

0.0216

3658

0.2952

1299

3657

0.0696

1304

0.0288

0.0020

3653

1331

0.0144 3656

0.0360

1298

0.1008 3654

0.1584

1297

0.1944 3655

0.0144

1293

0.1080

0.0743

2935

1165

0.0864 2936

0.0108

0.0360

1296

0.1440

2934

1176

0.1296 2937

0.0010

1175

0.0020

0.1368

2933

1177

0.0360 2929

0.0030

0.0864

1184

2932

0.0432

1183

0.1152 2930

0.0360

1257

0.1512 2942

0.1008

1251

0.1152 2941

0.0072

1253

0.0936 2931

0.0144

0.0216

1252

0.0288

2947

1371

0.0216 2945

0.1116

0.1656

1445

0.0276

2946

1446/1611

0.0010 2766

0.5112

1446

0.1800

0.1008

2767

0.1368

1423

0.0216

2768

0.0216

1424

2761

0.0216

1417

0.2088

0.0720

2758

0.0648

1418

2757

0.1116

1416

0.0023 2770

0.0648

1413

0.0792

0.1008

2733

1412

0.0144

0.0936

2732

1410

0.0576 2731

0.0360

0.0864

1409

0.0072

2721

1408

0.1080 2723

0.1080

1378

0.0792

0.1728

2724

945

0.1224 2722

0.0576

944

0.0022

0.0020

2727/4295

943

0.0072 2621

0.0216

942

0.1584 2623

0.2376

0.0864

941

2625

0.0025

0.1080

940

2620

0.1872

0.0108

939

0.0576

15. खिजूरी

955

0.0108 60

0.1080

0.1224

956

0.0072

0.0648

935

0.0036

936

0.0648 41

0.0504

0.1152

930

0.0720

932

0.0020

0.0576

931

0.0936 33

0.0720

0.0504

930/1568

0.0036

918

0.1656

0.1296

877

0.0936 9

0.1008

0.0288

876

0.1008

2744

0.1284

0.0072

17. सूरोठ 10068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRAPADA 19, 1927

2743

17. सूरोठ (जारी..)

0.2556

2742

0.0108

2740

0.0648

2741

0.1872

2736

0.0545

2749

0.0720

2749/3072

0.0020

2791

0.1246

2793/3022

0.0010

2803

0.1008

2804

0.0684

2805

0.0432

2805/3074

0.1656

2802

0.0135

2811

0.0257

2824

0.0612

2889

0.0936

2888

0.0864

2835

0.0072

2836

0.1872

2837

0.0216

2838

0.0036

2839

0.2736

2841

0.0576

2434

0.0144

2471

0.0108

2470

0.2196

2459

0.0720

2446

0.0010

2444

0.1224

2443/3086

0.0180

2443

0.0864

2442/3085

0.0144

2442

0.1603

2415

0.0432

2416

0.0648

2417

0.0648

2399

0.1127

2400

0.0726

2386

0.0576

2388

0.0010

2378

0.0648

2387

0.0010

2380

0.0108

2377

0.0684

2376

0.0972

2375

0.0720

2374

0.0020

2376/2931

0.0108

2375/2928

0.1656

2371

0.2033

136

18. भुकरावली

0.0035

135

0.0432

142

0.0864

144

0.1224

131

0.0972

132

0.0020

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

129

18. भुकरावली (जारी...)

0.0576

128

0.0576

122

0.0216

123

0.0288

124

0.0020

116

0.1296

114

0.0090

113

0.0144

108

0.0072

110

0.1584

109

0.0020

0.0036

0.1584

239

0.0072

0.0216

339

0.1080

0.1440

0.0072

340

0.1368

341

0.0031

406

0.0252

428

0.0252

425

0.0864

426

0.1188

427

0.0010

419

0.0756

416

0.1224

415

0.0010

467

0.0252

468

0.0504

466

0.0864

465

0.0020

470

0.0864

480

0.0144

550

0.0072

548

0.0020

549

0.0936

547

0.1008

486

0.0792

488

0.0033

489

0.0360

544

0.0360

490

0.0648

491

0.0072

534

0.1080

533

0.0288

532

0.1152

531

0.0216

528

0.1152

527

0.0720

526

0.0720

587

0.0144

640

0.0432

641

0.0792

639

0.0020

(एफ.एन. आर-31015/94/2004-ओ आर -1 )

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव 10069

भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10,2005/भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

MININSTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURALGAS

3 4

1 2

New Delhi , the 7th September, 2005

0.1152

1025

1. Sanet (Contd .)

1036

0.0576

0.1224

1037

1057

0.1620

1058

0.0072

0.3312

1059

0.3421

878

133

0.0864

2. Kutakpur

0.12

S. O. 3229.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India intheMinistry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 929, dated the 2nd March, 2005, issued under sub-section ( 1 ) ofsection 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of RightofUser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 12th March 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified In the Schedule appended to that notifi- cation for the purpose oflaying an extension pipeline for transporta- tion of petroleurn products through Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Mangiya ( indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradeshto Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwas in theNCT ofDelhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

101

0.0108

100

0.0936 Andwhereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 26th May, 2005;

0.1260

0.0324

104

0.0050

Andwhereas the competent authority has, under sub- section (1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the CentraiGov- emment;

105

0.1065

0.0875

Andwhereas the Centrai Government, after considering the said reportand on being satisfied that the said land is required forlaying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

0.0050

0.0365

0.1368

0.0144

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (1) ofsection 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said iand , specified in the Schedule, is hereby acquired for iaying the pipeline;

0.0080

0.0668

0.0576

0.0432

And further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (4) ofsection 6 of the said Act , the Centrai Government directs that the right ofuser in the said iand for laying the pipeline shaii , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of the publica- tion of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleurn Corporation Limited, free from ail encumbrances.

0.0123

SCHEDULE

0.0709

0.0718

State : Rajasthan

District: Karauli

Tehsil:Hindaun

0.0842

Survey No.

Area in Hectare

S.No. Name of Village

0.0020

487

0.0030

488

0.0144

733

1. Sanet

0.0864

0.0576

734

0.0216

490

0.1080

735

0.0648

491

0.0144

736

0.0216

492

0.0180

904

110

0.1008

3. Jamalpur

0.0970

905

0.1584

107

906

0.0468

106

0.0576

0.0504

903

0.1800

104

0.0360

914

0.0108

105

0.0250

938

0.0108

0.1260

940

0.1080

0.0144

939

0.0010

941

0.0288

948

0.0792

0.0108

0.0720

947

0.2016

0.0036

946

0.0288

0.0144

953

0.0144

0.0432

954

0.0648

0.0232

949

0.1368

4. Kheda

0.0216

955

0.0260

1004

0.0072

0.0025

0.0041

0.0024 1028

0.0820

0.0050

1022

0.0864

0.0576

1027

0.0181

0.0010

1024

0.0936

46/1323

0.0029

1026 10070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRAPADA 19, 1927 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3

1 2

4 46

0.0020

4. Kheda (Contd.)

1662

0.0072

6. Kachroli (Contd.)

0.0015

792

0.0432 65

0.0288

793

0.0576 63

0.1260

798

0.0936

0.0010

799

0.1152 62

0.0117

797

0.0432 61

0.0288

867

0.0144 60

0.0432

1552

0.0864 57

0.0036

1630

0.0504 79

0.0576

0.1296

1553

0.0020

1554

0.0576 83

0.0936

1555

0.0216 82

0.0504

1554/3142

0.0432 :

0.0288

1538/3144

0.0648 96

0.1224

1538/3145

0.0720 100

0.1152

1538/3146

0.0720 101

0.0200

1499

0.0020 102

0.0738

1500

0.1296 107

0.1552

1501

0.1080 108

0.1552

1487

0.0864 462

0.0144

1474

0.0144 463

0.0216

1028

0.0360 5. Patonda

1355

0.0360

1027

0.1224 1356

0.0216

1025

0.0792 1375

0.1440

1024

0.0040

0.0648

1376

1026

0.0040 1394

0.0504

1069

0.1728 1392

0.0144

1068

0.0936 1391

0.0792

1071

0.1224 1390

0.0072

1430

0.0072 1245

0.1080

1113

0.0576 1246

0.0072

1112

0.0504 1239

0.0936

1124

0.0432 1238

0.1080

1128

0.0720 1228

0.0792

1125

0.0020 1229

0.0792

1126

0.0072 1228/1448

0.0072

1127

0.0576 1224/1449

0.0144

1169

0.0648 1223

0.0936

1171

0.0432 1221

0.1800

1173

0.0072 1220

0.0072

1172

0.0720 1202

0.0072

1191

0.1440 1219

0.0216

1188

0.1224 1203

0.0576

1202

0.0576 1218

0.0720

1195

0.0216 121.7

0.0072

1196

0.0432 1215

0.0576

1201

0.2016 1208

0.0504

1200

0.0144

0.0504

1209

1231

0.0072 1173

0.0072

1233

0.1512 1214

0.0936

1234

0.0020 1216

0.0360

1235

0.1512 1224

0.0432

1236

0.0020 6. Kachoroli

1666

0.0576

1240

0.1296 1668

0.0864

1241

0.0060 1669

0.0576

7. Fulwada

0.0930 10071 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10,2005/ भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

0.0010

0.0216

8. Sikroda Meena (Contd .)1877

7. Fulwada (Contd.)

0.1037

1913

0.0038

0.1174

1908

0.0934

0.0936

1907

0.0864

0.0218

1901

0.0045

0.0500

1902

0.1665

0.0465

1903

0.0323

0.0432

1904

0.0216

331

1.0152

3990

0.0036

387

9. Hindaun

0.0144

3989

0.1224

385

0.0036

3997

0.0036

384

0.0648

3998

0.1368

383

0.1440

4004

0.0360

396

0.0360

4005

0.1008

397

0.0072

4006

0.0022

395

0.0504

-5268

0.0858

398

0.1366

5154

0.0468

408

0.1656

5153

0.0479

409

0.0020

5159

0.0036

410

0.0504

5161

0.0182

456

0.0648

5160

0.1656

463

0.1368

5167

0.0288

464

0.0864

5166

0.0824

448

0.0720

5168

0.0683

449

0.0144

5176

0.0020

455

0.0396

5129

0.0756

450

0.0720

5128

0.0648

451

0.0720

5127

0.0140

620

0.0504

5124

0.0821

566

0.0792

5181

0.0108

567

0.0288

5123

0.0923

568

0.0504

5183

0.0898

569

0.0504

5164

0.0543

594

0.0072

5185

0.0712

592

0.3240

5186

0.1152

593

0.1171

5188

0.1260

577

0.1512

5191

0.2124

1738

8. Sikroda Meena

0.0010

5190

0.0848

1739

0.0020

5193

0.0577

1740

0.0108

5194

0.0792

1743

0.0030

5195

0.0098

1758

0.0432

5201

0.0216

1862

0.1800

5200

0.0756

1861

0.1808

4899

0.0144

1861/2031

0.0360

4898

0.0711

1860

0.0864

4896

0.0432

1858

0.0020

4897

0.0069

1870

0.1512

4904

0.0072

1869/2030

0.0360

4908

0.0077

1869

0.0020

4907

0.0010

1871

0.1080

4911

0.0720

1872

0.0576

4906

0.0847

1873

0.0182

4912

0.0945

1874

0.0144

4916

0.0031

1914

0.0576

4915

0.0169

1875

0.0504

-4914

0.0814

1876 10072

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 / BHADRAPADA 19, 1927 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2

4 4917

9. Hindaun (Contd.)

0.0246

8777

0.0144

9. Hindaun (Contd. )

4913

0.0229

8769

0.1080 4981

0.0020

8780

0.1080 4980

0.0871

8779

0.0144 4955

0.0504

8783

0.1080 4951

0.0432

8784

0.0036 4952

0.0020

8694

0.0201 4956

0.0360

8658

0.0612 4954

0.0072

8660

0.1152 4958

0.0360

8661

0.0036 4959

0.0144

8663

0.0144 4960

0.0144

8672

0.0360 4946

0.0252

8671

0.0360 4961

0.0216

8674

0.0252 4962

0.0360

6716

0.0180 4963

0.0216

8571

0.0324 4964

0.0020

8574

0.0144 4965

0.0216

8575

0.0360 4944

0.0036

8564

0.0108 4577

0.0648

8563

0.1332 4680

0.0216

8016

0.0144 4638

0.1728

8561

0.0036 4637

0.0576

8562

0.1656 4639

0.0576

8017

0.0504 4641

0.0020

8560

0.0792 4647

0.0864

8018

0.0612 4547/9927

0.0648

8032

0.0576 4648

0.0648

8024

0.0504 4633

0.0020

8029

0.0360 4852

0.1224

8030

0.0936 4651

0.0036

8028

0.0288 4631

0.0036

8034

0.0108 4655

0.0072

8035

0.0216 4653

0.1584

8039

0.0288 9127

0.0072

8038

0.0036 9128

0.0020

8041

0.1584 9126

0.1008

8042

0.0010 9125

0.0144

8033

0.0020 9124

0.1008

7837/9857

0.0216 9104

0.0216

7837

0.0864 9123

0.0648

7835

0.1008 9106

0.0792

7834

0.0936 9117

0.0468

7784

0.0144 9118

0.1008

7809

0.0288 -9116

0.0036

7808

0.0648 8731

0.0216

7807

0.0936 8734

0.0030

7817

0.0020 8735

0.0030

7805

0.1080 8736

0.0216

7803

0.0288 8737

0.0432

7804

0.0792 8738

0.0648

7800

0.0576 8741

0.0030

7886

0.0288 8739

0.0504

7481

0.0020 8740

0.0216

7480

0.0648 8770

0.0252

7482

0.0020 8771

0.0144

7479

0.0612 10073 भारत का राजपत्र: सितम्बर 10,2005/ भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

0.0020 7478

0.0936

468

10. Mukandpura (Contd.)

9. Hindaun (Contd.)

0.1512

469

0.1224

7484

0.0216

402

0.0216

7485

0.1296

388

0.0190

7486

0.0432

392

0.0900

7490

0.0288

390

0.0180

7491

0.0504

391

0.1173

7489

0.0103

378

0.0648

7458

0.0216

333

0.0180

7530

0.0720

332

0.0576

7418

0.0036

334

0.1296

7419

0.0996

331

0.0360

7420

0.1457

335/1238

0.0432

7421

0.0020

329

0.0020

7422

0.1116

304

0.1836

7423

0.0072

303

0.0070

7426

0.1152

305

0.0792

7424

0.0144

302

0.1237

7408

0.1296

306

0.0764

7409

0.0072

255

0.1223

7402

0.0936

254

0.0792

7401

0.0852

250

0.1143

7388

0.0596

249

0.1166

7389

0.0020

251

0.1390

7390

0.0833

248

0.0072

7391

0.0576

215

0.0306

7250

0.0553

216

0.0020

7247

0.0720

245

0.1440

7253

0.0144

214

0.0072

7251

0.0360

213

0.2412

7248

0.0072

211

0.0220

7245

0.0564

212

0.1944

627

10. Mukandpura

0.0544

203

0.0072

700

0.0072

204

0.0936

628

202

0.0360

0.0648

629

0.0072

205

0.0144

623

0.0360

201

0.0020

631

0.0468

199

0.1368

622

0.0150

200

0.1152

621

0.0288

194

0.0432

619

0.0108

193

0.0020

610

0.0360

196

0.0216

612

192

0.0030

0.0144

611.

0.0468

188

0.0432

613

0.0020

191

0.0144

618

0.0360

189

0.0072

615

0.0020

190

0.0010

580

0.0020

183

0.0210

614

0.0288

184

0.1152

568

0.1188

181

0.0216

570

0.0216

181/1244

0.0432

569

0.1512

180

0.1787

563

0.1368

514

0.0072

11. Bahadurpur

565

0.1368

513

0.1296

502

0.0030

509

0.0774

501

0.0020

376

0.0743

500 10074

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRAPADA 19 , 1927 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1

0.0288

11. Bahadurpur (Contd.) 377

228

0.1152

12. Jatnagla (Contd .)

551

0.0072

230

0.0144 378

0.0216

249

0.0864 379

0.0432

248

0.0576 419

0.2304

247

0.0936 420

0.0936

246

0.0050 501/713

0.0432

257

0.0576 421

0.0504

258

0.0648 500

0.0504

260

0.1224

0.1512

498

295

0.1152 422

0.0020

296

0.1080 495

0.0648

316

0.0144 496

0.0216

345

0.0288 494

0.0468

343

0.0072 493

0.0468

344

0.0020 480

0.0720

339

0.0020 478

0.0576

342

0.0360 475

0.2232

341

0.0216 477

0.0432

340

0.0576 466

0.0864

338

0.0020 467

0.0144

337

0.1656 469

0.0576

3467

0.0720

13. Milkipura

468

0,1008

3468

0.0072 1128

0.1008

0.0720

3466

0.1152

1128/1467

3465

0.0216 12. Jatnagla !

1125

0.1224

3469

0:1296 1134

0.0936

3463

0.1584 1135

0.0180

3464

0.0020 1149

0.0864

3494

0.0020 1150

0.0144

3495

0.0432 1110

0.1800

3462

0.0648 1148

0.0144

3496

0.0648 1152

0.0072

3500

0.0133 1162

0.0648

3511

0.0648 1161

0.0072

3512

0.0432 1164

0.0144

3514

0.0576 1168

0.1224

3515

0.0360 1166

0.0792

3516

0.0576 1167

0.0288

3517

0.0540 1182

0.0720

3576

14. Dhindhora

0.0360 1191

0.1728

3572

0.0432 1192

0.0576

357.5

0.0432 1190

0.1584

3578

0.0072 1036

0.0072

3583

0.1584 663

0.0792

3580

0.0108 664

0.0864

3582

0.0108 665

0.0720

3581.

0.0612 672

0.0576

3609

0.1152 690

0.0144

3665

0.0010 674

0.0648

3673

0.0020 673

0.0900

3674

0.0720 638

0.0144

3610

0.1080 623

0.0576

3666

0.0072 622

0.1080

3611

0.1080 628

0.1152

3665

0.0122 626

0.0072

3664

0.0576 624

0.0576

3612

0.0072 625

0.0864

3663

0.1152 593

0.0360

3662

0.0010 10075

भारत का राजपत्र सितम्बर 10,2005/ भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

0.0884 3645

0.0144

15. Khijuri (Contd.)

14. Dhindhora (Contd.)

0.1008

0.1065

3646

0.0864 3647

0.0288

0.1800

0.0215

3661

0.0792

263

0.0468

3649

0.0576

0.0504

1303

3659

16. Dhandhawali

0.0020

1305

0.0030

3651

0.2952

1299

0.0216

3658

0.0288

1304

3657

0.0696

1331

0.0144

0.0020

3653

0.1008

1298

0.0360

3656

1297

0.1944 3654

0.1584

0.1080 3655

0.0144

1293

2935

0.0743

0.0864

1165

0.0360

0.0108

2936

1296

0.1440

0.1296

1176

2934

2937

0.0010

1175

0.0020

0.0360 2933

0.1368

11.77

0.0030

2929

0.0864

1164

2932

0.0432

0.1152

1183

2930

0.0360

1257

0.1512 2942

0.1008

1251

0.1152 2941

0.0072

0.0936

1253

2931

0.0144

1252

0.0216

0.0288

2947

0.0216

1371

0.1116

2945

1445

0.1656

0.027€

2946

0.0010

1446/1611

0.5112

2766

0.1800

1446

2767

0.1008

0.1368

1423

0.0216

2768

0.0216

1424

0.0216

2761

1417

0.2088

0.0720

2758

14.18

0.0648

0.1116

2757

0.0023

1416

2770

0.0648

0.0792

1413

0.1008

2733

1412

0.0144

0.0936

2732

0.0576

1410

0.0360

2731

0.0864

1409

0.0072

2721

0.1080

1408

2723

0.1080

0.0792

1378

0.1728

2724

0.1224

945

2722

0.0576

0.0022

944

0.0020

2727/4295

0.0072

943

0.0216

2621

0.1584

942

0.2376

2623

941

0.0864

0.0025

2625

940

0.1080

0.1872

2620

0.0108

939

0.0576

15. Khijuri

0.0108

955

0.1080

0.1224

956

0.0072

0.0648

935

0.0036

0.0648

936

0.0504

0.1152

930

0.0720

0.0020

932

0.0576

0.0936

931

0.0720

0.0504

930/1568

0.0036

0.1656

918

0.1296

877

0.0936 9

0.1008

0.0288

876

0.1008

0.1284

2744

17. Suroth

0.0072

25 10076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRAPADA 19, 1927 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2

2743

0.2556

129

17. Suroth ( Contd.)

0.0576

18. Bhukravali (Contd . )

2742

0.0108

128

0.0576 2740

0.0648

122

0.0216 2741

0.1872

123

0.0288 2736

0.0545

124

0.0020 2749

0.0720

116

0.1296

0.0020

2749/3072

114

0.0090 2791

0.1246

113

0.0144 2793/3022

0.0010

108

0.0072 2803

0.1008

110

0.1584 2804

0.0684

109

0.0020 2805

0.0432

0.0036 2805/3074

0.1656

0.1584 2802

0.0135

239

0.0072 2811

0.0257

0.0216 2824

0.0612

339

0.1080 2889

0.0936

0.1440 2888

0.0864

0.0072 2835

0.0072

340

0.1368 2836

0.1872

341

0.0031 2837

0.0216

406

0.0252 2838

0.0036

428

0.0252 2839

0.2736

425

0.0864

0.0576

2841

426

0.1188 2434

0.0144

427

0.0010 2471

0.0108

419

0.0756 2470

0.2196

416

0.1224 2459

0.0720

415

0.0010 2446

0.0010

467

0.0252 2444

0.1224

468

0.0504 2443/3086

0.0180

466

0.0864 2443

0.0864

465

0.0020 2442/3085

0.0144

470

0:0864 2442

0.1603

480

0.0144 2415

0.0432

550

0.0072 2416

0.0648

548

0.0020 2417

0.0648

549

0.0936

0.1127

2399

547

0.1008 2400

0.0726

486

0.0792 2386

0.0576

488

0.0033

0.0010

2388

489

0.0360 2378

0.0648

544

0.0360 2387

0.0010

490

0.0648 2380

0.0108

491

0.0072

534

2377

0.0684

0.1080 2376

0.0972

533

0.0288 2375

0.0720

532

0.1152 2374

0.0020

531

0.0216 2376/2931

528

0.0108

0.1152 2375/2926

527

0.1656

0.0720 2371

0.2033

526

0.0720 18. Bhukravali

136

587

0.0035

0.0144 135

640

0.0432

0.0432 142

641

0.0864

0.0792 144

639

0.1224

0.0020 131

0.0972

[ F.No.R -31015/94/2004 - OR - II ) 132

0.0020

Harish Kumar , Under Secretary 10077

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10,2005/भाद्रपद 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 3230.- 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 बिजवांसम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक बिस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

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

अनुसूची

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: करौली

New Delhi , the 7th September, 2005 S. O. 3230. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the 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 shouldbe laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

Andwhereas itappears to the Central Government that forthe 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 theSchedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleurn and MineralsPipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962(50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date onwhich copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipelirie under the land to Shri Deepak Naridl , Competent Authority, Mumbai -Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, 1 - C , Bal Mandir Colony, Near Hotel Pink Palace, Sawai Madhopur- 322001 ( Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

State : Rajasthan District: Karauli

Tehsil: Hindaun

तहसील: हिण्डौन

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

0.3154

1227/900

1. सनेट

0.0072

1235/1060

0.1944

1231/1056

Area in Hectare

Survey No.

S.No. Name of Village

0.3154

1227/900

1. Sanet

0.0072

1235/1060

0.1944

1231/1056

0.1089 2. Kutakpur

0.1089

1027/21

2. कुतकपुर

0.0108

1032/38

0.0540

1028/37

0.0108

0.0540

1027/21 1032/38 1028/37

0.0144

7417

3. Hindaun

0.0144

7417

3. हिण्डौन

0.0239

3950

4. ढिंढोरा

0.0144

117

5. भुकरावली

0.0126

113

(एफ.एन. आर-31015/94/2004-ओ आर-II )

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

0.0239

3950

4. Dhindhora

0.0144

117

5. Bhukravali

0.0126

113

[F.No.R- 31015/94/2004- OR-II ] Harish Kumar, Under Secretary 10078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRAPADA 19 , 1927 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 सितम्बर, 2005

कर. आ. 3231.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से पश्चिमी बंगाल राज्य में हल्दिया तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन आयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए :

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री अशोक कुमार दास , सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीप- हल्दिया पाइपलाइन परियोजना , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मार्केटिंग

हाउसिंग कम्पलेक्स, मेघदम्बारा , डाकघर लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । कुरूडा, बालासोर 756056, (उड़ीसा) को

अनुसूची

जिला : जगतसिंगपुर

राज्य : उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

तहसील का नाम गाँव का नाम खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

कुजंग

1447

अभयचंदपूर

1533

794

[ फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2005-ओ.आर.- I ]

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 10079

भारत का राजपत्र : सितम्बर 10, 2005/ भाद्रपद 19, 1927.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th September, 2005

S. O. 3231.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum ( crude ) from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Haldia in the State of West Bengal , a pipeline should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . Ashok Kumar Dash , Cornpetent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip Haldia Pipeline Project , Marketing Housing Complex , Meghadambaru , Post office - Kuruda , Balasore (Orissa ) .

Schedule

State: Orissa

District: Jagatsinghpur

Area

Khasara No.

Nameof Village

Name of Tehsil

Sq. Mtrs .

Are

Hectare

1447

Abhayachandapur

Kujange

1533

794

[F. No. R- 25011/8/2005- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.

10080

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

And

श्रम मंत्रालय

( 1 ) The General Manager,

नई दिल्ली, 16 अगस्त, 2005

Bank of Baroda ,

Zonal Office , ( South) 90, C.P. Ramaswamy Road , Alwarpet, Chennai -600018

(2) The Branch Manager , Bank ofBaroda ,

Shopping Complex,

Tirumala , Chittoor Distt .

का.आ. 3232- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 275/2001 और 276/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Respondents in L.C. 275 & L.C. 276 of 2001

Appearances :

[सं. एल-12025/3/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

For the Petitioner : V. Venkatasiviah , Advocate MINISTRY OF LABOUR

For the Respondent : T. Viswanadha Sastry , Advocate

COMMON AWARD New Delhi , the 16th August . 2005

This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

S.O 3232.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 275 / 2001 & 276/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-8-2005.

[No. L - 12025 /3 /2005 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN . Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri T. Ramachandra Reddy PresidingOfficer

Dated the 25th July, 2005

2. The Petitioner workman filed this claim petion under Section 2A( 2 ) of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 against the opposite party No. 1 the respondent Bank of Baroda represented by its General Manager . Chennai and No. 2 the Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda at Tirumala . The second respondent bank apart from doing banking transactions undertaken the job of selling Lord Venkateswara Prasadam i.c. Laddu and Kainkarya Seva tickets by issuing tickets to the pilgrims visiting Tirumala. The petitioner workmen was originally appointed by the Branch Manager of the second respondent at the Laddu Counter specially arranged for the purpose of sale of Laddu tickets and Archana Seva tickets on 27-5-1995 on a daily wage of Rs . 51) . The petitioner also enrolled his name in the employment exchange and he is worker within the meaning of Sec . 2 (s ) of ID Act of 1947.

Industrial Dispute L. C.I.D. No. 275 of 2001 & 276 of 2001

Between:

( 1 ) B. Manohar S/ o B. Munaswamy

Pudipatla Village & Post

Tirupathi Rural - 517 505.

3. The petitioner was asked to lift the Laddu trays from the main kitchen situated in the temple and bring to the Laddu counter and also to sell the same by issuing tokens at the Laddu counter. Apart from the said duty. he was also entrusted the duty to sell Archana Seva tickets of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam by the respondent bank.

Chittoor District , A.P.

. Petitioner in L. C. No. 275/2001

(2) L. Chinna Venkateswarlu ( i

L. Venkateswarlu , S /o L. Venkata Subbaiah

Hindu . R/ o D.No. 238 , Balaji Nagar,

4. The said business was in an existence for the last several years and it is perennial in nature and the amount collected from the sale of Laddu and Archana Seva Tickets is deposited in the bank in the account of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam .

3rd Lane. Tirumala , Chittoor District.

Petitioner in LC No. 276/2001

5. It is further submitted that though the respondent has introduced Protective Security Service System , the 10081

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

petitioner workman is under the control of the bank. Further the Protective Security Service System is not having any license or approval from the labour department . In order to prevent the workmen to have benefit on par with regular employees of the respondent, the respondent devised to make belief that there is a contract labour system prevailing and used to disburse the wages to the workmen through the contractor .

6. It is further submitted that the respondent bank maintained attendance register and salaries are being paid by the obtaining vouchers from the workmen as such there is a relationship between the parties as employer and employee . The Protective Security Service System has nothing to do the day to day administration in engaging the workmen for doing work at the Laddu counter. The respondent used to have control and supervise the work.

7. The petitioner workman had been working continuously from the date of his appointment till he was terminated on 28-2-1999 and completed more than 240 days of service in an year and as such he is entitled to have benefits provided under the statute.

contended that there is no employer and employee relationship between the bank and the petitioner. But the Protective Security Services System arranges workers for bringing Laddus from T.T.D. kitchento the Laddu counter and the second respondent manager has no power to engage staff in the bank for the said purpose and there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent . It is further submitted that the second respondent has not introduced contract labour system in order to avoid regular pay scale wages and other. benefits . The respondent have not maintained any attendant register and salary vouchers for payment of salary to the petitioner as they never engaged the petitioner. It is also denied that the petitioner was working continuously from the date of the so-called appointment till alleged date of termination . It is for Protective Security Services System to decide whether to engage the services of the petitioner or otherwise. It is admitted regarding filing of the Writ Petition and Writ Appeal which were dismissed by the Hon'ble High Copurt . It is further submitted that the petitioner has not chosen to approach the conciliation machinery and file a petition before labour Court , Ananthapur . It is further submitted that the persons who were engaged on the basis of individual contract to work on commission basis cannot be equated with the regular employees as such there is no question of observation of the petitioner in the bank's service in the present case . The work performed by the persons in the Laddu counter is entirely different and nothing to do with the banking operations.

8. It is further submitted he has filed a Writ Petition No. 20080 of 1999 along with four others beforethe Hon'ble High Court for their regularisation of service and the same was dismissed on 1-8-2000 . Thereupon an appeal was preferred in Writ Appeal No. 1471/2000 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 27-11-2000 with a direction that the workman can approach the appropriate forum to agitate their claim . Hence, the present petition was filed.

9. The petitioner sought relief directing the respondent bank to reinstate the service , and treat the period of removal from service till reinstatement of duty and further for payment of arrears of salaries with all attendant benefits .

11. The petitioner examined himself as WWI besides examining A. Subbrahmanyam as WW2 and got marked the documents exhibits W1 to W15 . As against this evidence, the respondent filed the affidavit ofG. Subba Ramayya who worked as a branch Manager of second respondent during the period from 1990 to 2001 .

LC. 276/2001 :

12. The petitioner workman L. Chinna Venkateswarlu filed this petitioner under section 2 (A) 2 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against the respondent Bank of Baroda represented by its General Manager , Zonal Office at Chennai and Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda at Tirumala . The averments made in this claim petition are almost same as made in the said LC . 275/2001 except the date of his appointment . He submitted that he was appointed by the second respondent in the month of Feb , 1977 on daily wages at Rs . 50 per month and enrolled his name in the employment exchange on 19-7-1999. The respondent also filed a counter denying averments made in the claim petition and taken the same plea as mentioned in the said LC . 275/2001 .

13. The petitioner examined himself as WWI besides A. Subbrahmanyam as WW2 and got marked the documents Exs . W1 to W3 . As against this evidence , the 10. The respondent filed a joint counter and denied the averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that the industrial dispute is not maintainable in law and further. submitted the Executive officer. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam issued proceedings dated 10-2-1995 to the second respondent to operate six counters in Vykuntam Queue Complex and the PPC Sheds in Tirumala w.e.f. 10-2-1995 for sale of Laddu by fixing procedure . Pursuant to the said letter. the second respondent bank opened counters for sale of Laddu tokens and also for regularizing distribution of Laddu through their staff and workers initially. It is denied that the respondent bank is selling tickets for Kainkarya Seva. Similarly Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam has also issued proceedings to other banks namely Andhra Bank . Indian Bank for performing similar activities . It is further submitted that the nature of service and activities are not perennial in nature and Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam authorities have made temporary arrangements for distribution of Laddus . It is further 10082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

respondent filed the affidavit of G. Subba Ramayya who worked as a Branch Manager of second respondent during the period from 1990 to 2001 .

14. It is not disputed that the petitioners in both the cases along with others filed Writ Petition No. 16061/ 1999 and Writ Petition No. 20080/1999 on the file ofHon'ble High Court and both the petitions were dismissed by the common order relying on the previous dismissed Writ Petition No. 17514/1999 on the file ofHon'ble High Court and it was observing that the proceedings of 1-2-1995 and order of 10-6-1996 would show that the bank is operating its counters of accepting the money for Laddus which is basically a banking function but getting the Laddus front thekitchen to the distribution counters is a function which isbeing performed by the banks perhaps as gratis . This may also be facilitating their banking functions . But , the operation of these ' counters where the Laddus are distributed is dependant on the wishes of the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam . Tomorrow the T.T.D. may dispense with the system and start distribution of laddus itself. The petitioners , if allowed to be regularized by the bank it would have to face difficult consequences . The distribution of Laddus is perennial but the arrangement between the T.T.D. and the bank is not permanent . Therefore, the Judgement of Supreme Court in my view is not applicable to the facts of the present case . Since there is no contract as has been held by this court earlier also . between the petitioner and the bank , therefore the petitioners cannot be treated to be employees of the bank . It is also not disputed against the order of the said Writ Appeal No. 1471/2000 was preferred and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with observation that it is opened to the appellant to approach the appropriate forum to agitate their claim and in the event of such proceedings being filed . The appropriate forum shall decide the case on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made by the Learned Single Judge .

15. The petitioner has stated on oath that he was orally appointed on 27-5-1995 by the second respondent bank and he was assigned his duty to issue the sale of Laddu tickets and also used to bring Laddus from T.T.D. kitchen (POTU ) to the bank and other places for sale and that he was orally terminated on 28-2-1999 . At the time of termination. he was getting Rs . 50 per day on monthly basis . The second respondent used to maintain the attendance register and used to supervise and control the work of the petitioner. The nature of work is a permanent one and he worked continuously without a break till the date ofhis termination. He also filed the documents Ex . W1 to W14 which are Xerox copies to show that the bank was maintaining the attendance of the petitioners and receiving the amounts collected by them by sale of the Laddu . Ex . W2 who is said to have worked in the bank along with the petitioners was examined collaborating the evidence of the petitioner . As against this evidence , the

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( i) ] respondent filed the affidavit of G. V. Subba Ramaiah stating that the petitioners are the casual workers engaged by the Protective Securev Services for the distribution of the Laddu coupons in i Vykuntam Queue complex of TTD and also for carrying Laddu trays from templekitchen to Laddu counter for onward distribution to the pilgrims. There are other security agencies also namely J. B. Security Services etc. who get the labourers and extract work from them for the distribution of the Laddus and they filed the attendance sheet of the workers before the bank for getting regular bills . He further, stated that he paid the amountsto Protective Security Services and the petitioners were not employers of the bank and there is no contract between the petitioners and the respondent and the bank rules does not provide employment for such nature of category of services .

16. He stated in the cross -examination that Ex. W15 bunch shows the cash received from the temple by their cashier which are the sale proceeds of the Prasadam handed over by the TTD authorities and Ex . W15 bears the signature of onc of his permanent staff members and the seal of the bank and Ex . W15 is the bunch showing the consolidated statement of the month and which will be sent to the TTD . The evidence ofthe petitioner in LC 276/ 2001 is similar in nature .

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent bank is an industry as defined in ID Act . 1947 and the Central Government is an appropriate government for the respondent bank and the petitioner is the worker within the meaning of Section 2(S ) of ID Act and that the petitioners were in continuous service from the date of their appointment till the termination and the sccond respondent supervise the work of the petitioners and maintaining attendance register and other records and identity cards were also issued in favour of the petitioners by the bank and TTD and the petitioners were terminated without giving any notice against the provisions of the ID Act, 1947.

18. It is further, contended that the respondent management has pleaded that the petitioners were appointed by the Protective Security Services and there is an agreement between the bank and the said services for providing labour and the payment was made to the said security services but no record is filed regarding the payment or the agreement between the parties and further contended that the documents filed by the petitioner such as attendance sheet and deposit of collected amount which bears the seal and signature of the permanent employees of the bank shows that the petitioner were working under the bank and their work is supervised by the bank and there is a relationship of employer and workmen. It is further. contended that in the absence of production of records to show that the petitioners were working under the Protective Security Services and the payment was 10083 भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

definition of the workmen and cannot be retrenched without following the procedure covered by section 25 (F) of ID Act . In the present case , the petitioners pleaded that they worked on daily wages for more than 240 days in an year and that under the control of second respondent and that they were terminated orally without giving any notice . The initial burden lies on the petitioner to prove that they have worked as casual labour under the second respondent bank for more than 240 days in a year continuously. The plea of the respondent is they are never employed by the respondent bank and they were never under the control and no wages were paid and further pleaded that they were working under the Protective Security Services agency with whom they have an agreement for supply of labourers for the sale of Laddu in the counter.

made to the said services and that security services has employed the petitioners, an adverse inference has to be drawn and further pointed that the documents filed by the petitioners regarding the attendance and the depositing of sale proceeds bears seal of the bank and signature of the bank officials and the respondent did not produce the originals of the said records to explain that the documents do not pertains to petitioners and further contended that the petitioners worked for more than 240 days in the bank and there is a relationship of employer and workmen. As such they are entitled for the temporary status and further they are entitled for recruitment of future permanent vacancies . The Learned Counsel relied on H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India [ 1985 (4) SCCP. 201 ] and Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya and others Vs. Presiding Officer, labour Court, Rewa and another [2001 ( 2) LLN P. 639 (MPHC) ] and Workmen Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ 1987 (2 ) IIN P. 118 ( Del High Court ) ] and Deep Chandra Vs. State of UP and another [ 2001 ( I ) LLJ P. 742 (Supreme Court) ] .

21. The petitioners filed an I.A. for the production of certain records such as attendance register from 27-5-1995 to 28-2-1999 and the same was dismissed observing that the respondent has not maintained any such attendance register and pleaded that the petitioners areworking with Protective Security Services who is not a party to this proceedings .

19. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the respondent that the applications of the petitioners are not maintainable on the ground that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and the respondent bank and further contended that there is no appointment letter or termination order and further contended that there is no privity of contract between the respondent bank and the petitioners and no jural relationship . It is further contended that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners have worked for more than 240 days in a year as casual labourers and further contended that the petitioners are the employees under Protective Security Services , who entered into an agreement with the respondent bank for providing labourers for bringing Laddus from the TTD kitchen to the counters and further contended that the scheme is not a permanent one and depends on the will and wishes of the TTD Devasthanam and cannot be said to be a permanent in nature and further pointed out that the principal business of the bank is only a banking business and the sale of Laddu and the petitioners cannot be appointed in a regular vacancies in a bank and relied upon the ruling of the Apex Court 2001 LAB I.C. 897 Indian Bank Association, Appellant Vs. the workmen of Syndicate Bank and others , Respondents . It is further, contended that the petitioners had pleaded before the High Court in W.P. No. 16061/91 and 20080/99 that they were inducted into the second respondent bank through contract labour system by Protective Security Services and their claim was rejected by the single Judge of the High Court.

22. Subsequently the petitioners filed Xerox copies . ofthe attendance register and accounts which are marked as Ex . W11 to W14. The respondent witness MW1 has admitted the signature of one of his staff members on Ex . W15 which discloses that certain amounts pertaining to sale of Laddu , were deposited by the petitioners in the bank and further the petitioners were worked on the counters and these documents are written on printed forms ofthe respondent bank . The attendance register also bears seal of the bank . There is no explanation from the respondent bank regarding the maintainability of these documents . Further respondent bank has not produced any evidence to show that they entered into an agreement with the Protective Security Services agency regarding the supply of the labourers for sale of Laddu . When the respondent has entered into an agreement with the ProtectiveSecurity Services agency and paid amount, there must have been records to that affect in the bank . Nothing prevented in the respondent bank in filing such records to disprove the claim of the petitioners. In the absence ofthe records , an adverse inference has to be drawn to that effect that if produced they will go against the case of the respondent . It is not a dispute that TTD has given the sale ofLaddu to some other banks . In WP No. 17514/99 which is filed against the Indian Bank . It appears that the Indian Bank has produced before the High Court various bills received from M/ s . Protective Security Services claiming charges for bringing Laddu from the kitchen to the counter at the rate of Rs . 75 per day. In view of the said records, the High Court has dismissed the case of the petitioner. But in the present case though the respondent have taken the similar principle did not choose to produce any record to 20. It is a settled law casual employee or daily wage earner comes within the definition of the workmen under section 2 ( s ) of ID Act . If the casual labour works for not less than 240 days continuously in an year including Sundays and other paid holidays , he comes under the 10084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] that effect. The attendance register and the accounts Ex . WI1 to WI4 shows that the petitioners have worked for more than 240 days in a year and they worked under the second respondent bank as workmen and their removal is inviolation of provisions of the ID Act .

Evenotherwise , the question of absorption would be fully coveredby an authority of this Court in the case ofUnion of India Vs. K. V. Baby, reported in [ ( 1999 ) I Lab LJ 1290 , 1999 AIR SCW 4855 ] . In this case it has been held that persons who are engaged on the basis of individual contracts to work on commission basis cannot be equated with regular employees doing similar work . It has been held that the mode of selection and qualifications are not comparable with those of the employees , even though the employees may be doing similar works. In the present case , not only the modes of selection and qualifications not comparable , but even the work is not comparable . The work which the Deposit Collectors do is completely different from the work which the regular employees do . There was thus no question of absorption and there was also no question of Deposit Collectors being paid the same pay scales , allowances and other service conditions of the regular employees of the banks .

23. It is true that the nature of work ofthe petitioners is entirely different with the work of the permanent employees in the bank. The scheme of distribution of Laddu by the bank is only during the pleasure of the TTD. In case of dispensing the scheme or reducing the quota, the respondent bank has to face difficult consequences and the scheme of sale of Laddu is not a part of banking system of the respondent bank . The learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that in view of the reported decision of 2001 LAB 897 Indian Bank Association appellants Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others , respondents that the deposit collectors were held as workers and the commission received by them as wages . The Apex court held that the deposit collectors are not entitled for absorption as regular employees of the bank . It was observed by the Apex court as follows as in para 26 , 27, 28 and 29

(29) We also see no substance in the contention that these schemes are unremunerative . The banks have introduced these schemes because they want to encourage the common man to make small and regular deposits . As a result of such schemes , the number of depositors have become much larger . We have no doubt that such schemes arc continued because the banks find them remunerative . The banks have large collections through such schemes . " "(26 ) We also cannot accept the submission that the banks have no control over the Deposit Collectors . Undoubtedly , the Deposit Collectors are free to regulate their nature of the work itself. It would be impossible to fix working hours for such Deposit Collectors because they have to go to various depositors . This would have to be done at the convenience of the depositors and at such times as required by the depositors . If this is so , then no time can be fixed for such work . However, there is control inasmuch as the Deposit Collectors have to bring the collections and deposit the same in the bank by the very next day. They have to then fill in various forms , accounts . registers and pass books . They also have to do such other clerical work as the bank may direct . They are , thereforc. accountable to the bank and under the control of the bank.

24. The present petitioners and the deposit collectors , the said ruling stands on same footing and their nature of duties are entirely different with that of the permanent employees of the respondent bank . Further, the nature of dutics of the present petitioners is entirely different with the banking business . In view of the said ruling , the petitioners are not entitled for absorption in permanent vacancies . However, the petitioners who worked as casual labour more than 240 days in an year are entitled to the temporary status of the bank employees and entitled for reinstatement as a workman into the services with last drawn wages within one month from the date of publication of the award and the respondent is liable to reinstate the petitioners on duty. So far as , the scheme of sale of Laddu is in existence . The petitioners arc not entitled for back wages.

Accordingly, an Award is passed . Transmit.

Dictated to Shri P. Kanaka Raju , LDC , transcribed by hinı, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 25th day of July, 2005.

(27) We also see no force in the contention that Section 10 of the Banking Regulations Act prevents employment of persons on commission basis . The proviso to Section 10 makes it clear that commission can be paid to persons who are not in regular employment . Undoubtedly the Deposit Collectors are not regular employees of the bank. But they nevertheless are workers within the meaning of the term as defined in the Industrial disputres Act . There isclearly a relationship of master and servant between the Deposit collectors and the concerned Bank.

T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent MW1

WWI WW2

(28 ) Mr. Nageshwar Rao is right in his submission that the concession was not binding on his clients . However, what has been conceded has been correctly conceded . No question arose of directing absorption of theDeposit Collectors as regular workers . No such demand had been made and , therefore , there could have been no such direction . Such directions were beyond the reference .

10085 भारत का राजपत्र : सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

NewDelhi , the 17th August, 2005

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI . Copy of identification card issued by the AEO (VQC), TTD, Tirumala that he is working at BOB Laddu Token Counter-VQC

ExW2 Annadanam register.

Ex. W3 : Attendance register.

Ex. W4 SSC certificate

Ex. W5 Degree Certificate.

Ex.W6 : The typing writing higher certificate for English.

Ex. W7. The typing writing higher certificate for Telugu.

S.O. 3233. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires 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. 695 dated 15-2-2005 the service in the Industrial Establishments manufacturing or producingNuclear Fuel and Components , Heavy Water and Allied Chemicals and Atomic Energy which is covered by item 28 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 26th February, 2005.

Ex. W8 Computers certificate .

Ex. W9 : The employment exchange registration card.

Ex. W10 : The caste certificate .

Andwhereas, the. Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period ofsix months.

Ex. W11 : The Xerox copy of June 1997 attendarice.

Ex. W12 : The Xerox copy of May 1997 attendance .

Ex. W13: The Xerox copy of April 1997 attendance .

Ex. W14 : The Xerox copy of March 1997 attendance.

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 apublic utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period ofsix months from the 26th August, 2005.

Ex. W15 : A bunch of accounts sheets maintained by all the employees working in token counters of the Laddus .

[FileNo. S- 11017/3/97- IR (PL) ] J. P. PATI, Jt. Secy.

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3234-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंकऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं . -1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 170/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/34/ 1999- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th August, 2005 का. आ. 3233-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित मेंऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड (ढ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 695 दिनांक 15-2-2005 द्वारा नाभिकीय ईंधन , संघटक, भारी पानी और संबंध रसायन तथा आणविक ऊर्जा जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि28 में शामिल हैं, को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 26-2-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि कोछः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

S.O. 3234.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 170/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , inthe industrial dispute between the management ofBank ofBaroda, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2005.

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ ) 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 26-8-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[No. L- 12012/34/ 1999- IR (B-II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

[फा. संख्या एस-11017/3/1997- आई.आर. (पी. एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव

2558GI/05-13 10086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer, Shri S.S. Bal

L.D. No. 170/99

Inthe matter of dispute between:

Shri Surender Partap, (deceased) Through his L. R. Smt. Kiran Lata , W/o late Shri Surender Partap,

2. Master Kulbhushan S/o late Shri Surender Partap

3. Kum. Anandita D /o late Shri Surender Partap 4. Kum. Ruchika D/o late Shri Surender Partap

Workman All R/o 166 -B/A, Mayur Vihar, Phase- II , New Delhi - 110091 .

Versus

TheGeneral Manager,

Bank ofBaroda , 16 , Parliament Street, NewDelhi -110001.

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] placedbeforetheworkman for clearance which was passed for payment by Senior Branch Manager, Shri P. C. Nayak to be debited to the Savings Bank Account No. 32204 in thejoint names of one Shri V. K. Bhatia and his wife Smt. Mala Bhatia ; that after waiting for some time for the claimant to come for the payment who did not turn up , the workman apprised his seniors about his suspicion about the saiddraft, the officials took the draft into their custody, perhaps , for safe-custody; that in the meantime, those involved in putting up the said fake draft got alerted and had the incriminating entries in the relevant records ofthe bank erased and initialed; that on 19th July, 1988 the workman was shocked to learn that he was suspended from the service of the bank on a mala fide allegation of cheating the Bank vide its Order No. RO: DCR dated 19th July, 1988 ; that on 30-12-88 the bank issued two letters to the workman for holding enquiry against the workman and after a sham inquiry the workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 12-6-90 which was conducted against the laid down principles of natural justice . The claimant workman has prayed that in consideration of the statements made in this claim application the management may kindly be ordered to reinstate him in service with continuity of service and other benefits/relief which this Hon'ble tribunal may deem proper .

Management

Appearances : None for the Workman.

Shri T. C. Gupta . A/R for management.

:AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 1-12012/34/99 -IR (B - II) dated 7/ 11-6-1999 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the dismissal of Shri Surender Pratapw.e.f. June. 1990 by Regional Manager . Bank of Baroda. New Delhi is legal and justified ? If not . what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. After notice the claimant - workman Surender Pratap filed his statement of claim wherein he stated that hewas appointed as a clerk in the Bank of Baroda Branch Parliament Street New Delhi - 1 in August , 1982 : that the workman served the bank honestly and diligently for nine years and his work . conduct and behavior was satisfactory and: that on 27-5-88 a demand draft of Rs . One lakh was put for payment and while checking the said draft the workman noticed that there was something amiss in the voucher and account number and on closer scrutiny he found it to be fictitious and he brought it to the notice of Shri N. L. Khurana Senior Branch Manager who became nervous and denied his involvement in the transaction: that on 7th July. 1988 another bank draft for Rs. 50,000 was 3. The management filed written statement contesting the case denying the claim of the workman .

4. Written statement was followed by replication wherein the pleas mentioned in the statement of claim were reiterated to be correct while controverted facts mentioned in the written statement to be correct and were repudiated.

5. Thereafter case was fixed for evidence of the workman but the workman passed away on 23-12-2001 and his wife Smt . Kiran Lata and other L. Rs . Master Kulbhushan S/ o late Shri Surender Partap aged 15 years . Kum . Anandita D/ o late Shri Surender Partap aged 11 years and Kum. Ruchika D/ o late Shri Surender Partap aged 4 years were brought on record and his wife filed amended claim on her behalf and on behalf of other L. Rs . The workman claimed relief of reinstatement with full back wages . The claim of the workman that his dismissal was not legal and justified became infructuous and in view of this the respondent bank was asked to determine the amount due to the workman as wife of the deceased prayed for the payment of dues available and did not pursue the reference. In this background the respondent - management bank was directed to work out the dues of deceased workman Surender Pratap , Shri Tara Chand Gupta A/R for management informs me today that the dues have been worked out/ settled and are ready for payment to the L.Rs. ofthe deceased workman and they may collect the same by completing the requisite formalities . Wife of the deceased Smt. Kiran Lata who is the natural guardian of the above said L.Rs. may collect the dues of the said L.Rs.

10087

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

bycompleting requisite formalities . Wife of the deceased may collect her dues and may also collect dues of the L.Rs. by completing necessary formalities . Reference stands disposed of, File be consigned to record room.

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute to Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum -Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication:

Dated : 2-08-2005

S. S. BAL , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005

"Whether the action of Bank of Baroda Management in terminating the services of Vijay Kumar S/o Sh . Chote Lal R/o Bagh Brigtan, House No. 582/48, Bareillyw.e.f. 4-11-2000 despite his claim for regularisation of his services as a sub staff is justfair and legal ? If not for what relief he is entitled to ?"

The trade union's case is that the dispute refers to Vijay Kumar. Sri Vijay Kumar performed the duties of temporaryPeon as per following:

का.आ. 3235- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 104/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को16-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Shyamganj branch upto 21-9-92

Dhoti Raghuwar Dayal w.e.f. 19-4-93 to 23-7-93 [सं. एल-12011 /56/2001- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

Shahgarh branch w.e.f. 29-7-93 to 28-8-93 New Delhi , the 17th August, 2005

Narkulganj branch w.e. f. 22-2-96 to 13-5-98

Civil Lines branch w.e.f. 21-5-98 to 14-7-98

Narkulganj branch w.e.f. 22-12-98 to 27-7-2000 w.e.f. 9-10-2000 to 4-11-2000

S.O. 3235.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16-8-2005.

[No. L- 12011/56/2001 - IR (B- II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Shrikant Shukla, PresidingOfficer

L.D. No. 104/2001

Ref. No. L-12011/56/2001 /IR (B- II) dated 22-6-2001

Between

TheGeneral Secretary,

U.P. Bank ofBaroda Employees Union (W/B ) , C/o BOB, 89, C, Civil Lines, Bareilly(U.P. ).

And

Instead of being prescribed salary of the Peon the workman was paid Rs . 25, 30 and ultimately to Rs . 70 per day.While the workman was working as temporary peon Narkulgar branch the trade union raised this industrial dispute before Asstt. Labour Commissioner ( C) Dehradun for regularisation of service of the workman. The Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) Dehradun seized the industrial dispute in conciliation on 23-10-2000 . While the industrial dispute was seized in conciliation the bank receipt ofthe notice from the Asstt. Labour Commissioner (C) Dehradun terminated the services of the workman at the close of office on 4-11-2000. That by doing so the bank committed breach ofsection 33 of I.D. Act . 1947. While terminating the services of the workman the bank did not advise the reason for termination and has not paid notice pay and retrenchment compensation to the workman despite the fact that the workman had worked for 240 days during the calendar year preceding the date of termination .By doing so the bank further made breach of section 25 F of the I.D. Act . It is further alleged that the employer by adopting unfair labour practice prepared the payment vouchers in the forged name as Anil Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Ramesh. Pappu etc. though these persons never existed. It is further alleged that during 22-12-98- to 27-7-2000 the worker was paid in the name of Ram Niwas , Ram Kishan , Mati Ram, SitaRam etc.

Opposite party has disputed the claim and has stated that no cause of action arise on 4-11-2000 or any other date as such the reference is bad in law and liable to be The Regional Manager, Bank ofBaroda, RegionalOffice, Civil Lines, RampurGarden, Bareilly (U.P. ) .

10088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )]

never completed 240 days in any calendar year in the bank . He worked only for different spells intermitently for odd jobs of casual nature as and when the same arose . The name of Sri Vijay Kumar was not sponsored by Employment Exchange and he has ever gone through the process of selection as enumerated above and as such Sri Vijay Kumar was not legally entitled for bank service . Therefore the question of his regularisation in the bank services never arose . Sri Vijay Kumar has been made payment by the Branch Manager for the actual days he worked for the branch on daily wage basis as casual labour . It was very well known to him that the work which he performed was ofcasual in nature and for such casual work done by him . Sri Vijay Kumar worked without any complaint and got his account settled and now there remains no dispute of any kind . As such the present case is not industrial dispute and is liable to be dismissed. Neither bank has appointed nor issued any appointment letter to Sri Vijay Kumar and therefore there is no question of termination of his services. The post of Peon or any post in sub staff can be filled as per the recruitment rules and after following proper procedure according to the rules . It is therefore alleged that Sri Vijay Kumar is not entitled for reinstatement in the bank services .

Todaywas the date fixed for the parties . Prior to this 20-4-05 was the date fixed for evidence . But none appeared and therefore it was ordered on 20-4-05 that if parties do not turned up and do not examine evidence . It shall be believed that parties do not want to produce and examine any evidence and accordingly 9-8-05 was fixed for evidence but the worker or his representative opted to abstain from the proceedings.

rejected limine . It is further alleged that Bank ofBaroda is public sector organisation as such has to work as per instructions and orders and guidelines issued by the government from time to time. As per orders appointinent in sub staff cadre against any vacancy are filled through Employment Exchange . If any post falls vacant in sub staff category it is notified to the Employment Exchange and the names of suitable candidates are called from Employment Exchange, specifying the criteria like age, qualification etc. After the names are received from the Employment Exchange interview is held by the panel constituted for the purpose and selected candidate is issued appointment letter after approval of the higher authorities by Regional Manager who is appointing authority. Sn Vijay Kumar has never been subjected to the selection process as such he was never appointed in the bank services in sub staff catregory on any post. Sri Vijay Kumar was never issued any appointment letter for any post whatsoever, as such he is not a bonafide workman of the bank. There has never been any employer -employee relation between the bank of Baroda and Sri Vijay Kumar as such this is not an industrial dispute under the 1.D. Act . As such this court has no jurisdiction . It is further alleged that neither Branch Manager, Shyamganj has power of appointment nor he has ever appointed the applicant . Branch Manager, Shyamganj is necessary party in the case who can answer the question properly. The worker might have worked as casual labour for highly intermittent work and the applicant be put to prove his contention . It is further alleged that other branches in which the worker has alleged to have worked, their Branch Managers have also not been impleaded as party in the case. They are necessary party who can reply properly. It is alleged that the contention of the trade union is false , misconceived and concocted. Branch Manager of the concerned branches in their personal capacity engaged Sri Vijay Kumar for purely daily rated casual intermittent nature of work as and when required on day- to-day basis . It is emphasised that Sri Vijay Kumar had never worked 240 days in any calendar year or in 12 consecutive months preceding the alleged date of termination i.e. 4-11-2000. In the year 2000 Sri Vijay Kumar was engaged on purely casual intermittent nature of labour work for 4 days only by the branch manager, Narkulganj in his personal capacity and hewas engaged for 2 days only in the Regional Office . Sri VijayKumar worked for 6 days only between the period 1-1-2000 to 4-11-2000. Sri Vijay Kumar was engaged on purely casual intermittent nature of labour work for 11 days only between 1-1-99 to 31-12-99 by the branch manager, Narkulganj in his personal capacity. Sri Vijay Kumarwas similarly engaged in the year 1998 for 13 days inNarkulganj and 28 days by the Branch Manager, Civil Lines on purely casual nature of job. Sri Vijay Kumar was never engaged as employee of the bank and his name was never entered in the attendance/ muster register kept for thebank employees . It is also alleged that Sri Vijay Kumar

The worker has not appeared and has not proved the fact on oath nor he has faced the cross examination from the opposite party. The representative of the opposite party has submitted that since the worker has not appeared to prove his case therefore opposite party does not want to examine any witness . The representative of the opposite party has argued that it was for the worker to prove that he has worked 240 days in preceding calendar year prior to his termination from the service . But the worker has utterly failed to prove it . Therefore there is no question for the management to rebutt the same . It is also argued that the Branch Managers of the different branches are not authority to appoint temporary peon if different Branch Manager on need basis can utilised the casual labour for intermittent work and if the worker worked for a few days indifferent-different branches of the bank then he can not claim, the reliefby impleading Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda , Regional Office , Bareilly alone as he never appointed. As there has been any appointment letter to this effect it could have sustainable that under such appointment he worked in different branches on transfer but in that case also the transfer letter was needed . It is alleged that the bank has never violated the provision of 10089

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

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

L.D. No. 37/2001

R.N. Rai , Presiding Officer Section 25 F as the worker never worked 240 days from date ofalleged termination . For getting any reliefunder Section 33 ofthe I.D. Act . 1947. Worker has to prove that the employer has contravened Section 33 of the Act. Worker has to prove that prior to 4-11-2002 he was in service and his services were abruptly terminated on 4-11-2002 during pendency of the proceeding and since theworker has not discharged his burden, the management does notwant to produce any evidence . It is alleged during argument the worker has no courage to face cross examination and why he has not come for evidence.

Inthe matter of:

Capt. M.P. Premi,.

S/o Late L.N : Premi, R/oA-103, Pocket "B" , Mayur Vihar, Phase- II,

Delhi-110091 .

Versus

The argument of the opposite party carries weight and I am of the considered opinion that the worker has failed to prove that he worked 240 days prior to his termination on 4-11-2002 . He has also failed to prove that during pendency he was in service and his services were terminated in violation ofSection 33. The issue is answered against the trade union and the worker is not entitled to any relief.

M/sIndia International Airways Ltd. , Thapar House, 124, Janpath,

NewDelhi- 110001.

Lucknow : 9-08-2005

AWARD

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L- 1012/36/ 2001 C- 1 Central Government dt. 18/24-05-2001 has referred the following for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . India International Airways Limited at Delhi in terminating the services of Capt. M.P. Premi , Executive Pilot w.e.f. 05-10-1999 is just, fair and legal ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

का. आ. 3236-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडिया इंटरनेशनल एअरवेज़ लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, लेबर कोर्ट- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 37/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एलं-11012/36/2001- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th August, 2005

The workman applicant has filed statement ofclaim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that against illegal termination of services ofthe claimant, the claimant had raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government who held the conciliation proceedings, which failed due to adamant attitude of the management, the present reference has been made for adjudication by this Hon'ble Court. The workman is filing the statement ofclaim. That in the reference the workman has been shown as Executive Pilot which term was raised by the management claiming thereby that Capt . M.P. Premi herein workman is not "workman" . This fact is hereby denied as the applicant/ claimant is a workman under Industrial Dispute Act .

S.O. 3236. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 37/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court-II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of India International Airways Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-8-2005 .

That the workman was offered appointment with the management as Helicopter Pilot for New Delhi base vide their letter of office as Senior Helicopter Pilot, IIA/ ADMN./305 dated 23-11-1994. In the said letter of offer it was stipulated that the workman was required to pass the Tech. Examination on Bell Jetranger 206 B III type of [No. L- 11012/36/2001 - IR(C- 1 ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

10090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] Helicopter and was also to undergo familiarization/training and skill test as required by the DGCA and on passing the TechExamination the workman was to be absorbed as SeniorCommander (Helicopter) with the management.

inflying efforts during the year 1998-99 , no raise in salary was given to any employee of the company, but the management promised to compensate the workman suitably during salary review to be undertaken in April, 1999 .

That the workman accepted the offer of the management and was issued final letter of appointment dated30-03-1995 which inter alia stipulated training and skill test and payment of stipend of Rs . 5,000 (Rs . Five Thousand) per month during the training period and total salary of Rs . 13,700 (Thirteen thousand seven hundred) per month plus flying related allowances along with reimbursement ofexpenditure on maintenance of uniform use of telephone , medical expenditure and level travel allowance. It further stipulated that the workman would be onprobation till a letter of confirmation was issued by the management.

That after many sittings and deliberations with the workman during the period April to August 1999 the management on 16-08-1999 decided in principle to fix a minimum salary of Rs . 65,000 per month for the workman in addition to other flying related allowances with effect from 01-04-1999. However , the management during the abode deliberation conveyed to the workman that they were in a process of taking a decision on modalities of effecting the revised salary and that a letter to that effect shall be released in due course . Thereafter, the workman was deputed to proceed on prolonged election flying duties awayfrom Delhi .

That the workman formally joined the services of the management with effect from 01-04-1995 and successfully obtained endorsement of Ball 222 UT on his flying licence on 30-10-1995 as required by the management .

That the successfully obtaining endorsement ofBall 222UT by the workman on his licence , he was sanctioned anadditional qualification allowance of Rs. 750 per month vide management's letter dated08-11-1995 .

That on 26-08-1999, the workman sent a fax to the management that insurance cover for all time accident, loss oflicence and mediclaim insurance cover was not yet done as agreed . The workman in the above letter further informed the management that he was unable to carry out outstation D.I. ( Daily Inspection) and flights of Z plus and Z category VIPs, till insurance cover was provided which was agreed during meeting and telephone talk on the night of 18-19 August, 1999. In the said letter the workman also requested for salary fixation confirmation and requested that decision on the above be given before next flight is undertaken by him .

Thatthe services of the workman was confirmed as a follow - up appointment letter dated 30-05-1995 as Senior Commander (Helicopter ) vide management's letter dated 09-01-1996 and salary/allowances of the workman was revised to Rs. 16,820 per month with effect from 01-01-1996 along with all other existing allowances and reimbursement of expenditures.

That the salary of the workman was again revised and restnictured with effect from 01-04-1996 based on his performance to Rs . 14,640 per month vide management's letter dated 10-04-1996.

Thatin response to the workman's above letter dated 26-08-1999 sent by fax , Mr. Yash Nayar, Manager Operations and Administration informed the workman that loss of licence cover has been raised to 15 Lacs , all time accident insurance to 25 Lacs , and Mediclaim to 3 Lacs for each familymember from 27-08-1999 onwards and salary. is agreed upon in toto as put up by the workman but he said that there may be a few structural changes but total amount will not vary.

That the management vide their letter dated 12-04-1996 advised the workman of his higher entitlements pertaining to reimbursement of expenses on conveyance , telephone and upkeep of uniform and kit.

That the salary of the workman was again enhanced to Rs . 23,795 per month based on the performance with effect from 13-08-1997. That on 13-08-1997 the management issued another letter to the workman advising him on his entitlements on reimbursement of expenses on telephone , upkeep of uniform and kit which was enhanced an additional reimbursement of expenditure on productivity to the tune of Rs . 48,000 per month was granted to the workman.

That after return of the workman to Delhi on 09-09-1999 for routine maintenance of the Helicopter, the management on 10-09-1999 on its own released a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the workman against ad hoc arrears payment pending issuance of formal revised salary letter. That when the workman insisted on issuance of his revised salary letter, instead of granting lawful dues , to his utter surprise and shock , his four and a half years of dedicated permanent employment/ service was illegally, unjustifiably withmalafide intentions was arbitrarily terminated without assigning any reasons vide management's letter dated 05-10-1999, which was also against the principles of natural justice and equity. That the letter dated 05-10-1999 issued by the management terminating the services of the workman without the principle of natural justice , is illegal . malafide and is in violation of legal provisions laid down under the law.

That the workman performed his duties throughout to entire satisfaction of the management because ofwhich the management from time to time rewarded him with appreciation and raise in salary. That in spite of increase 10091

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]

That the management has also not paid to the workman a sum of Rs . 3,83,280 towards his salary dues payable at the revised rate from April, 1999 to September, 1999. That the workman through his counsel got a demand notice dated 05-05-2000 served on the management demanding reinstatement in duty and payment of dues . That the management instead of paying the dues of the workman and taking back on duty has sent a reply dated 09-06-2000 through their counsel.

That the workman reserves his rights to claim legal benefits which were due to him during the course of employment by raising a separate industrial dispute.

I was in Bombay. He told me that he wanted to discuss something very important which is for mutual benefit. When I met him at Ahmedabad, he said " You are making Rs . 25 Lacs in this charter deal and how much was my share in it".He explained to me how as a pilot he could ensure that all election flying went on smoothly. He left me in no doubt that ifhe wanted, he could give some excuse or the other, like flight time duty limit or visibility or even the landing place not meeting the safety requirements -to hinder operation. This tactics of Capt . Premi would have resulted in grave monetary loss to me. He then demanded that I pay him a handsome percentage to ensure that all flights were undertaken without hinderance . This amount was delivered at Capt . Premi's residence at New Delhi personally by me in the last week ofAugust . Please ensure that Capt. Premi is not deputed in any flight charteredby us again which may jeopardize our business association with you . The above fact of the claimant amounts to a major misconduct within the scope of his service conditions.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the claimant, was lastworking with the respondent as executive pilot drawing a salary of Rs . 15,823 per month and primarily discharging managerial functions , in terms of the scope of his employment. The claimant is therefore not a workman within the purview of Section 2(s) ofthe ID Act, 1947. In this view of the matter the alleged dispute a non - workman does not constitute an industrial dispute and this Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same.

That the order of reference has been made by the Government in a mechanical manner without ascertaining whether any alleged industrial dispute exists and without taking into consideration the written comments filed by the respondent. In this view ofthe matter the conciliation proceedings are void ab initio and the order of reference is invalid and therefore, liable to be answered accordingly.

That in the month of August 1999 while on duty for election flying in Gujarat the claimant resorted to applying pressure tactics in order to black- mail the Company into accepting his unjustified and unreasonable demands for hike in salary and perks and enhancement of Loss of Licence (LOL) insurance covers from Rs: 7 lacs to Rs . 15 lacs and Aviation Accident (AA) cover from Rs . 7 lacs to 25 lacs . The insurance covers had to be increased in the case of the claimant and his colleague due to claimant's threats to abandon duty which would have led to grave financial loss to the company and tarnished its business reputation . The LOL and AA insurance covers of his colleague was later revised to the normal 7 lacs after the termination of service of the claimant . This act on the part ofthe claimant also amounts to a major misconduct within the scope of his service conditions.

That keeping in view the position of the claimant as Executive Pilot the service of the clainant has been terminated in accordance with the stipulation in his letter ofappointment by way of discharge simplicitor . Although there were grave and serious act/s of misconduct committed by the claimant leading to loss of confidence. In case this Hon'ble Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the claimant is a workman and/or the order of termination is not proper due to any reason whatsoever the respondent management relies upon and craves leave and liberty to prove the following act/s of misconduct by leading appropriate evidence before this Hon'ble Tribunal tojustify its order of termination .

That several verbal/written complaints were received by the respondent in respect ofthe conduct of the claimant from its clients and passengers , during his service tenure . In the month of September 1999 a written complaint was received from the Director of M/ s . S.K. Aviation Pvt. Ltd. , Delhi which reads as under :

Thatwhile in employment ofthe respondent company it came to the knowledge of the company in August 1999 that the claimant had established his own business and incorporated a company in the name and style of' Cyberage Systems India Pvt . Ltd. having its office at 140, 3rd Floor, Nehru Market, Opp. LSR College , New Delhi -48. As per information of the respondent, the claimant was its Managing Director and looked after its day to day affairs and business activities while being in the employment of respondent. This act of the claimant was in blatant breach of the express and implied conditions of service and amounts to misconduct . The above preliminary submissions are in the alternative and be read as such . Without prejudice to the above preliminary submissions the respondent submits its parawise reply on merits as under:

The claimants further contention in the claim that he is workman under the provisions of ID Act, 1947 is also "As you are aware we are regularly hiring your Bell 222U Twin Engine Helicopter. We wish to bring to your notice in incident relating to the election flying at Ahmedabad during the period 19 August-09 September, 1999. While at Ahmedabad, Capt . Premi who had been deployed with the helicopter called me on my mobile when 10092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

was appreciated . His salary was raised in routine for the reasons as aforesaid. The fact of the matter is that the management had to put up with his unacceptable behaviour and unreasonable demands only because there were no other qualified pilot available for flying the particular helicopter of the management .

wrongand hence denied. The correct position is that the claimant was working as an executive pilot with the respondent, drawing a salary ofRs . 15,823 per month and discharging managerial functions in terms of the scope of his employment. The claimant is , therefore, not a workman withinthe purview of section 2(s) ofthe ID Act, 1947 and hasbeen correctly described in the order of reference as an executive pilot . The nature of his duties is detailed below:

The correct position is that no raise in the salary was given to any employee during this particular period as raise in salary always depended solely on affordability and had nothing to do with the performance particularly in case of the claimant . It is also denied that any alleged promise was made to compensate the claimant , in the year 1999. As aforesaid the increase in salary, if any, is always dependent on the affordability factor which cannot be predicted, particularly in aircraft charter business and therefore the management could not and did no make any such commitment as alleged .

The correct position is that it was the claimant who demanded an exorbitant minimum salary ofRs. 65,000 per month and the respondent did not at any stage agree to pay the same as alleged by the claittant. In fact he had brought Capt . P.P.S. Sangha a colleague, in one of the meetings to press for his demand under the assumption that the election in Gujarat was round the corner and the management would accept his unjustified and unreasonable demand of the claimant. In these circumstances , Capt . P.P.S. Sangha chose to resign but the claimant decided to continue probably because there was nojob offer for him , like in the case of Capt . Sangha . No alleged assurance was made by the respondent regarding the issuance of a letter towards his revised emoluments .

The claimant was working and designated as an executive pilot in the company discharging executive functions as part of his job responsibility and flying helicopterwas one ofthis responsibility. Although he was discharging multifarious duties , yet he was primarily performing the role of an executive . As part of his duties, hewas controlling the rostering of pilots for the helicopter andused to decide which pilot will fly which segment of the flight in command keeping in view the ability, skill , experience of pilot vis - a- vis the prevalent weather condition, the terrein and the location and condition of helipad/airport . He was also DGCA approved pilot to conduct flying training and examination of the pilots .He also used to give instructions to the airport manager of the company concerning the conduct of flight like- obtaining clearances from the Air traffic control , getting extensionofwatch hours , when to bring the passengers tohelicopter, what kind of food/beverage to be procured for the flight etc. Besides he was also interacting with Chief Engineering Manager/Quality Control Manager regarding the maintenance of the helicopter and used to give instruction ofthe fuel requirement and maintenance. He had the authority to even over rule the Engineering Manager on matter's of acceptance of the helicopter for flight duty. Whenever , on station on long assignment he wasdirectly controlling the entire contingent comprising aircraft engineer and technicians and would take independent decisions with his own initiative and ability regarding the operational and administrative matters . He alsoused to regularly interact with the client/ passengers as a representative of the company which is also an executive function Further an executive pilot in a small charter company is not like an airline pilot where the pilot's responsibility is only to fly the aircraft . An executive pilot in a charter company usually starts his career as a pilot andthengets promoted to the post ofexecutive pilot which position entails discharging of executive functions while flying the aircraft also . In respondent company also there are two pilots who still are not performing the executive functions and therefore, designated as ' Pilot ' only. Infact the claimant was also recruited as a pilot but was thereafter designated as executive pilot keeping in view the executive responsibilities being handled by him.

The correct position is that the respondent provided to all its pilots insurance cover for the loss of licence (LOL) for Rs . 7 lacs and further cover for Aviation Accident (AA) for Rs . 7 lacs . In the month of August , 1999 just before leaving for Ahmedabad to conduct election flying the claimant unreasonably demanded that loss of licence (LOL) and Aviation Accident ( AA) cover be increased to Rs . 15 lacs and to Rs . 25 lacs respectively. He also demanded that all his family members be insured under Mediclaim Scheme for Rs . 3 lacs each. This was over and above the group medical insurance already provided to his3 family members. This was yet another unreasonable and unacceptable demand raised at that time when substantive business of the management was lined up . The management was still deliberating on the financial impact and effects of the said demands on the other employees , when the claimant spoke to Mr. Y.K. Nayar , Manager( Administration ) on the phone from Ahmedabad and threatened that he would stop flying if his demands were not met immediately and he followed it up by sending a fax dated 26-08-1999 . The respondent in these circumstances had no choice and was black - mailed into The contention of the claimant and his service record does not reflect that he was performing his duties through outto the satisfactions of the managament for which he 10093

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

accepting his unreasonable and unjustified demands relating to insurance covers .

alleged arrears did not arise. On the other hand the claimant owed money to the company being imprest advance given to him which he has not accounted for till date . Consequent upon termination ofservice the claimant did not respond to settle his full and final account despite being advised several times. When persistent demands were made by the company upon the claimant to settle his full and final account and remit the money the claimant resorted to make frivolous claim/ s against the company so as to forestall the proposed action of recovery of the money along with interest and damages. In fact , it seems that the sole reason why the claimant raised a belated demand notice and has approached this Hon'ble Court by seeking a reference is to harass the respondent and to pressurize them to forego its lawful monetary claim.

Thecorrect position is that on 10-09-1999 an imprest advance of Rs . 1.50 lacs was given to the claimant as he was going outstation for long duration flying. This amount was to be accounted for by the claimant after his return from outstation tour which he failed to do . Although the respondent did not give such huge imprest advance in routine, yet knowing the claimant's behaviour pattern the respondent decided to give him this advance amount in order that he did not create yet another problem during his flying assignment for the election. Therefore in these circumstances the question of adhoc arrear payments does not arise . The claimant has made a patently false allegation without any basis .

That the demand notice of the claimant was duly replied by the respondent through their counsel wherein correct position was detailed and the claimant was advised to remit the unpaid dues and settle his full and final account. It is specifically denied that the claimant is entitled to reinstate or the respondent owes any dues to the claimant which are liable to be paid to him.

The claimant had started his own software company under the name of M/ s . Cyberage Systems India Pvt. Limited which was duly incorporated and registered, even while he was in service of the respondent. As per information till date he continues to be the Managing Director ofM/s . Cyberage Systems India Pvt . Limited and isgainfully looking after its day to day affairs and business activities . Further after leaving the respondent he is also flying for another Delhi based company. Therefore , he is in gainfull employment and self avocation ever since his termination from service .

The claimant has made patently false allegation without any basis . As aforesaid, throughout his stay in the company the claimant's work and conduct was for from satisfactory. However he was tolerated because no other qualified pilot was available to fly the particular helicopter of the respondent and to train another pilot would have meant substantial expenses , which had already been incurred upon the claimant to the tune of Rs. 9 lacs by sending himto USA. The claimant was fully aware of this and took full advantage of the situation and tried to extract maximum money from the respondent. The management was forced to grin and bear it till the claimant crossed all the limits of acceptable behaviour and committed act/s of misconduct within the scope of his service conditions as detailed above . At this point of time the management lost confidence in him and his services were terminated keeping in view his position as executive pilot. The termination was in accordance with the stipulation in his letter of appointment by way ofdischarge simplicitor, rather than resorting to punitive disciplinary action which would have casted a stigma on the service record ofthe claimant . The order oftermination isjustified, bona fide and legal and calls for no interference.

Thatall contentions/allegations in the statement of claim as filed by claimant which have not been admitted specifically hereinabove may be deemed to have been denied and the claimant be put to strict proof in regard thereof. The respondent reserves its right to amend its written statement, and/or lead appropriate evidence at any stage of the case with the leave of this Hon'ble Court, if an exigency so arises .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has denied most of the paras of the reply of the management and has stated that his service have been illegally and arbitrarily terminated.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

The claimant who was last working as a executive pilot and drawing a salary ofRs . 15,823 per month is not a workman within the meaning of Sec . 2 (s) of ID Act, 1947 and his terms and conditions of service were purely contractual in nature and could be terminated as per stipulation by one month's notice or salary from either side. Therefore, the management gave him one month's salary in lieu of the notice vide cheque which was accepted by him and encashed without any protest . The order of termination vide letter dated 05-10-1999 is legal and proper and does not violate any law or principles of naturaljustice as alleged by the claimant .

There are three main points for consideration . The first is whether the applicant comes under the category of workman in view of Section 2 ( s) of the ID Act, 1947 .

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that the submission of the management that he It isspecifically denied that the respondent owes anything to the claimant by way of alleged arrears . As aforesaid, the salary of the claimant was never revised by the respondent and therefore the question of payment of

2558 G1/05-14 10094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] was promoted to the post of Executive Pilot is absolutely misconceived . No intimation was sent to him regarding his re -designation as Executive Pilot . From perusal of the record it transpires that the workman was re - designated asExecutive Pilot but the order was not served on him so the order of re -designation loses its validity as the workman has not been intimated of the same . Letter regarding re -designation as Executive Pilot remained with the management .

A cheque of Rs . 15,423 has been tendered to the claimant and the claimant has admitted in his cross examination that he has encashed the cheque and he did not sent any protest letter so the action of the management amounted to discharge simplicitor of the claimant as per the terms of his appointment keeping in view his status as Executive Pilot . This action of discharge simplicitor of the employec by payment of one month's salary is also permissible under section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act , 1954 applicable to the respondent.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that clause 9 of the appointment letter is against public policy and violative of Article 14 and directive principles contained in article 39 (a) and 41. There was inequality of the bargaining power of the party so clause 9 in the contract of employment is void under section 23 of the contract act as opposed to public policy besides been ultravires Article 14. The contract was unfair and un- rçasonable and an unfair and un - reasonable clause in a contract entered into between parties who are not equal in bargaining power should not be enforced but it must be struck down so clause 9 of the appointment letter is void- ab -initio and the management cannot take shelter ofclause 9 of the appointment letter. It is obnoxious and oppressive to public conscience. It is against public good and if such aclause is given effect to it would be harmful and injurious topublic interest .

Itwas submitted that even if it is assumed for arguments shake that his post was re - designated as Executive Pilot, the duties assigned to the workman are of not supervisory in nature . It has been held in Civil Writ Petition No. 1433/73 dated 10th February, 1977 that a Pilot isa workman and whatever supervisory or administrative work he does it is only incidental to his work . A narrow and restricted meaning should not be given to the definition ofthe workman . A person in his supervisory or managerial capacity should have the authority to appoint agents and to take diciplinary action against them. He should have administrative control over the other employees and there must be subordinate staff under him. In the present case the workman was a Pilot and his duties were operational. It has not been establishedby the management that he acted in managerial or supervisory capacity and he has administrative control over the subordinate staff . The management should prove that certain employees were under the administrative control of the workman but no such instance has been given in thewritten statement. The workman was employed to do operational work. It was his main work and the other duties discharged by him are incidental type of work. The duties of the workman have been enumerated in the written statement but from perusal of the relevant paras it does not transpire that the workman has control and supervision over the other workmen. The dominant duty should be of administrative and supervisory in nature . In the present case the workınan was a Pilot and his duty was operational . It is true that he ascertained before flight that the Helicopter was in proper operational condition and there was fuel and other crews were available for the operation of the Helicopter. These duties are not managerial of supervisory.

It was further submitted by the management that termination of services is non - stigmatic order of discharge simplicitor. Even if the order is non -stigmatic the management cannot pass it as it is unconsciable bargain and it is irreconcilable with what is right or reasonable so even albeit the termination of service is non -stigmatic. Clause 9 of the appointment letter is against public policy and public good and public interest so it is void in view of section 23 of the contract act . Since clause 9 of the appointment letter is against public policy, the service of the workman cannot be terminated having recourse to clause 9 of the appointment letter. Such clause in the appointment letter has been held to be un - reasonable and against public consciousness in AIR 1986 SC 1571 so the termination of the service of the workman in view of clause 9 ofthe appointment letter is not justified.

In view of the above discussion it becomes quite obvious that the applicant was a workman as his duty was only operational . He has no supervisory of administrative control on any of subordinate staff. The law cited by the management is hot applicable in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that as per clause 9 of the letter of appointment dated 30-03-1995 exhibit MW 1/1 after confirmation in service the management could terminate his service by giving one month's notice in writing or one month's salary in licu thereof. The workman has been paid one month's salary .

It was submitted from the side of the management that the workman has comınitted several misconduct and the same has been mentioned in the written statement . He indulged in pressure politics and pressurized the management to concede to his illegal demands as there was no competent Pilotto fly that helicopter . The management should have permitted to lead evidence even though no chargesheet has been issued to the workman in view of 1992 ( II ) LLJ Page 777 and service can be terminated in view of 2002 LLJ Vol . I Page 186 as the management has lost confidence in the workman . My 10095

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

58 years as provided in the service rules . The law citedby the workman applicant is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

attention was drawn to 2001 FIR Vol. 98 Page 710, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no fetter on the powers of the labour Court or Tribunal requiring or directing the parties to lead additioal evidence including production of document at any stage of the proceedings before they are concluded if on the facts and circumstances of the case it is deemed just and necessary in the interest of justice . The case is pending since 2001 as per the provisions of the ID Act it should be decided within one year at the maximum so it is not in the interest of justice that the workrnan should be further harassed by permitting the management to lead evidence . The management has been given permission to lead evidence and the management has examined his witness. It is not expedient in the interest of justice that the management should be permitted to prove the charges as there was no existence ofany charge at the time of termination of the service and no notice regarding misconduct of the workman has been given to him . So the allegations of the management shall be deemed to be after thought and no one should be perniitted to prove the allegation which was not ground of termination of the service of the workman . The law cited by the management for adducing additional evidence to substantiate the charges is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

Itwas further submitted that it was the duty of the workman to show that he was not gainfully employed. The initial burden is on him thereafter he places material in that regard the employer can bring on record material to rebut the claim . The workman has not filed any document to show that he was not in gainful employment. The workman cannot be compelled to file evidence regarding negative aspect of his employment . He cannot file any certificate of non -employment . He has admitted that he flew the helicopter of ONGC for two months . The age of . his superannuation is 6th March 2000 and his services were terminated on 05-10-1999 . He should have worked up to 6th March 2000 had his services been not illegally and arbitrarily terminated so he could not have discharged hisduties for more than six months after termination of his services . He is entitled to get back wages of six months only. It is his admission that he was gainfully employed in the establishment of ONGC so he was out ofemployment only for four months . It was submitted from the side of the management that his fixed salary was Rs. 15,823 and he could not be paid more than that in lieu of back wages . He has encashed a cheque ofRs . 15,823 . Since the termination of services of the workman is arbitrary and illegal so he shall be des ned to be in continuous employment of the management and he is not entitled to get only fixed salary but he is titled to get flying allowances and other allowances xcept TA. He was out of service so he is not entitled to gut TA . He is entitled to get other allowances as well as the termination is nonest. A chart has been submitted by the workman applicant which indicates that his monthly average wages are Rs . 44,702 inclusive of salary, flying allowance, productivity, telephone etc. minus uniform and TA. Since his work was operational and he was out of employment for four months he is entitled to getwages ofRs . 44,702 per month . Had he been in service he should have got that amount for four months . The workman applicant cannot be reinstated as he has crossed his age of superannuation but he is entitled to get back wages@ Rs . 44,702 for four months only minus Rs. 15,823 already received .

The reference is replied thus:

The action of the management of M/ s . India International Airways Limited at Delhi in terminating the services of Capt . M.P. Premi , Executive Pilot w.e.f. 05-10-1999 is neither just nor fair and nor legal . The workman applicant is entitled to get four mouths wages @ Rs. 44,702 minus Rs . 15,823 and the management is directed to make payment of the wages for four minths @ Rs . 44,702 minus Rs . 15,823 within one month from the date of publication of the award. In case of default the workman applicant will be entitled to get 6% interest over the entire Itwas further submitted by the management that in the service rules superannuation is 58 years and it is the discretion of the management to extend the service period beyond that. Since the relation of the workman and employer was embittered and stranged the management can certainly not have extended the service of the workman beyond 58 years , the normal tenture of the service as per the rules . The management drew my attention to 1987 LLN ( 1 ) Page 230, 1987 FLR Vol - 70 . From perusal of the law cited above it becomes quite obvious that the discretion vested in the management cannot be exercised by any Court or Tribunal . Extension of service is granted taking into consideration satisfactory discharge of duties . The management was of the view that the workman was not discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the management so . had he been in service the period of his tenure could not have been extended beyond 58 years . The discretion which is vested in the management cannot be exercised by any Court of law or Tribunal. It is the management who is the final authority to extend the service of the workman beyond 58 years. It was submitted from the side of the workman that had he been in service his tenure would have been extended to 60 years and beyond 60 years. The management terminated the services of the workman as he was not found amenable to discipline . So it cannot be expected from the management by any stretch of imagination that his service would have been extended beyond 58 years of age. The law cited by the management is squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case . So his service tenure can be of 10096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

amount i.e. four months wages at the rate of Rs . 44,702 per month minus Rs . 15,823 already received.

The Award is given accordingly.

Date : 11-08-2005

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

का. आ. 3237-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. एस. आई. हॉस्पिटल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं . एल-15012/3/1997- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ] बी.एम. डैविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 17th August . 2005

S.O. 3237-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 , of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 23 / 1998) of the Cent,Govt . Indus Tribunal -cum - Labour Court. New Delhi - I as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweenthe Management of E.S.I. Hospital and their workman, received by the Central Government on 17-8-2005 .

[No. L- 15012 /3 /1997 - IR(M) J B.M. DAVID , Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI

Shri S.S. Bal . PresidingOfficer

I.D. No. 23/98

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri Des Raj .

S/o Sh . Mahavir Singh . Through the General Secretary: All India Engg. & Gen. Maz . Union .

E- 127. Karampura.

New Delli -110015.

Workınan

Versus

E.S. I. Hospital .

Through the Dy. Director (Admn. )

Basai Darapur. Ring Road .

New Delhi - 110015 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

None for the Workman .

Appearances :

Shri Mohinder Kumar Asstt. for the Management .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 15012 /3 /97- IR(M) dated 31-12-97 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action of the management ofE.S.1.C.C. Hospital at Basai Darapur , New Delhi - 15 in terminating the services of Shri Desraj , Mistri isjust . fair and legal , If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to . "

2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record are that the workman Shri Desraj claimed himself to be ar employee of U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam Limited and was transferred to E.S.I.C.C. Hospital Unit, Basai Darapur, New Delhi ( respondent) and was working as Mistri since 199 . drawing a salary and his last drawn monthly salary wa 2080.00 and he worked satisfactorily without an coinplaint .However , management terminated his service illegally and without giving any notice and makin; payment in lieu of notice . The action of the management i arbitrary and unjust and violative of the provision contained in section 25 -F of the I.D. Act and amounts to anti labour activities/ practice and is liable to be quashed It is further averred that the workman is entitled to b rcinstated as the workman is still unemployed and has nc been able to get any alternative job during hi unemployment and he has claimed reinstatement with ful back wages.

3. The case has been contested by the responden by filing reply / written statement taking preliminary objection that the E.S.I.C.C. Hospital - respondent is not a proper party to the proceedings and U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam is a necessary party and the workman is the employce of U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam Limited and as such U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam is a necessary party in stead of E.S.I.C. Hospital respondent .

4. On merits it is not disputed that Sh . Deshraj worked in the E.S.I.C. Hospital Basai Darapur but it is stated that the workman is/ was employed U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam which is liable to deal with his claim and E.S.I.C. Hospital has not terminated services of the workman U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam being his employer has terminated his services .

5. Written statement was followed by replication wherein the contents of the claim statement were reiterated to be correct while the contents of written statement were denied.

Managemem

6. Thereafter the parties adduced evidence and after close of evidence matter was posted for arguments .

10097

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

7. Workman last appeared on 22-1-2004 and thereafter he did not appear . On subsequent dates even after issue ofnotice he did not appear on 13-9-04 and the matter was fixed on 29-11-04, 1-3-05 and 23-3-05 and none appeared thereafter on behalf of the workman .

Nigam. Workman has failed to show that his services were terminated as claimed and that he was employee of respondent . He himself has admitted that his services have beenterminated by U.P. Rajkya Nigam Limited. Thus the question of terminating his services by E.S.I.C. Hospital doesnot arise. The U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam is not a party to these proceedings and as such the reference is bad for non -joinder and misjoinder of party is to the present proceedings and is liable to be dismissed . There is no material on record to show that workman was employee ofE.S.I.C. Hospital or that E.S.I.C. Hospital has terminated his services . In fact his service has been terminated by U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam which fact is admitted by workman in his cross -examination as stated above. The reference is, therefore , answered accordingly. File be consigned to record room. Dated: 29-07-2005 .

S:S . BAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3238-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, सी.एस. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारो के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, गोदावरीखानी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22013/ 1/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th August , 2005

S.O. 3238.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 73 / 2004) of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Godavarikhani as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Silk Board and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-8-2005.

[No. L-220 13/1/2005 -IR(C -II) ] N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Smt . K. Suvarchala, M.A.B.L .. Chairman-cum -Presiding Officer Saturday, the 16th day of July, 2005 I.D. No. 73 of 2004

Between:

-Petitioner

Ratna Rajaiah, S/o Pocham. Ex. Timescale farm worker. Age41 years , R/o H.No. 5-11 , Lambadipally, Post Kishtampet. Chinnur Mandal , Distt . Adilabad

8. Perusal of the record shows that the workman claims that he was/is the employee of U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam Limited and transferred to E.S.I.C. Hospital , Basai Darapur and was working there since 1994 and his services were terminated by U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam (management ) E.S.I.C. Hospital w.e.f. 3-2-97 . On the other hand respondent claimed that E.S.I.C. Hospital is not employer of the workman claimant and he was employee of U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam and was posted/transferred to respondent E.S.I.C. Hospital premises to look after the maintenance work . That E.S.I.C. Hospital has given contract for maintenance to U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigain which has taken contract for maintenance of building of E.S.I.C. Hospital and has opened their office in E.S.I.C. Hospital and the workman was employed by U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam to look after the maintenance work . Thus , accordingly to the respondent the workman was not their employee but of Rajkya Nirman Nigam. The question which needs determination in this case is whether the workmanwas employee of respondent . The workman has not placed any document on record showing that he workman was the employee of respondent. The documents placed by him on record do not indicate that he was employee of the respondent . The respondent witness MWI in his cross -examination has stated that E.S.I.C. Hospital gives yearly contract to the U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam for maintenance of the buildings owned by them. He has not brought any document with him to show that he was transferred to E.S.I.C. Hospital , Basai Darapur, New Delhi . The workman has admitted it to be correct that his salary was being paid by U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam and all matters regarding his leave were considered by U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam. Thus statement made by the workman in his cross -examination goes to show that he (workman ) was working as an employee of U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam and was working for the same . Even other wise he has not placed any document to show that he was employee of the respondent E.S.I.C. Hospital and thus workman has failed to establish that he was employee of the respondent E.S.I.C. Hospital . Even according to his own saying his services were terminated by U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam Ltd. as stated in his cross -examination while in his statement of claim he has claimed or stated that he was transferred to E.S.I.C. Hospital Unit and was working there but he has failed to show that respondent E.S.I.C. Hospital was under U.P. Rajkya Nirman Nigam Limited. On the other hand the respondent claims that E.S.I.C. Hospital is an independent body. Respondent has denied the claim of the workman and claims that his services have not been terminated by the respondent but U.P. by Rajkya Nirman 10098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19. 1927

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

1. The Joint Director, Basic Tasser Silkworm Seed Organisation , Central SilkBoard (Govt. of India) , Bilaspur, Chattigarh.

2. The Asstt. Director, B.S.M. & T.C.. Chennur Village and Mandal of Adilabad Distric.

-Respondents

This petition coming before me for final hearing in thepresence of Sri P. Vishweshwar Rao , Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri S. Bhagavantha Rao, Advocate for the respondents and having stood over for consideration till this date, the court passed the following:

AWARD

1. The petitioner filed the petition U/Sec. 2 - A( 2 ) of I.D. Act, 1947 to declare the termination order dt . 18-5-2004 as null and void and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with continuity of service , attendant benefits and with full back-wages.

2. The averments of the petition are as follows:

C.S.B. , is Central Government . This Court has no jurisdiction to try the CS.B. disputes. The petitioner was appointed as a casual 'abourer. Be committed theft of 11 bags of fertilizer of urd S.S.P. , worth Rs . 2,422 from the office of the 2nd respondent on 11-8-2003 during midnight . The petitioner in collusion with one Lavudia Lachiram , S/ o Kishan and one Banoth Vasanth, S /o Umla committed theft of 11 bags of the above fertilizer. One M. Muthyalu , time scale farm worker who was on night duty has given information to Doctor N. Rajeshwhara Rao. Asstt . Director, Field Incharge that a theft of 11 bags of fertilizer was committed on 11-8-2003 . On 12-8-2003 on verification of the stock , the Asstt . Director had lodged a complaint with the S.I. of Police . Chennur . They have registered a theft case in Cr . No. 91/2003 in C.C. No. 56/2003 on the file of J.M.F.C .. at Chennur against the petitioner. The property was recovered from the accused by the police and was produced in the court. There upon it was recovered from the possession of the court by the respondents . As per the instructions of the Central Office. the respondents No. 2 issued suspension order on 6-9-2003. Thereupon a chargesheet was issued on 11-12-2003. The petitioner had given reply to the chargesheet which was not convinced . A departmental enquiry was conducted into the charges. The petitioner participated in the enquiry The Ist respondent after perusal of the record, terminated the services of the pot from 18-5-2004 . The petitioner was absconding fro hout any leave from 10-8- 2003 to 14-8-2003 nommit theft , with the help of two of his villagers A Hr and proper enquiry was conducted and the retioner has not cross -examined the management witnesses . He had committed theft of government property worth Rs . 2,422 which is a serious misconduct. The charge is proved against the petitioner The respondents had taken the action against the petitioner as per the rules . Hence, the petition may be dismissed .

4. On behalf of the petitioner, Ex. W- 1 is marked .

Onbehalf of the respondents , Ex . M - 1 to Ex. M - 20 are marked.

5. Heard both sides .

The petitioner was initially appointed as casual Farm Worker by the respondent . The 1st respondent is the HEAD of their entire organisation . Later the petitioner waspromoted as Time Scale Farm Worker w.e.f. 1-9-92, while so on 14-8-2003 a case was booked against him with a charge that he had involved in a theft took place in the office on 11-8-2003 , wherein eleven bags of chemical fertilizer belonging to the respondents were stolen . The Police Chennur booked a case U/Sec . 457 and 380 of I.P.C.. and arrested the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was enlarged on bail. The respondents issued suspension letter to the petitioner w.e.f. , 18-8-2003 , and enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was removed from service without anyvalid reason . He went on leave with permission from 10-8-2003 to 14-8-2003 to attend the hospital duties in connection with the delivery problem of his daughter. This fact was known to the respondent No. 2 and others in the office. The total enquiry is against the principles of natural justice . The enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. There was no show cause notice of removal from service before his removal . The case was foisted by the Police . The respondents removed the petitioner from service arbitrarily in an unjust manner, without making proper enquiry. He has been facing lot of hardship in maintaining his family. Hence, he filed the petition for the above said relief.

6. The Ist and foremost defence putforth by the respondent is that the Central Silk Board was established by an Act of Parliament , C.S.B. , Act , 1948 , which is functioning under the control of the Ministry of Textiles . Government of India , New Delhi . Hence , the appropriate Government in respect of C. S.B. , is the Central Government and this Labour Court has not jurisdiction to try the C.S.B. disputes.

3. To this, the respondents filed counter, denying the averments ofthe petition. It is further stated that the Central Silk Board is a statutory body established by an ActofParliament, C.S.B. , Act , 1948 which is functioning under the control of the Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India, New Delhi . The appropriate Government in respect of

While contradicting the above arguments , the Advocate for the petitioner vehemently argued that this Court is having jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the workman and the employer, though he belongs to Central Government . While saying so, he cited I.L. Naidu 10099

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

enquiry officer has addressed a notice to the petitioner to attend enquiry on 26-3-2004 which is marked as Ex. M-15. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. His statement is marked as Ex. M- 16. The enquiry officer report and the statement ofwitnesses are marked as Ex. M- 17. The enquiry officer had concluded that the petitioner had committed the theft. Sri S.S. Pavar, Asstt. Director was examined before the enquiry officer . He had given a report to the police.

The Advocate for the petitioner argued that the respondent had given the date as 11-8-2003 and the police hadmentioned the date in the F.I.R. , as 13-8-2003 . To that , the witness is saying that the Asstt . Director N. Rajeswar Rao has changed the date and they had changed the date and sent to the Court .

8. The 2nd witness Dr. Rajeswar Rao deposed that he has lodged complaint about the theft, on 12-8-2003 , but not on 14-8-2003 which date was mentioned by the police .

One Ade Mohan , Field Assistant deposed that the police had taken his signatures on some white papers and he was present when the police have recovered the fertilizers from the house of Siddam Arjaiah . He further stated that the theft had committed by some unknown persons.

and others Vrs . Union of India and others , reported in 2003 - II ALT -470 . His Lordships held that the contention regarding the non - applicability of Section 2 - A( 2 ) to an Industrial Dispute in elation to Hindustan Zinc Ltd. , a Government of India undertaking , is wholly misconceived. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a Legislation enacted by the Parliament pursuant to the field of Legislation referrable to entry 23 of List - III (Concurrent List ) of the 7th Schedule r/ w Art . 246 of the Constitution of India . The Act has been amended by the Industrial Dispute (A.P. Amendment) Act , 1987 ( A.P. Act 32 of 1987). The Act was reserved by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh on 24-4-1984, for consideration of the President . The assent ofthe President of India was received on 22-7-1987 , which assent was published in the A.P. Gazette on 27-7-1987 . In view of the provision of Art . 254 (2 ) of the Constitution, the provision of Sec . 2 -A( 2 ) as incorporated in the Act by the A.P. , Amendment Act , 32/87 is valid and operative . There is nothing in the phraseology of sub - sec . (2 ) of Sec . 2-Awhich limits the applicability of its provisions to " State Industries" as contended by the petitioner. His Lordship held that the contention of the petitioner about the non- applicability of Sec. 2 - A( 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Central Government Industry, is without merit or force.

In the light of the above decision , it is clear that though C.S.B. , is a Central Government undertaken , the petitioner is having right to initiate the dispute U/Sec . 2 - A(2 ) ofI.D. , Act , 1947. Hence , this court is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.

The Chowkidar was also examined as a witness . He deposed that on 12-8-2003 at 4.00 p.m. , he came to know with regard to the theft of chemical fertilizers. But he did not say anything with regard to the person who had committed the theft. One K. Goverdhan was also examined before the enquiry officer . He stated that he had visited the training hall on 12-8-2003 and that theft of 11 chemical bags was committed by un - known persons . These 3 witnesses did not state the involvement of the petitioner inthe theft. There is no cross -examination to the witnesses.

The paper cutting is marked as Ex . M - 19. In that also , it was stated that the theft was committed by some un-known pèrsons . The termination order is marked as Ex. M- 18.

After perusal of the statements recorded by the enquiry officer it is clear that there is no cross -examination done by the the petitioner . Whether the petitioner denied to cross-examine the witnesses or a chance was not given to the petitioner is to be considered ? If the petitioner denied to cross - examine , that fact has to be recorded by the enquiry officer, which was not found in the statements. The presumption is that a chance is not given to the petitioner to cross -examine the witnesses .

9. The Advocate for the petitioner cited Srivathsava Vs. Divisional Commercial Superintendent , Northern Railway, Allahabad reported in 1962 - II, LLJ- 332 , Their Lordships held that since the petitioner was not given an opportunityto cross -examine the witnesses who hadgiven the statements , the enquiry proceedings are vitiated for violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner worked as farm worker in the respondent field. Theft of 11 bags of fertilizer had been taken place in the office of the 2nd respondent on 11-8-2003 midnight. The complaint of the Asstt. Director is marked as Ex . M - 2 . They had also registered a police case against the petitioner. The FIR, is marked as Ex. M - 3 . Case diary and recovery of property are marked as Ex . M-4 . The panchanama is marked as Ex. M-5 . The chargesheet is marked as Ex. M -6 . The petition filed for return of property is marked as Ex. M- 7. Under Ex. M-8 intimation was sent by the Asstt . Director to the Joint Director. Bhilaspur regarding the theft. Ex. M- 9 is the intimation given by the Asstt. Director to the Member Secretary, Central Silk Board , Bangalore . The Member Secretary, CSB , Bangalore, advised the Asstt . Director to Initiate disciplinary proceedings i.e. , marked as Ex. M - 10 . The suspension order of the petitioner is marked as Ex. M - 11 . Chargesheet was issued by the Joint Director. Bhilaspur i.e. , marked as Ex. M - 12 . The petitioner had given reply to the charge sheet i.e. , marked as Ex . M - 13 . In that he stated that on the date of occurrence M. Muthyalu and R.Yellaiah, were on duty, at that time and he did not commit any theft . A false case was foisted against him . Dr. Jaya Prakash , Dy. Director , R.T.R.S. , Warangal , was appointed as enquiry officer , that letter is marked as Ex . M - 14. The 10100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

ForWorkman

NIL

ForManagement

10. The Advocate for the petitioner argued that no show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner . After verifying the records filed by the respondents , it is clear that show cause notice was not issued to the petitioner after the enquiry was conducted.

Exhibits

For Workman :

Ex. W- 1 Dt. 18-5-2004 Removal order

ForManagement :

Ex.M- 1 Dt. 23-2-1993 Copy of Time Scale Labourer ofpetitioner, X -copy.

Ex. M-2 Dt. 12-8-2003 Complaint of Asstt. Director, X-copy.

Ex .M-3 Dt. 14-8-2003 F.I.R. in Crime No. 91/03 and

concerned material docu- ments , X-copies .

Ex.M-4 Dt. 18--8-2003 Case Diary and recovery of property and seizer panchanama , X-copies .

Ex. M-5 Dt . 18-8-2003 Offence acceptance seizer of Axe panchanama , X-copics

Ex. M-6 Dt. 30-8-2003 Charge sheet , X- copy .

Ex. M -7 Dt. 25-9-2003 Petition filed for return of property, X-copy.

11. The Advocate for the petitioner cited State of Maharastra Vs. Bai Shankar Avalram Joshi and another reported in AIR- 1969 S.C. , 1302. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that failure on the part of the competent authority to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry officer report amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity as contemplated by Art . 311 (2 ) of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that the respondent was not aware whether the enquiry officer had reported in his favour or against him . If the report was in his favour, he would have utilised its reasoning to dissuade the Inspector General from coming to a contrary conclusion . If the report was against him, he would have put such argument or material as he could dissuade the Inspector General from accepting the report ofthe enquiry officer . The Hon'ble Court further observed thatthe Inspector General of Prisons had the report before him and the tentative conclusions arrived at by the enquin y officerwere bound to influence him, and in depriving the respondents of a copy of the report he was handicapped innot knowing what material was influencing the Inspector General ofPrisons .

Ex. M-8 Dt. 21-8-2003 Asstt . Director intimated to Joint Director , BTSSO , Bilaspur , regarding theft . X-copy.

Ex. M-9 Dt. 22-8-2003 Asstt . Director intimated to Member Secretary, Central Silk Board, Bangalore , X- copy.

Ex.M-10 Dt. 04-09-2003

Inthe present case also , no show cause notice was given to the petitioner. Further as discussed supra there is no cross -examination by the petitioner and it is not clear whether an opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses in the departmental enquiry or not ? These facts show that the enquiry was not conducted following the rules and principles of natural justice .Hence , the domestic enquiry is invalid.

Telegrams to the Silk Board, Chennur by KN . Meenakshi . X-copy.

Ex. M-11 Dt 6-9-2003 Memorandum issued to petitioner, X -copy.

Ex. M- 12 Dt. 11-12-2003 Метоorandum , X- copy.

Ex. M- 13 Dt. 18-12-2003 Reply to charge sheet , X- copy.

Ex.M - 14 Dt. 14-01-2004 Enquiry officer appointment Ir . X-copy.

Ex.M- 15 Dt. 15-03-2004 Notice, X -copy.

12. With regard to the criminal case , there is no whisper either from the petitioner or from the respondents, whether it is pending or whether it ended in acquittal or in conviction. As far as the departmental enquiry is concerned, it is vitiated as the enquiry officer has not followed the rules. When the enquiry conducted by the respondents is vitiated, the petitioner is entitled for his reinstatement. Hence , the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without any back- wages, but with continuity of service.

Ex . M- 16 Dt. 27-03-2004 Statement of petitioner . X-copy.

Ex. M- 17 Dt. 27-03-2004 Enquiry report and statement ofwitness , X-copies .

In the result , the petition is partly allowed . The respondents are directed to re - instate the petitioner into service , without any back - wages , but with continuity of service. The petitioner shall be kept under observation for one year . There shall be no order as to costs .

Ex .M - 18 Dt 18-5-2004 Removal order, X-copy.

Ex. M- 19 Dt. 14-8-2003

Typed to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of July, 2005.

Eanadu Telugu news paper clipping,X-copy.

Ex. M-20 Dt. 18-8-2003

Smt . K. SUVARCHALA, Chaimian- cum-Presiding Officer

Paper statement in Eanadu . X-copy.

10101

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली , 17 अगस्त, 2005

"Whether the action of the management of Satgram Project under Satgram Area of M/s . E. C. Ltd. in dismissing Sri Jiten Kora, Timber Mazdoor from service w.e.f. 27-5-98 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled ?" का. आ. 3239-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 25/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/250/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th August, 2005

Having received the order of the aforesaid reference summons through the registered post were sent to the parties concerned which were duly served upon the respective parties . But unfortunately none of the representative of the parties appeared and filed anywritten statement on their behalf. It further transpires from the record that on 07-07-2005 one Taran Ganguly, Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union, Satgram Branch appeared and filedapetition mentioning that the workman concerned is not eager to contest the reference so the union is not willingtoproceed with the case further.

S.C. 3239. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management ofM/ s. Eastern Coalfied Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-08-2005 .

In the light of the above facts and circumstances it isclear that the union is not interested in prosecution and as such it is not advisable to keep this reference pending any more. Accordingly it is hereby

[No. L-22012/250/2002- IR (CM- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ORDERED

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT :

That let a " No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. Send the copies of award to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer. Reference No. 25 of 2003

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005 PARTIES :

Management

The Agent , Satgram Project of M/s . ECL, P. O. Devchandnagar , Distt. Burdwan.

Vs.

का. आ. 3240- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , असनसोल (संदर्भ संख्या 7/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Union , (INTUC) , Satgram Project Br. , P. O. Devchandnagar,

Workman

Distt. Burdwan

REPRESENTATIVES :

[सं. एल-22012/ 112/2001 - आई आर (सीएम- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th August, 2005 For the Management :None . For the Workman (Union) : None . INDUSTRY: Coal STATE: West Bengal

Dated 07-07-2005

AWARD

S.O. 3240.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 17-08-2005.

[No. L- 22012/ 112/2001 - IR (CM- II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub -section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L-22012/250/ 2002 - IR( CM - II ) dated 09-06-2003 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

2558 GI/05-15 10102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/ BHADRA 19 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT :

Md. Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer Reference No. 7 of2002

PARTIES:

The Agent, Satgram Project , P. O. Devchandnagar,

Distt . Burdwan

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii) ] any step on their behalf. The record further reflects that several adjournments were given for the appearance of the parties but to no effect . In such circumstances it is not proper to keep the record pending any more as no fruitful result is expected to come nor any purpose is to be served. Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED

That let a " No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed . Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

Management

Vrs.

Sri DinobondhuMukherjee , Personal Asstt . ,

represented by Secretary, CollieryMazdoor Union ( INTUC) , Satgram Project Branch , P. O. Devchandnagar, Distt . Burdwan

Workman REPRESENTATIVES :

: None

For the Management

For the Workman (Union) : None

INDUSTRY : Coal

STATE : West Bengal Dated, the 2nd August, 2005

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -22012/ 112/ 2001 - IR( CM - II ) dated 25-02-2002 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Satgram Project under ECL in not fixing the basic pay of Sri Dinobondhu Mukherjee at the rate of Rs . 3138.00 per month at the time of his promotion to the post of Personal Assistant is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ?"

On having received the order of the aforesaid reference from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, summons through the registered post with A/D. were sent to the both the parties concerned . The record goes to show that twice notices through the registered post were sent to the parties concerned which were personally and duly served upon the parties . But unfortunately even after the proper personal service of the notices none of the parties either did appear or take MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3241-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , ई. सी. एल . प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, असनसोल ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/17/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th August, 2005

S.O. 3241. Ir pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 6/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cunt - Labour Court . Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the managerment of M /s . ECL and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-08-2005.

[No. L - 22012 / 17/2003 - IR ( CM - II) | N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL PRESENT :

Md . Sarfaraz Khan, Presiding Officer Reference No. 6 of 2004

PARTIES :

P. O. Kajoragram ,

The Agent , Khas Kajora Colliery, Kajora Area of M / s . ECL Distt. Burdwan

.Management

Virs.

Workman Sri Prem Chand Paswan , Driver, represented by Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary of the Union 10103 भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10 , 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

REPRESENTATIVES :

न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । :Sri P. K. Das , Advocate

For the management

For the Workman (Union) :

[सं. एल-12012/131/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव Sri S. K. Pandey, General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor

Congress , Asansol.

New Delhi , the 18th August , 2005 INDUSTRY : Coal

STATE : West Bengal

Dated, the 08-07-2005

AWARD

S.O. 3242. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 95/ 2003) 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, whichwas received by the Central Government on 17-08-2005 .

[No. L- 12012/131/2003 -IR (B- II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( I ) and sub- section 2 (A) of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide itsOrder No. L- 22012/ 17/2003 - IR(CM-II) dated 19-01-2004 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

ANNEXURE

SCHEDULE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT:

"Whether the action of the management of Khas Kajora Colliery, under Kajora Area ofM/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited in dismissing Sh . Prem Chand Paswan, Driver from service is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

Shri ant Shukla, Presiding Officer

I. D. No.05/2003

Ref. No. L- 12012/ 131/2003 - IR (B- II) dt. 18-9-2003

BETWEEN:

Sri Rajesh Tomar S/o Sia. M. S. Tomar, Awadian Puri Colony, Post Office Krishna Nagar, Mathura.

AND

After having received the order of the aforesaid reference from the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, summons through the registered post were issued to the respective parties . In pursuant to the service of the said summon both sides appeared through their representatives . It is further clear from the record that written statement was filed on behalf of the union but since no written statement was filed in spite several adjournment on behalf of the management, the case was fixed for exparte hearing . On 08-07-2005 was the date fixed for hearing of the case as exparte but unfortunately neither the union did appear nor any step was taken on its behalf. It indicates that the union is not interested to proceed with the case . Accordingly it is hereby

ORDERED

The Dy. Gen. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office Meerut Wing, University Road, Meerut (U. P. ).

AWARD

That let a " No Dispute Award " be and the same is passed. Send the copies of award to the Ministry of Labour, Government of India for information and needful. The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MD . SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour referred the following dispute for adjudication to Presiding Officer CGIT -cum -Labour Court , Lucknow:

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2005

"Whether the action of the Deputy General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Meerut and Appellate Authority in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement vide order, dated 29-4-2002 , 6-8-2002 respectively on Shri Rajesh Tomar is legal and justified if not, what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " का. आ. 3242- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम 10104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

will prevent branch authorities from filing RC with Tehsil authorities . Thus the charge levelled against the worker is false .

(3) Sri Timtoo has not been produced as witness in the course of enquiry. Therefore their statement have no evidential value .

(4) The enquiry officer did not hold the worker of giving any assurance for getting the RC stopped. The disciplinary authority concurred with this finding and therefore it is clear that worker committed no gross misconduct since even incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive in a minor misconduct in terms of paragraph 7 ( 1 ) of the Bipartite Settlementdt . 10-4-02 or paragraph 19.7 ofthe Bipartite Settlement dt . 19-10-66 .

Worker's case is that while he was posted as Attender at Shahar Branch of the Syndicate Bank he was served with a charge sheet No. ZOL-M/IRC/COS/ (W ) -34/ 2001 dated 16-8-2001 . Subsequent to the issuance of the charge sheet the disciplinary authority instituted an enquiry to investigate the charges as contained the charge sheet andappointed Sri R. K. Garg, Chief Officer, Meerut asenquiry officer . He conducted the enquiry on 26-11-2001 and conclude the same day. Whereafter he submitted his findingsdt . 22-12-2001 . After affording opportunity to the worker to make submissions over the findings of the enquiry officer, the Dy. General Manager/Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice vide no. ZOL- M/IRC/ 163/COS ( W) -34 /PH/2002 dated 18-3-2002 in which he proposed punishment ' Dismissal' from service of the Bank. In the said show cause notice a personal hearing was also proposed to be granted . Personal hearing was granted on 22-2-2002 the disciplinary authority inflicted the following punishment upon the worker:

"Sri Rajesh Tomar be and is hereby removed from the service ofthe Bank with superannuation benefits i.e. Pension and/or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regulations prevailing and without disqualification from future employment. "

In view of the foregoing grounds this punishment order inflicted upon the worker deserves to be set aside . It has therefore, been prayed that Tribunal may hold that the action of the Dy. General Manager , Syndicate Bank , Meerut and Appellate Authority in imposing the punishment order of compulsory retirement is illegal and unjustified and may kindly pass the order taking back the worker Sri Rajesh Tomar back in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

Vide his order No. ZOL/M/DGMS/PRS (W ) -06/2002 dated29-4-02 .

Aggrieved from the said punishment order the worker submitted an appealdt . 29-4-2002 to the General Manager (P) Appellate Authority, Head Office , Manipal .

The Appellate Authority after granting a ritualistic personal hearing amended the punishment of removal from the bank's service inflicted by the disciplinary authority to Compulsory Retirement vide his order No. 56/PD/ IRD(W)/DA- 7dated 6-8-2002 .Aggrieved with the order, the worker raised an industrial dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (C), Kanpur. The worker has alleged that the punishment order of compulsory retirement is illegal and unjustified on the following grounds :

(1 ) The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in irregular manner and in contravention of Clause

19.16 of theBipartite Settlementdt . 19-10-66 . The enquiry officer ought to have recorded the statement of management witness produced in course ofthe enquiry in Hindi language . In view of this the enquiry conducted stands vitiated and the punishment inflicted deserves to be set aside.

(2) The amount was not paid by Sri Timtoo in view ofwhich the charge that the worker collected money from Sri Timtoo is wrongly mentioned in the chargesheet . The amount was not received by the workerwith an assurance that the worker

Opposite party has filed the written statement . It is admitted by the Regional Manager that Sri Rajesh Tomar was compulsory retired from the services of the bank . It is also admitted that the worker was served with a charge- sheet as alleged by him . The allegation of the opposite party is that the worker was work as attender at Sahar branch, a crop loan under COD 159/98 for Rs. 5,000 was sanctioned to one Sri Yad Ram son of Sri Timtoo on 17-8-98 repayable on or before 31-3-99 . The record reveals that there were no repayments to the crop DD 159/98 and the branch issued two registered notices on 6-10-99 and 18-8-2000 recalling the dues from Sri Yad Ram. Sri Rajesh Tomar accepted/took Rs . 2000 in instalments on various dates from Sri Timtoo , the father of the borrower with an assurance that he will prevent branch authorities from filing RC with Tehsil authorities for recovery of the over dues loan. The branch filled RC for recovery of the dues with the competent authority on 8-9-2000 . Sri Timtoo complained to Sahar branch that Sri Rajesh Tomar collected Rs . 2,000 in aggregate from him with an assurance to stall the filing of RC with Tehsil Authority. On 11-12-2000 Sri Rajesh Tomar confirmed in writing that he has collected Rs . 2,000 from the complainant and assured Sahar Branch Manager that he will repay the amount by 2-1-2001 . On 2-1-2001 Sri Yad Ram and Sri Timtoo again reiterated the complaint was made by Sri Timtoo against him . On 14-2-2001 the bank called for the explanation of the worker in respect of the said complaint for which he did not offer his explanation but vide his letterdt . 22-2-01 he informed 10105

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

in the enquiry and also found that the proposed punishment would not be disproportionate to the gravity ofthe misconduct committed by Sri Tomar and accordingly awarded the punishment of Removal from the services of theBank with superannuation benefit i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules and regulations prevailing and without disqualification from the future employment. It is admitted that appeal before the Appellate Authority the worker Rajesh Tomar was given one more opportunity ofpersonal hearing by the Appellate Authority before arriving to any conclusion. The Appellate Authority did not find any merit in various submissions made by the worker in his appeal and during the personal hearing before him , however, on consideration of the background of the worker the Appellate Authority had taken lenient view and modified the punishment to that of " Compulsory Retirement" . Acts ofmisconduct committed by the worker are grave in nature, the bank has lost confidence in him and the worker is not a fit person to be kept in the services of the bank and as such he is not liable to be reinstated in the services of the bank. As regards Hindi version of the charge sheet and suspension orders it is alleged that clause 19.16 ofBipartite Settlement was provided to the worker by the Zonal Office . Further all the enquiry proceedings except witness ofMW- 1 isrecorded inHindi i.e. the language known to the worker. As regards to the witness of MW -1 is concerned it is stated that since the management witness was not well conversant withHindi, deposition was recorded in English . The deposition was translated in Hindi and read over to the worker before all the participants in the enquiry. Nothing to that effect is also made in the proceedings in Hindi below the deposition of MW- 1 recorded and the same is signedby the worker . It has come on record through the evidence of the management vide MEX- 2 that on 4-10-2000 Sri Timtoo son of Sri Buddhu complained in writing to Sahar branch that Sri Rajesh Tomar worker had collected Rs . 2,000 in total in instalments with the assurance that he would prevent the bank authority from filing RC with Tehsil Authority in respect of crop overdraft of Sri Yad Ram his son . The above fact is also supported by MEX-04, the complaint made by Sri Yad Ram son of Sri Timtoo stated that as the RC was filed with Tehsil Authority in the above case , the borrower asked the worker to reply him the amount of Rs . 2,000 given to him . The worker vide MEX -03 assured the repayment of the amount by 2-2-2001 but the amount was not paid by 10-3-01 vide MEX -06 which has also come on record vide MEX-07 that Rs. 2,000 were repaid by the worker by depositing the said amount towards COD 159/98 on 27-2-01 . As such the contention raised in statement of claim that the amount is not paid by Sri Timtoo and same is not received by the worker, can not be accepted . The management witness has clearly stated that for the purpose of investigation on 12-6-01 and 13-6-01 he visited Shibal Village and contacted Mr. Timtoo father of Sri Yad Ram and collected the to the Sahar Branch Manager that he was unable to pay the money to Sri Yad Ram and that he will repay the same by 10-3-2001 . On 27-2-01 he credited Rs. 2,000 to the COD A/c . No. 159/98 of Sri Yad Ram and vide letter dt . 27-2-01 informed the same to the Manager of Sahar Branch . On 18-4-01 he submitted his explanation to the Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office , Meerut informing that he could not credit the amount of Rs . 2,000 received from Sri Yad Ram as he was not aware of his loan account number and that he credited the amount on 27-2-01 after knowing the loan account number . It is alleged that Sri Rajesh Tomar with a dishonest intention of deriving undue pecuniary benefits for self at the cost of the customer/bank demanded/collected money from the father of borrower customer of the branch with a false assurance that he will prevent filing of RC before the Tehsil Authority and the borrower customer complained to the branch after RC was filedby the branch and worker reimbursed the amount to the loan account of the customer on 27-2-2001 . In the circumstances appearing against the worker are more fully narrated in the chargesheet . Since the worker Sri Rajesh Tomar failed to submit the reply to the chargesheet the matter was proceeded with by holding departmental enquiry against him. As such enquiry officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. Enquiry Officer informed the worker regarding holding the enquiry at Zonal Office, Meerut on 12-11-2001 which was subsequently postponed to 26-11-01 vide enquiry officer's letter No. RKG /ENQ/CGS( W) -34/2001 dated 12-11-2001 at the request of the worker . Enquiry Officer had provided all documents relied by the management to the worker and conducted the enquiry and submitted his findings vide reportdt . 22-12-2001 holding Sri Rajesh Tomar was guilty of the charges levelled against him . The disciplinary authority had forwarded the copy of the enquiry report to the worker vide letter No. ZOL - M/IRC/810/CGS (W) -34/ 2001 dated 26-12-2001 to enable him to make his submission on the enquiry report and the worker vide his letter dated 12-1-2002 submitted his submissions on the enquiry report . The disciplinary authority after carefully going through the records of the case including the report and submission made by the worker found that the enquiry was held as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement and also in accordance with principle of natural justice by giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the worker to defend his case . The disciplinary authority after going through the report as well as the submissions of the worker was convinced that Sri Rajesh Tomar was guilty of the charges levelled against him . Considering the seriousness ofthe acts of misconduct the disciplinary authority had proposed the punishment of "Dismissal from the services of the Bank" vide letter dt . 18-3-2002 . The disciplinary authority has also given a personal hearing on 22-4-02 to the worker . The disciplinary authority after going through all the records of the case was fully satisfied that the charges levelled against Sri Rajesh Tomar is established 10106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

10. Photocopy of minutes of personal hearing dt. 22-4-02.

11. Photocopy letter given by workman in personal heart . 22-4-2002 .

12. Photocopy of removal order of disciplinary authority No. ZOL - M/ DGM /PRS ( W) -06/02 dt. 29-4-2002 .

13. Photocopy of order of Appellate Authority No. 56/PD/IRD( W)/DA-7 dated 6-8-2002.

14. Photocopy of order of suspension in Hindi .

15. Photocopy of chargesheet in Hindi .

The worker has examined himself in support of his case and also examined Sri Timtoo . On the other hand the management has examined Sri D. N. Mutalik, Manager and Sri R. K. Garg, Enquiry Officer.

statement and relevant records . The statement of Mr. Timtoo was recorded on 13-6-01 in the presence/ witness of Sri Mohan Shyam village Shival , Tehsil Chhata Distt. Mathura and Sri Vasudeo S. Sudalkar , Asstt . Manager , Sri Timtoo in his statement on 13-6-01 has informed to the Investigating Officer that his son Yad Ram has expired on 5th May. As such it is irrelevant to raise this contention that he did not meet complainant, Sri Yad Ram therefore , his investigation and his evidence prove nothing. Despite giving the opportunity the worker did not prefer to cross -examine the management witness. The entire evidence on the record of the management could notbe rebuttedby the worker in the departmental enquiry. Despite giving the opportunity. Thus the enquiry held in this matter. It is clearly established that the worker had taken Rs . 2,000 from the father of borrower giving him assurance that he will prevent the branch from filling RC with the Tehsil Authority. In view ofthe forgoing facts the management has prayed that this tribunal hold that the industrial dispute raised by the worker is not maintainable as the same is liable to be dismissed at this stage .

Worker'srepresentative or the worker did not turned up in the court till 2.P. M. and therefore there was no other alternative left then to hear the management representative Sri Vinay Shankar .

Perused evidence on record carefully and heard the representative of the management . It is admitted fact that charge sheet was received by the worker and he was aware ofthe charges levelled against him but he preferred not to send any reply on the charge shcet . Although last para in the charge sheet it is clearly written "you are required to submit your written statement of reference if any, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this charge sheet" .

The worker filed the rejoinder in which the worker reiterated his plea taken in the statement of claim and has alleged that complaint of Sri Timtoo was not produced in the enquiry and was not provided opportunity to cross- examine him. It is also alleged that an enquiry was conducted in English language and worker has no knowledge ofEnglish and no defence counsel was allowed by the management and the management witness have never been cross -examined. The worker verbally requested to produce his defence witness but the management did not except his request and said it is not required .

The management has filed following documents:

1. Photocopy of charge sheet No. ZOL - M/ IRC/ CGS(W)/34/2001 dated 16-8-2001.

When there was no explanation to the charge sheet the management has no alternative then to proceed with the departmental proceedings against the worker. The departmental enquiry was conducted, this is admitted. It is also admitted that during the course of enquiry the worker signed the proceedings.

2. Photocopy of Reply.

3. Photocopy of order of appointment of Enquiry Officer No. ZOL/IRC/684/ CGS (W) -34/2001 dt. 20-10-2001 .

The enquiry proccedingsdt. 26-11-01 is on the record wherein the statement of worker, is written, extract isasfollowing: Worker gave his statement is not disputed as evident from his statement in the cross - examination .

4. Photocopy of notices issued by Enquiry Officer

5. Photocopy of enquiry reporting proceedings dt.26-11-2001 .

6. Photocopy of all documents filed in enquiry.

7. Photocopy of enquiry report and its forwarding to workman No. ZOL/IRC /810 /CGS ( W) 34/01 dt. 26-12-01

8. Photocopy of submission on the enquiry by workmandt 12-1-2002 .

यह सत्य है कि मैंने यादराम से 2,000 रुपये लिये थे परन्तु यह रकम मैंने व्यक्तिगत रूप से अपने घरेलू परिस्थितिवश ऋण के रूप में लिये थे, उस समय मेरा पुत्र काफी बीमार था जिसके इलाज के लिये यह रकम मैंने ली थी । परन्तु दुर्भाग्यवश वह जीवित नहीं बच सका तदोपरान्त उसने मुझसे यह रकम अपने COD खाता सं . 159/98 में जमा करने को कहा, क्योंकि मैं यादराम के लोन खाता संख्या भूल गया था अतः रकम उसके खाते में जमा नहीं कर पाया । बाद में खाता संख्या मालूम होने के पश्चात् वह पैसा उसके COD खाता संख्या में जमा करा दिया । उस संबंध में एक पत्र मैंने बैंक को भी दिया था । "

9. Photocopy of order of Disciplinary Authority of proposed punishment No. ZOL/IRC/ 183 / CGS(W) -34/PH/01 dt. 18-3-02 .

The worker however, could not tell the date month on which he took the personal loan from borrower Sri Yad Ram.

10107 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

इस समय CSC को MW - I के cross -examination का अवसर दिया जाता है CSC ने सूचित किया कि वह भी यादराम से रुपया 2,000 लेने की बात पहले ही स्वीकार कर चुका है यह रकम उसने किन परिस्थितियों में ली है यह पहले बता चुका है अतः MW- I का cross examination नहीं करना चाहता ।

The worker in his cross -examination has also said that he did not produce any evidence in his defence . The worker's case is that he has taken loan from borrower Sri Yad Ram. He has also stated that he never went to Tehsil and he has also admitted that he deposited Rs . 2,000 in the bank on 27-2-2001 in the accounts ofSri Yad Ram.

Sri Rajesh Tomar has also admitted in his cross- examination that after taking loan his son Kamal expired and he was suffered from Typhoid . Worker could not tell when his son expired. About Sri Yad Ram he has stated he was a cultivator and selling the vegetables and Sri Yad Ram had 8 to 10 Bigha land . He has also stated that about 45 Km . from his house . It is also admitted that Sri Yad Ram has taken loan Rs . 5,000 from the bank . He has also stated that bank reimburses the sickness reimbursement of children to its employees and bank also gives advances/ loan to the employees . He has also admitted that he had a Provident Fund account and he could have taken the loan from that account . He has also admitted that he know that no employee can not take loan from the bank's customers . Sri Rajesh Tomar an educated person and passed Intermediate as has been admitted by him . There is a letter dt . 11-12-2000 ofthe workman which is paper no. 13/21 on the file . The letter runs is as follow :

सेवामें,

महोदय निवेदन है कि याद राम पुत्र श्री टिमटू, निवासी ग्राम सीवान छाता , जिला मथुरा से मैंने पैसे लिये थे एक तारीख 2-1-2001 को पैसा निकाल कर दूंगा जो रु. 2,000 वापस कर दूंगा ।

भवदीय

ह./-

राजेश तोमर

Sri D. N. Mutalik has stated in the examination in chief that during the course of preliminary enquiry he enquired from father of Sri Yad Ram named Sri Timtoo. SriTimtootold to Sri Mutalik that Sri Rajesh Tomar received Rupees Two Thousand from him and with a view that he will prevent the filing of RC in Tehsil . Sri Mutalik also proved that they complained for this act of Sri Rajesh Tomar in the bank on 4-10-2000 and 22-1-01 . He has also stated Sri Timtoo gave his statement in writing which was got written by another person . He has also stated that Sri Rajesh Tomar in his statement admitted for taking of Rs. 2.000 from Sri Timtoo and Sri Yad Ram and also stated that he has deposited the amount in the account of Sri Yad Ram on 27-2-01 . Witness has also stated that he has forwarded preliminary enquiry report on 16-6-2001 . Departmental proceedings were conducted after the submission of his report .

In the aforesaid letter there is no mention that he took loan from Sri Yad Ram . This letter is admitted to Sri Rajesh Tomar in his cross -examination at page no. 4 he admits that he has written this letter and delivered to the bank. He has also admitted that Sri Yad Ram complaint against him on 20-1-2001 . He has stated very clearly that :

Sri Mutalik has also stated that his statement was in English and during the course of his statement Enquiry Officer translated in Hindi and communicated the same to worker Sri Rajesh Tomar and Sri Tomar did not produce any evidence. Sri Mutalik has also stated in the cross- examination when he went for preliminary enquiry in the village of Sri Timtoo he met Sri Timtoo and not Sri Yad Ram because Sri Yad Ram is no more .

" यह शिकायत की थी कि हमने रु. 2,000 लेकर यह आश्वासन दिया था कि RC की फाइल तहसील नहीं जाने देंगे उसके बावजूद RC फाइल तहसील चली गई । याद राम से मेरी कोई दुश्मनी नहीं थी । "

The complaint of Sri Yad Ram and his father Sri Timtoo is on record i.e. paper no. 13/20 and 13/22 .

Sri Rajesh Tomar has also stated in his cross- examination that during the course of his enquiry he stated that he will defend himself. The opposite party's representative argument is that if the worker himself does not want the assistance of any helper he ( Banker ) could not be forced to provide helper against his wishes if the worker himself offers to defend the case himself then in that case it can not be said that the worker has not given opportunity to defend the case .

I have gone through the enquiry proceedings of 21-11-2001 the statement of MW - 1 Sri D. N. Mutalik. From careful perusal of the said proceeding I come to the conclusion that the worker was given the copies of documents and opportunity to cross -examine MW- 1 . It is also evident from the proceedings that the worker was given opportunity to cross -examine him . It is also incorrect to say that he (worker ) demanded assistance of some one and he was deprived assistance of that helper .

I have perused the enquiry report and after careful perusal of evidence the enquiry officer has given his conclusion in the 2nd para which is as under :

"Thus from the Management evidence brought on record and also from the admission of the CSE during the enquiry, it is clearly established that the CSE had taken money ofRs. 2,000 from Sri Timtoo father The worker has also admitted in the cross- examination that during the course of enquiry Sri D. N. Mutalik was examined in his presence the statement was recorded in English and the enquiry officer recorded that statement and translated in Hindi and was read over in the presence of every body. The worker has also admitted his signatures on it . He has also admitted that the enquiry officer recorded:

10108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

of Sri Yad Ram which he deposited later on into COD A/ c . No. 159/98 of Sh. Yad Ram S/o Timtoo, on the complaint of customer/borrower.

Thus the enquiry report is also not perverse and the findings of based on the record. There is also no violation ofBipartite settlement as alleged by the worker in the statement of claim. The worker has been given opportunity of hearing at every stage i.e. to say after submission of enquiry report before passing the punishment order by thedisciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority has in hisorder at page 4 written that the contention of applicant that he was forced by domestic circumstances i.e. death ofhis son to commit misconduct due to severe financial crises is not tenable in asmuchas " I find from the records that the said contention has no direct bearing of misconduct committed by him since there are other avenues/ loan facilities are available to the employees in the bank to mee unforeseen financial exigencies. His contention that his family is solely dependent on his salary income and his wife is sick/bedridden , does not hold wates as the reason quoted by the appellant will not absolve him from the misconduct. His other contention that he had already reimbursed the amount and as such pleading for lenient view, is not acceptable to me as reimbursement of amount is not a reason for seeking excuse from the misconduct committed . " Appellate authority at the same time has written that "having regard to the gravity of misconduct and on consideration of the background of the appellant" I take a lenient view and accordingly modify the punishment order to compulsory retirement .

It is necessary to see as to what punishment the disciplinary authority awarded and what is modified :

Punishment order of Disciplinary Authority

Punishment order of Appellate Authority Compulsory retirement

1. Removal from the services ofthe bank with superan- nuation benefit i.e. Pension and/or PF and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the rules or regula- tions prevailing and without any disqualification from future employment.

Ido not find any difference between 2 punishments awarded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and it is clear that the management of the bank wants to take lenient view considering background of the workman. Once a lenient view is taken the punishinent ought to have been reduced accordingly.

In the circumstances of above facts of the case the Appellate authority was himself inclined to take lenient view. It will be in the interest ofjustice to award modified thepunishment as follows :

1.Stoppage of2 increments with cumulative effect .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2. No back wages for the period he was out of employment as a consequence of misconduct till reinstatement. The period shall be treated as nonest .

3. The worker shall be reinstated within 2 months from the publication of award without any consequential benefits such as leave due , payment of bonus for that year, increments etc.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Lucknow 10-8-2005

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3243- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. - 2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 301 / 1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/65/ 1999-आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th August , 2005

S.O. 3243. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 301 / 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen which was received by the Central Government on 17-08-2005.

[No. L - 12012/65/ 1999 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (ΝΟ. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) ( d) of the I. D. Act , 1947 Ref. No. 301 of 1999

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the Management of Union Bank of India and their workmen.

10109 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भांद्र 19, 1927

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma , Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Banking

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th July, 2005

AWARD

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d ) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 12012/ 65/99 /IR(B - II ) , dated, the 6th October, 1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether it is a fact that car of the management of Union Bank of India was driven by the disputant Md. Muslim Qureshi continuously for a period of six years since 13-12-1992 ? "

AND

"Whether discontinuance of his service as a driver by the management and denial of regularisation of his services from the initial date of engagement is proper, justified and legal ? If not , what relief is the disputant entitled to ?"

2. Case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by him in brief is as follows :

the Zorial Office , Calcutta a letter was sent to the Regional Manager , Regional Office , Ranchi for submitting information ofDriver attached to the Executive of the Union Bank of India and for this a format was also sent along with that letter. In compliance of the direction given by the Zonal Office, the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Ranchi submitted information in respect of him who started working as Driver with effect from 13-10-1992 . Again on 2-4-98 he submitted represenatation to the Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Regional Office , Ranchi with prayer for his regularisation as permanent driver. On 4-4-98 the Regional Manager recommended his name and also requested the Dy. General Manager, Zonal Office , Calcutta for recruitment ofDriver as per the policy of the Central Management Recruitment of the Bank. He submitted that there is practice in the Bank that firstly Driver is appointed on casual basis for the Executives of theBank and after completion of regular service for more than 240 days driver is absorbed on regular post . In support ofthis claim he submitted that Shri Vijay Narayan Jha was engaged as driver on casual basis under the management ofUnion Bank of India, Regional Office , Patna like him and as per rule of the Bank he was absorbed as driver on permanent basis by the management . He disclosed that as per rule he submitted representation to the management for his regularisation in permanent capacity as driver but his request was not acceded to by the management in spite of his prayer was recommended by the then Regional Manager. On the contrary in spite of rendering continuous service from 1992 to 1998 management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle ofnatural justice terminated him on verbal notice without assigning any reason and also without complying the provision of law. Accordingly he raised an industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . Accordingly he submitted his prayer to pass Award directing the management to regularise him as permanent driver from the date of his appointment with back wages , and other consequential relief.

Concerned workman submitted that on 13-10-1992 he was appointed as Driver by the management i.e. Union Bank of India and posted at Union Bank of India, Regional Office Kali Babu Street , behind Civil Court , Ranchi for driving Bank's Car. The said car was utilised by the Regional Manager , Shri G. Subba Rao for the official purposes of the Bank. After transfer of Shri G. Subba Rao , Sri L. Sitiya , joined as Regional Manager at Union Bank of India, Regional Office , Ranchi and said officer also.allowed the concerned workman to work as driver . After transfer of Shri L. Sitiya he worked under Shri D. K. Surmwar, Asstt. General Manager , Union Bank of India, Regional Office , Ranchi .

3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement -cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his Written Statement . It is submitted by the management that the concerned workman was never selected by the selection committee of the Bank as per recruitment rules ofthe management . As such he was never employed as an employee of the Bank . As no employer and employee relationship existed between the Bank and the concerned person no industrial dispute can be raised either by him or by any person on his behalf. Further as the dispute referred to above is not due to dismissal , discharge or termination of service it is not maintainable under Section 2A of I. D. Act, 1947. It has been submitted that management of the Bank provided a car to the executive head of the Regional He submitted that he worked as Driver under the supervision and control of the management continuously without any break till the date of his discontinuation/ termination i.e. 31-8-1998 after rendering six years of continuous service in the capacity of Driver. He submitted that relationship of master and workman existed between him and the management during his employment . He submitted that he received his salary from the management . Apart from his salary he also used to receive other benefits such as loans from the management as provided to other regular enmployees . He disclosed that on 31-1-1997 from

2558 G1/ 05-16 10110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

to the Zonal Office , Calcutta in respect of the concerned workman. As per the above mentioned criteria he had not completed 5 years service as " Personal Driver " of the Executive of the Bank . Management admitted that the concerned workman preferred an application to the Regional Manager , Regional Office vide application dt . 2-4-98 for his absorption as permanent driver/Peon which was forwarded by the Regional Manager , Regional Office, Ranchi to Zonal Office , Calcutta to forward the same to Central Office for consideration as per policy of the Bank . Disclosing this fact management submitted that it had established beyond doubt that the concerned workman was not an employee of the Bank and for which there was no employer and employee relationship between him and the Bank . They further submitted that Vijay Narayan Jha was engaged as " Personal Driver " of the Regional Head of the Union Bank of India, Patna since 1985 and had completed about 11 years of work in the capacity as " Personal Driver " and was selected on 3-1-1996 as per the selection criteria. Disclosing all the facts management submitted claim of the concerned workman finds no basis and the present reference is liable to be rejected summarily.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED :

"Whether it is a fact that car of the management of Union Bank of India was driven by the disputant Shri Md. Muslim Qureshi continuously for a period of six years since 13-12-1992 ? "

AND

5. FINDING WITH REASONS :

Office of the Bank at Ranchi for his use so as to ensure in discharging his responsibilities in the matter of management , control , direction and supervision of the Bank effectively in all respect . Such executive is reimbursed the expenditure for engaging a driver on the basis of his own selection after adjudging suitability, competency and qualities he possesses on the basis of which he can repose confidence on such person. Such driver remains under the direct control , supervision and direction of the executivewho engages him and he carries out all the duties assigned to him by that executive. Thus the drivers so engaged remain under direct control , management and supervision of the executive and discharge the duties as per his order and receives payment from him accordingto the own agreement between himself and the said executive and he has no direct nexus or connection with the Bank . They submitted that in the Public Sector Undertakings as well as Banking companies various allowances are paid to the top executives for the purpose of maintenance of car . bungalow and other facilities . Such executives select , recruit and take work from the workmen and pay them wages , remuneration out of allowances received by them. Such persons do not have direct connection with the public sector undertaking or Banking companies and theydo not become employee of the public sector undertakings . They disclosed that the concerned workman worked as Personal driver of the Head of the Regional Manager of the Bank at Ranchi for certain period and he is advancing his claim to treat him as employees of the Bank and demanding his absorption in the employment of the Bank by way of regularisation . As the concerned workınan has no concern whatsoever with the Bank and he does not perform any duty connected with the dutics question of treating him as an employees of the Bank did not and cannot arise and as such his demand was not acceded to by the management . In their rejoinder management have further submitted that the concerned workman had worked as personal driver of the executive head of the Regional Office of the Bank at Ranchi and he was selected for his engagement by the Regional Manager for some temporary period of his icnurc . They denied the fact that he was driving the car for official purpose of the Bank . They also denied the fact that the concerned workman as driver of the Bank under different officer discharged his duties at different point of time . Whenever he worked he worked as personal driver of the officer concerned who was provided with company's car for the purpose of his duties. They admitted that the management absorbs personal drivers of the executives against permanent vacancies in the Bank in subordinate cadre when necessary. The criteria for selections are decided and communicated to the Regional Offices for sending the particulars of personal drivers . Zonal Office Calcutta had called for information on "Personal Drivers " attached with executives of the Bank on31-1-1997 , from all Regional Office . However , no such

information was forwarded by the Regional Officc . Ranchi

It transpircs from the record that the concerned workman with a view to substantiate his claim examined himself as WW - 1 . Management also in support of their claim examined one witness as MW - 1 . Concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that since 13-10-92 he was deployed by the management of Union Bank of India Regional Office . Ranchi as Car Driver . He disclosed that the car which he used to drive was owned by the management and it was not a private car. For driving said car he used to maintain log book which used to be authenticated by the management's officials . The photo- copies of the Log books for the year 1995, 1996 and 1998 during his evidence were marked as Ext . W- 1 , W - 1 / 1 and W- 1/2 . He disclosed that without assigning any reason management stopped him from work w.e.f. 31-8-1998 inspite ofhis rendering continuous service from 1992. He further disclosed that during this period he gave attendance of more than 240 days in each year. During the said period of his service he submitted that he worked under the 10111

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

6. Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings ofboth sides as well as evidence of WW- 1 and MW - 1 , I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was engaged as Driver to the Executive Head of the Regional Office ofthe Bank at Ranchi . Contention of the concerned workman is that he was engaged under the said officer being employed by the management. It has been further disclosed that the car which was asked to drive was owned by the management but it was placed in the custody ofthe Regional Manager Shri B. Subba Rao for official purpose of the Bank . The concerned workman further submitted that after transfer of the said Regional Manager , i.е. В. Subbarao he worked as Driver under L. Sitaiya and D. K. Surama, Asstt . General Manager, Regional Office , Ranchi . It is further contention of the concerned workman that during his employment he used to draw salary from management regularly and also used to enjoy other benefits like that of regular employees which the management categorically denied . It is the submission of the management that there is a circular issued by the management on the basis of which the officer who is entitled to enjoy the car owned by the Bank is entitled to engage his personal driver and for which he is entitled to get allowance as per the said circular . Further contention of the management is that the car which was provided to the Executive Head of the Regional Office of the Bank at Ranchi was owned by the management and it was so given to ensure in discharging his responsibilities in the matter ofmanagement. control , direction and supervision of the Bank effectively in all respect .

STAFF CIRCULAR No. 2263 dt. 20-2-81

Reimbursement of salary of Personal Drivers to those Officers provided with the family of Bank's car withoutDriver.

All concerned are hereby informed that the following rules have been forniulated in respect of reimbursement of salary of Personal Drivers engaged by those officers who are allotted Bank's car .

The facility of the Bank's Driver, wherever considered necessary, shall be confined to all Officers in Top Executive Grade . If the Bank's Driver is not provided to them they will be free to engage Personal Driver and claim reimbursement of salary on production of receipt upto the limit prescribed hereinbelow in this regard . All other officers allotted with the Bank's car shall be entitled to get reimbursement of salary paid to Personal Driver on production of receipt for salary so far paid. The maximum amount of such reimbursement will be restricted to limits laid down in the said circular .

Therefore . according to this circular there was scope for providing Bank's driver to the Officers of Top Executive Grade. However, if Bank's driver is not available the Officer ofthe Executive grade are entitled to claim reimbursement Manager , B. Subbaraon , L. Sitiya, D. K. Surama. He further disclosed that in the year 1998 he submitted representation to the management with prayer for his regularisation as Driver and the said representation was forwardedto the Head Office with due recommendation . He disclosed that like him management engaged one Vijay Narayan Jha in the year 1995 to drive management's car at Patna Regional Office and he was subsequently regularised. He alleged that after stopping his service by the management they engaged another driver Suren Thapa to drive the said car and the management in the year 2000 regularised him in his service as driver. He alleged that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice stopped him from his service . During cross -examination this witness disclosed that initially he was asked to drive the car bearing No. WNC 2830, and thereafter he was asked to drive the car bearing No. BR- 14D/2830. During his further cross -examination he admitted that management neither issued any letter of appointment nor issued any letter of authorisation to drive the said cars of the management . Hefurther admitted that in the Log Book he did not record the number of the car taking the plea that it was not necessary to record the number of the car in the same . He also admitted that Log Books which he used to maintain neither bears seal nor name of the Bank . MW- 1 during his evidence on the contrary submitted that officer in the rank of Regional Head is entitled to get allowance from the Bank for maintaining his " Personal Driver" . The Regional Officer to whom the car is allotted appointed the concerned workman as his "Personal Driver " . As per norms the Regional Officer used to draw the driver's allowance by vouchers . He categorically denied the facı about issuance ofany Log Book for maintenance of the car possessed by the Regional Manager of the Bank. This witness during his evidence relied on the circular issued by the management on the basis of which the officer who is entitled to enjoy car owned by the Bank is entitled to engage his "Personal Driver " and for which he is entitled to get allowance as per the said circular. During cross- examination this witness disclosed that no Regional Manager is entitled to get car allowance . On the contrary they are entitled to get Drivers allowance . He further disclosed that official car which is allotted to the Regional Manager can also be used for the personal use of the family members . However, for that reason the said Regional Manager does not require to pay any charge to the Bank. He also categorically denied the fact that no Log Book was ever maintained by the alleged car driver. He further disclosed that Regional Manager is entitled to get oil of unlimited quantity and for which payment is inade for purchasing oil through vouchers . No mileage also is required to be recorded . The Drivers's allowance which is paid to the Regional Manager every month is not reflected in his pay bill . This witness categorically denied the fact that the concerned workman was a driver appointed by the management .

10112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19. 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) |

concerned workman to establish that he worked directly under the management and it was the management who stopped him from service without complying the provision as laid down under Section 25F of the I. D. Act , 1947. Instead of adducing any evidence in that regard excepting the Log Books which I have already discussed above . Representative of the concerned workman relied on the decision reported in LLR 2005 443. In the said decision Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed categorically that reinstatement with full back wages was rightly awarded by the Labour un to a car driver who was engaged by an executive the Bank to drive the car belonging to the Bank and the driver nas discharged the burden ofproofclaiming that he has workea for more than 240 days besides produci three vouchers showing his salary received from the anagement. Their Lordships in para-8 observed as foows :

"While there is no doubt in law that the burden of proof that a claimant was in the employment of a Management . primarily lics , on the workman who claims to be a workman . The degree of such proof so required, would vary from case to case the instant case , the workman has established the fact which , of course , has not been denied by the bank that he did not work as a driver ofthe car belonging to thebank during the relevant periodich comes to more than 240 days of work. He has produced 3 vouchers which showed that he had been paid certain sums of money towards his wages and the said amount has been debited to the account of the bank . As against this , as found by the fora below. no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by the bank to rebut even this piece of cvidence produced by the workman . It remained contented by filing a written statement wherein it denied the claim of the workman and took up a plea that the employment of such drivers was under a scheme by which they are . in reality, the employee of the Executive concerned and not that of the bank: none was examined to prove the scheme . No evidence was led to establish that the vouchers produced by the workman were either not genuine or did not pertain to the wages paid to the workman . No explanation by way of evidence was produced to show for what purpose theworkman's signatures were taken in the Register maintained by the bank. In this factual background. the question of workman further proving his case does not arise because there was no challenge at all to his evidence by way of rebuttal by the Bank . " ofsalary of that driver on production of receipt upto the limit in question. During cross -examination WW - 1 admitted that he did not receive any letter of appointment when he was authorised to drive the car of the management . Healso admitted that management also did no issue any letter ofauthority to drive the said vehicle , which was to be used by the said Executive Officer. However , this witness disclosed as part of his duty he used to maintain LogBook copy of which during his evidence were marked as Ext. W- 1 . W- 1/ 1 and W- 1/2 . I have carefully considered these documents. No where from these documents there is scope to ascertain that the same were issued by the management in the official capacity to the concerned workman . The copies of the so -called Log Books neither bears signature of any official of the management nor bears any seal . As such in absence of any cogent proof there is no scope to drive into any conclusion that the same were issued by the management to the concerned workman for maintenance in connection with driving of the management's car. It is the specific contention of the management that the concerned workman worked as "Personal Driver of the Executive Head of the Regional Office oftheBank at Ranchi and he was selected for his engagement by the Regional Manager. Management also denied the fact that he was driving car for official purpose of the Bank . MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed categorically that official car which is allotted to the Regional Manager can also be used for the personal use of the family of that officer and for which he does not require to pay any charges to the Bank. This witness also categorically denied that no Log Book was ever maintained forthe car which was allotted to the Regional Manager for his personal use. Therefore, burden shifts on the concerned workman to establish that he was actually appointed by the management and thereafter was authorised by the management to drive the car which was given under control of the Regional Manager for his personal use. The concerned workman though in para - 14 ofthe Written Statement categorically disclosed that he used to draw salary from the management directly and also used to draw other benefits from there like that of regular employees has failed to submit any paper or wage slip to show that he was driver of the management and received his salary directly from the management and not from the Regional Manager. Contention ofthe concerned workman is that from 1992 to 1998 he continuously worked under management and put his attendance for more than 240 days in a year during these period. He further disclosed that he submitted representation to the management with a prayer for his regularisation but it was not acceded to. He further disclosed that he was stopped from his service by the management w.e.f. 31-8-98 without complying with the provision as laid down under Section 25F of the I. D. Act and for which his termination from service should be consideredas illegal and accordingly management is liable to reinstate him . Before claiming so onus is on the

Onthe contrary management relying on the decision reported in 1978 ( SC - 2 ) GJX- 0003 - SC submitted that the concerned workman cannot be considered as workman of the management and for which he is not entitledto get any relief. In the said decision arising of Punjab National Bank Appellant I's . Ghulam Dastagir. Respondent. Their 10113 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भराजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

Lordships observed in re 3 of the judgement is as follows:

It isclea that the direction and control are the telling facts to decide as to whether the driver in the present case is the employee of the Bank. This test does not exclude other facts also , and indeed as Lord Macmillan in the aforesaid case, rightly stressed the question in each case turns on its own circumstances and decisions in other cases are rather illustrative than determinative . To crystallise criteria conclusively is baffling but broad indications may be available from the decisions. The ' beedi cases ' turn on the reality of ' independent contractors ' standing in between the Management and the beedi workers . This court , in many such cases discovered that there was a common practice ofusing deceptive devices and the so -called independent contractors were really agents or workers of the Management posing as independent contractors for the purpose of circumventing the Factories Act and like statute which compel management to meet certain economic and social obligations towards the workers. We have no doubt that if in this case there was evidence to show any colourable device resorted to by the Bank, our conclusion would have been adverse to the Management. On the other hand, the evidence adduced before the Tribunal , or and documentary, leads only to one conclusion that the Bank made available a certain allowance to facilitate the Area Manager, Shri Sharma privately to engage a driver. Ofcourse, the jeep which he was to drive , its petrol and oil requirements and maintenance , all fell within the financial responsibility of the Bank . So far as the driver was concerned , his salary was paid by Shri Sharma as his employer who drew the same granted to him by way of allowance from the Bank . There is nothing on record to indicate that the control and direction of the driver vested in the Bank. After all, the evidence is clearly to the contrary. In the absence of material to make out that the driver was employed by the Bank, was under its direction and control , was paid his salary by the Bank and otherwise was included in the army of employees in the establishment of the Bank, we cannot assure the crucial point which remains to be proved . We must remember that there is no case of camouflage or circumvention of any statute . It is not unusual for public sector industry or a nationalised banking institution to give allowances to its high - level officers leaving it to them to engage the services of drivers or others for fulfilling the needs for which the allowances are meant . In this view, we are clear that the award fails as it is unsupportable. We , therefore , reverse the award . "

consideration a clear distinction will be exposed . In the decision reported in 2005 LL.R 443 Their Lordships came to the conclusion relying on the fact that the concerned workman during hearing establish by showing vouchers thathe received wages from the Bank and not from the Executive Officer of the Bank under whose custody the said car remained. There was no reason at all on the part of the management to pay wages to that driver directly from the Bank if he was not considered as their driver. In this connection clarification in Circular No. 2263 dt . 20-2-81 may be taken into consideration . As per the said circular management's own driver may be provided to the executive officer oftheBank for driving car placed under his custody but if no such Bank's driver, is available in that case the said executive officer is permitted to engage his own driver and salary paid to him by the said officer is reimbursible . As the management issued vouchers to the driver relying on this circular there is sufficient scope to arrive into conclusion that the management engaged that driver and for which they used to pay him wages directly from the Bank's funds . Whereas the decision referred to by the management has exposed quite a different view by the Hon'ble Apex Court . This decision practically has supported the later part of the circular as referred to above.. Therefore in the instant case it is not the factor whether the concerned workman worked continuously for more than 240 days in a year , during his attachment from 1992 to January, 1998. If the concerned workman was engaged as 'Personal Driver ' of the executive head in that case just taking the plea that he worked for more than 240 days continuously cannot place his demand for regularisation as driver under the management . There is no dispute that he submitted representation to the management for his regularisation. It has been admitted by the management that there is scope for regularisation of ' Personal Driver ' in the service of the management subject to fulfillment of certain criteria. Therefore , as of right ' Personal Driver ' of the Executive Head cannot claim for his regularisation under the management . The concerned workman submitted a representation as ' Personal Driver ' of the Regional Manager with prayer for his regularisation in the service of the management and his said representation was forwardedto the higher authority for consideration. Therefore , from the representation marked Ext . W-2 of the concernedworkman it speaks clearly that he worked under the Regional Manager as his ' Personal Driver ' and not as driverappointed by the management . Therefore , the claim which he made that he was appointed by the management and received wages directly from the management as driver finds no truth at all . In course of hearing representative of the concerned workman has failed to produce an iota of evidence in support of the claim of the concerned workman that he was dismissed by the management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the provision as laid down under Section 25F of the I. D. Act . In view of the facts and Therefore , if these two decisions are taken into 10114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman

circumstances I hold that the concerned workman's claim for regularisation does not stand on any stable footing and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.

Mr. Ram Ratan Ram, Advocate

Inthe result, the following Award is rendered:

Onbehalfof the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the 27th July, 2005

AWARD

" It is not a fact that the car of the management of Union Bank of India was driven by the disputant Shri Md . Muslim Qureshi continuously for a period of six years since 13-12-1992 and consequently discontinuance of his service as a driver by the management and denial of regularisation of his services from the initial date of engagement is proper, justified and legal . Accordingly, the disputant is not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS, PresidingOfficer

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/ 289/2000 ( C - 1 ) , dated, the 25th October, 2000 .

नई दिल्ली, 18 अगस्त, 2005

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the mariagement of Regional Store under Kusunda Area of M/s . BCCL in refusing to accept the date of birth of Sri Anand Kumar Bhuia as shown in his Matriculation Certificate i.e. 4-2-67 as the correct date of birth is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " का. आ. 3244-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 156/2000 )को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Case of the concerned workman according to the Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows:

[सं. एल-20012/289/2000- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 18th August , 2005

S.O. 3244- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 156/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 17-8-05 .

[No. L-20012/289/2000 - IR( C -I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO. 2) AT DHANBAD PRESENT

Shri B. Biswas, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1)( d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947.

REFERENCENO . 156 OF 2000

The sponsoring union submitted that under V. R. Scheme (F ) issued by the management in the year 1987 . the concerned workman got his appointment as Miner/ Loader on 5-2-87 at Gopalichak Colliery under PB Area . They submitted that from the Service Excerpt the concerned workman came to know that his date of birth was recorded as 23 years on 6-11-86 . They alleged that without taking consent from the concerned workman the said date of birth was recorded illegally and arbitrarily in the statutory register and for which he requested the management to rectify the date ofbirth as 4-2-67 rectifying wrong date of birth as 23 years on 6-11-86. In support of his claim the concerned workman also enclosed his original Matriculation certificate along with his application but the management refused to correct his date of birth without assigning any reason. Thereafter he submitted several representations to the management with prayer for rectification of his date of birth as per Matriculation certificate butto no effect and for which he raised industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union on behalf of the concerned workman accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to record date ofbirth of the concerned workman as 4-2-67 in the service record as per Matriculation certificate.

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman .

3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement- cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and 10115

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman wasappointed as Miner /Loader under V. R. Scheme (F) in the year 1987 at Gopalichak Colliery. Prior to his appointment the concerned workman submitted his bio- data and he declared his age as 23 years on 6-11-86 and accordingly his date of birth was recorded as 6-11-63 in the Form B Register which is Statutory register as per the provisions of the Mines Act and Mines Rules . The concerned workman also was sent to the Medical Board for his medical examination and assessment of his age and the Medical Board also determined his age as 23 years . They submitted that the concerned workman did not disclose that he was Matriculate and possessed Matriculation certificate from any university or Board. Thus he suppressed his educational qualification at the time of his initial employment and for which he is liable to face disciplinary action for suppressing of material facts . They further submitted that the concerned workman after declaring his date of birth at the time of his initial employment and after his application was processed as per the procedure of recruitment , he cannot change his stand and ask for correction of his date of birth on the basis of any document whatsoever . They disclosed that as per the provision of Certified Standing order the date of birth once recorded in the Company's register is conclusive for deciding the time of superannuation and the same cannot be altered as per the wishes of the concerned workman. Accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer . Accordingly management submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management of Regional Storeunder Kusunda Area of M/s . BCCL in refusing to accept the date of birth of Sri Anand Kumar Bhuia as shown in his Matriculation Certificate i.e. 4-2-67 as the correct date of birth is justified ? If not ,to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

Pariksha Samity during his evidence was marked as Ext . W- 1 . From this certificate it transpires that his date of birth was recorded as 4-2-1967. The concerned workman joined his service on 5-2-87 . Therefore, it is clear that before getting his appointment as Miner /Loader under V.R. Scheme (F) in the year 1987 he passed the Matriculation examination . It is the contention of the management that before getting his appointment the concerned workman declared his age as 23 years in the bio- data furnished by him. Even he was sent to the Medical Board for assessment ofhis age and the Medical Board also after his examination assessed his age as 23 years . Accordingly in the statutory register his age was recorded as 23 years on 6-11-86 . Further allegation of the management is that suppressing the material fact the concerned workman furnished his age as 23 years in his bio -data which he knew very well that it was not correct and for which he is liable to face disciplinary action. In course of hearing management have failedto produce the bio -data furnished by the concerned workman wherein he declared his age as 23 years before his appointment . Management also in course of hearing in spite of getting opportunity did not consider necessary toproduce medical report of the medical board wherein it couldbe transpired that his age was assessed as 23 years as on 6-11-86 . Until and unless these relevant papers are producedby the management there is little scope to uphold their contention. On the contrary it is clear from the Matriculation certificate produced by the concerned workman that his date of birth was 4-2-67 . It is also clear that he passed Matriculation examination in the year 1983 i.e. long before getting his appointment under the management . No evidence on the part of the management isforthcoming to show that Matriculation certificate which was relied on by the concerned workman in support ofhis age is fabricated document . Therefore , until and unless it is so established there is no scope to challenge the genuinity of the certificate in question , JBCCI Circular No. 76 has clearly pointed out how age of the concerned workman is to be recorded in the statutory register. As per JBCCI circular age recorded in the Matriculation certificate or equivalent examination should be binding on both sides. Ifthe workman passed matriculation examination prior so getting his appointment. Therefore , management cannot deny the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation certificate submitted by the concerned workman . It is settled principle of law that an - oral statement cannot supersede the documentary evidence . When from documentary evidence i.e. Matriculation certificate it transpires clearly that his date of birth was 4-2-67 and when also it is evident that he had obtained that Matriculation certificate prior to getting his appointment the same should be binding upon both sides . It is seen that in spite of submitting representations management did not consider to give any importance for rectification of the date of birth of the concerned workman as per

Matriculation certificate and to that effect management It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concerned workman as WW - 1 . Management on the contrary in spite of getting scope did not adduce any evidence in support of their claim. It is the specific claim of the concerned work man that at the time of his appointment under V. R. Scheme (F ) . 1987 management recorded his age as 23 years as on 6-11-86 without his knowledge. Subsequently on receipt of the Service excerpt he came to know that wrong date of birth was recorded in the statutory register. He submitted that he is Matriculate and passed that Matriculation examination in the year 1983. The Matriculation certificate issued by Bihar Vidyalaya 10116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

Government on 23-8-05.

[No. L -41011/36/2003 - IR(B- 1) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Ref. No. 23 of 2004

Present: Sri H. A. Hazarika, Presiding Officer, CGIT -cum - Labour Court, Guwahati .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

have failed to assign any cogent explanation . It is fact that Form B Register is a statutory document under the Mines Act and Mines Rules . Naturally entries made therein including date of birth are binding on both sides . But it should be borne into mind that if any wrong entry is made in the statutory register and subsequently if it is detected that actually the entry which was made was wrong there is sufficient scope to rectify the same for the interest of justice. It is not expected that a workman should suffer for wrong entry ofhis date ofbirth in the statutory register all throughout his service career. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that it has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the date ofbirth ofthe concerned workman as per Matriculation certificatc is4-2-67 and also when it is established that he passed thatMatriculation examination before his entry in the service management cannot defyto rectify the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register and other statutory records of the management .

Inthe result, the following Award is rendered:

The Management of N. F. Railway, Maligaon. Vrs. Their Workman. represented by Smt . Minati Bose . Date of Award : 10-08-05

AWARD

"The action of the management of Regional Store under Kusunda Area of M/ s . BCCL in refusing to accept the date of birth of Sri Anand Kumar Bhuia as shown in his Matriculation Certificate i.e. 4-2-67 as the correct date of birth is not justified . Consequently, the management is directed to record his date of birth i.e. 4-2-67 as the correct datc of birth in the statutory registers of the management withinthree months from the date of publication of theAward in the Gazette of India ."

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

The Government of India. Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L -41011 / 36 /2003 - IR ( B- I ) referred this Industrial Dispute arose between the employers in relation to Management of N.F. Railway and Smt. Minati Bose. Ex- CDM under CSTE , N.F. Railway for adjudication and to pass an award in exercising powers conferred under Clause ( d) of Sub- Section 1 and Sub -Section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 on the basis of the following Schedule .

नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of N.F. Railway in denying promotional benefit to Smt . Minati Bosc . Ex. CDM under CSTE w.e.f. 01-09-98 is justified ? If not. to what relief Smt. Bose is entitled to ?"

का. आ. 3245-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन . एफ. रेलवे, मालीगांव, गुवाहाटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिकः अधिकरण, गुवाहाटी , असम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/36/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The matter was initially received by the State Industrial Tribunal . Guwahati and on being set up ofthis CGIT-Cum-Labour Court . North East Region . Guwahati the same is transferred to the CGIT- cum- Labour Court. which received here on 30-12-04 and numbered as Ref. Case No. 23 of 2004 .

New Delhi , the 23rd August . 2005

3. On appearances of both the parties the proceeding is proceeded here as per procedure .

S.O. 3245- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ). the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( 23/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court . Guwahati . Assam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the inanagement of N. F. Railway. Maligaon . Guwahati and their workmen . which was received by the Central

4. The case of Smt . Minati Bosc . Ex . Chief Draft Man (hereinafter CDM) under CSTE . N.F. Railway. Maligaon . in brief is that she retired from her aforesaid Railway service on 31-10-2000 . That the Railway Board vide their letter No. PC - V/ 98 / 1 / 11 / 18 ( A) dated 10-6-98. advised all the Zonal Railways to create new post in Scale 10117

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19 , 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

entitled for consequential benefits she claimed. Hence . theManagement prayed to dismiss the claim of Smt . Minati Bose with no awards .

10. Heard the arguments submitted by Mr. K. K. Biswas . Advocate for the Workman , Smt . Minati Bose and Mr. K. C. Sarma, Advocate for the Management . Perused the evidence of MW. 1. Snu . Tapati Deb and WW.1 . Sri Pradip Kr . Saha which are recorded by my own hand . Also perused the exhibited documents submitted by both the parties.

Rs . 7,450-11,500 as restructuring benefits in certain categories like Ministerial . Drawing etc. Supervisory Grades of the Railway for granting the benefits of proforma promotion including payment of arrears to take effect from 1-9-98 . Accordingly the Management ought to have been created two promotional posts in CSTE Drawing Section with effectfrom 1-8-98 when Minati Bose was in service . That in operation of the related Circular Smt . Minati Bose ought to have been given restructuring benefit with promotional benefit from the post from which she retired to the post of SSE. But as per the Circular the Management did not allow her promotion for which she is legally entitled.

11. On perusal ofevidence I find the Railway Board issued a letter bearing No. PC -V/97 / 1 / 11 / 7 dated 28-9-98 as a guideline for restructuring benefits to its employees for proinotional benefits with high grade of Pay Scale .

5. Oflate depriving Minati Bose the Management implemented the Circular issued by the Railway Board on 3-5-02 and created two posts . These two posts ought to have been created while Minati Bose was in Service or before 31-10-2000 ,

12. On the strength of Railway Board's aforesaid letter the General Manager . N.F. Railway, Maligaon issued a Circular to implement the same vide its Circular No. R/205/93/Fifth (PC2) dated 28-10-98 .

13. Smt . Minati Bose who was a Section Engineer Drawing retired on superannuation on 31-10-10 ( AN) . On the strength of the Circular issued by the General Manager, N.F. Railway. 2 posts were created and benefit of the posts were given with efect from 10-7-02 . For creation of posts aMemorandum was prepared on 3-5-02 Ext. 2 is that Memorandum .

6. Being aggrieved Smt . Minati Bose preferred some repesentations before the Management to get restructuring benefits ofpromotion to grade ofscale . But the Management did not allow her representations . Hence , she raised the matter through her Union before the R.L.C ( C ) , Guwahati . The conciliation proceeding initiated by the A.L.C. ( C) , Guwahati , failed as the Management did not take part . On the strength of the report of the ALC ( C) . Guwahati , the Government referred the case for adjudication , as such , Smt. Minati Bose prayed to pass an award in her favour so that she can get promotion to the Grade of Scale Rs . 7,450-11,500 with all the consequential benefits with retrospective effect from due date of promotion to the extent of her immediate juniors.

14. On perusal of Ext. 2. I find for getting restructuring benefit the incumbent concerned also have to achieve qualification to carry the duties of higher responsibility and importance . The created posts are pinpointed of the placement who acquire the higher responsibility.

7. The case of the Management in short is that, claim of the Workman Smt. Minati Bose is not maintainable in present terms in law as well as fact .

15. From the narration of evidence of MW. 1. Smt . Tapati Deb, I find Minati Bose was not achieved the requisite condition to get the restructuring benefit of promotion. On 3-10-02 , Minati Bose represented her grievances through her Union.

8. That as per Clause - A ofPara -5 of Railway Board's letter No. PC -4/97/ 1 / 11 / 7 dated 28-9-98 SSE /DRG in Scale Rs. 7,450 to 11,500 is a pinpointed post and benefit will accrue in the usual manner from the date of actual placing ofthe staff concern in the respective Grade . Smt . Minati Bose , Ex . CDM was not in service at the time of consideration of selection for the above - mentioned pin- pointed posts . Smt . Minati Bose retired from her service on superannuation on 31-10-2000 (A.N. ). The promotion ofSSE/DRG in Scale Rs . 7,450-11,500 was considered after 3-5-02 on being completion of procedural work to implement the restructuring of the DRG Cadre . Memorandum of the restructured cadre of DRG was issued only 3-5-02. Under the relevant Office Memorandum No. E/283/ 158 (N)/pt. 4 .

16. I find no time bound direction for creation of posts under the restructuring benefit . 2 Posts are created after retirement of Minati Bose . What 1 find as she was retired as Section Engineer Drawing on 31-10-00 , she has not acquired the requisite qualification at that stage and the 2 posts were created through procedure and the relevant Memorandum was prepared on 3-5-02 for the promotion of those 2 posts and Minati Bose was not working in a higher responsibility at that stage. It is also stated by the MW 1 that Smt . Pratima Deb Roy who was contemporary to Minati Bose retired on 28-2-01 without the relevant restructuring benefit . So also Lalji Prasad expired on 1-11-99 without such restructural promotional benefit .

17. It is to be presumed that Minati Bose must have knowledge about the relevant letter and circular of restructuring benefit while she was very well in service.

9. There is no direction from the Railway Board to create two posts in Scale Rs. 7,450-11,500 with effect from 1-8-98 . Since the Workman Smt . Minati Bose retired from service before the creation of the posts , she is not

2558 GI /05-17 10118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 / BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii) |

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

TheManagement of N. F. Railway. Maligaon .

Fs.

She did not avail any representation at that stage on demand ofher claim of restructural benefit . She submitted the representations after being retired through her Union . The stop gap period between her retirement and the creation of post is about 1 and 2 years .

Their Workman, represented by The General Secretary. Rail Mazdoor Union . N.F. Railway. Rest Camp , Pandu.

Date ofAward : 11-08-05

AWARD

18. Considering all the factors under the present facts and circumstances I find Minati Bose did not acquire the conditions to get restructural promotional benefits as such, she is not entitled to promotional benefit as per Letter and Circular issued by the Railway Board and the General Manager, N.F. Railway. Therefore, I find the N.F. Railway isjustified in denying the promotional benefits to Minati Bose. would like to make it more clear that Minati Bose is not entitled for any benefit under the relevant letter and Cirqular. Accordingly ( Schedule ) issue is decided against Minati Bose .

19. Send the Award of without any relief, to the Government concerned, as per procedure, immediately.

H. A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L -41011/ 35 / 2003 - IR ( B- I ) Dated , New Delhi . 8-03-2004 referred the Industrial Dispute arose between the Management in relation to DCOS, New Bongaigaon . N.F. Railway, and Workmen riamely, ( 1 ) Sri Dilip Dutta. (2) Sri Bishnu Das, (3 ) Sri Ganesh Narzari , Motor Drivers . Grade- III to adjudicate and to pass an award in exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub - Section ( 1) of Sub- Section (2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the basis of the following Schedule.

SCHEDULE

का. आ. 3246-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एफ. रेलवे, मालीगांव, गुवाहटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण गुवाहाटी, असम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management (DCOS , New Bongaigaon, N.F. Railway ) in holding Trade Test for the filling up of vacancy post of Motor Driver without considering the inter- se - seniority of the incumbent and maintaind at the Dy. COS, Pandu office is justified ? Ifnot , to what relief S/ Shri Dilip Dutta , Bishnu Das . Ganesh Narzari , Motor Driver Grade- III are entitled to ? "

[सं. एल-41011/35/ 2003- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 23rdAugust, 2005

2. Initially the matter was referred to and received by State Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati - 1 being inception ofthis CGIT- Cum- Labour Court, North- East , Guwahati , the record is transferred here for disposal as per procedure and received the same on 13-12-04 and also re - numbered the same here as Ref. Case No. 22 of 2004.

3. Accordingly parties have appeared before this CGIT -Cum - Labour Court and filed Written Statement . documents ,etc. and contested the matter.

S.O. 3246. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 22 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati , Assam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of N. F. Railway, Maligaon , Guwahati and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-8-2005 .

[No. L -41011/35/2003 - IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4. The case of the Workmen in brief is that for prospective of promotion there should be one combined seniority list for Technician ( Artesian ) Posts for both the Grade -D employces of New Bongaigaon and Pandu Depots. The Cardinal Rule to fill up the Technician Posis of Grade-D of Bongaigaon and Pandu on promotion . there should be one seniority list to hold the Trade Test .

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI , ASSAM

Ref . Case No. 22 of 2004

Present : Sri H. A. Hazarika ,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court,

Guwahati.

5. But the Management hold Trade Test only with the D Categories employees of Bongaigaon and promoted 2 employces of D Categoriesto C Categories namely (1) Suresh Chandra Mahato , (2) Doljit Singh , who arejunior to the Workmen who raised the dispute . The workmen are working under Dy. CMM, N.F. Railway at Pandu Depot .

10119

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

theManagement, N.F. Railway. Admittedly there were 2 vacancies ofMotor Drivers which are within the purview of Category -C were occurred and those are filled up by the D categories Technicians working in the Bongaigaon Unit.

6: On being aggrieved the above named victimized workmen represented several times to the Appellate concerned for remedial solution of their promotion caused by the Senior Material Manager , N.F. Railway, New Bongaigaon but the Management did not pay any heed to their representations.

13. Admittedly there ought to have been combined seniority list as both the Units are joint under the same Management. The benefit of promotion by way of Trade Test ought to have been made from all the eligible candidates of the combined seniority list .

14. Admittedly the Management did not held the combined Trade Test of both the Unit respectively Bongaigaon and Pandu and the Management shown the grounds of not holding combined Trade Test on 2 grounds (1 ) that the Trade Test only with the D Categories Technician ofBongaigaca was held on exigencies (2 ) that the D Categories Workmen of Pandu Unit were not willing to come on transfer to Bongaigaon .

15. It is also admitted that the Management is ready to give benefit tothe Workmen if they willing to come to Bongaigaon to work therein .

7. That having failed to receive any susceptible response from the Management of N.F. Railway to the series of their representations they approached the Union for raising the issue to the appropriate level for their redress . Consequently the Union moved the R.L.C. (C), Guwahati . But in the conciliation proceeding held before the Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Guwahati failed because of the non - appearance of the Management in resolving the dispute of the assignment of due promotion of the aggrieved employees and on the report of the ALC( C), Guwahati the matter is referred. In the result, the workmen prayed to pass an award for the promotion in the Grade of Motor Driver to the Workmen with all consequential benefits with retrospective effect from date of their due date of promotion to the extent of their immediate juniors.

8. The case of the Management is that the claim petition presented by the Workmen is not maintainable in law as well as in fact .

That the Workmen Sri Bishnu Das , Sri Dilip Dutta and Ganesh Narzari of Pandu Unit did not give undertaking to transfer from Pandu to New Bongaigaon,

16. On careful scrutiny 1 have not received any authentic documents that concerned Workmen were called for interview or Trade Test and that they refused in writing . Trade Test is an important matter which should be intimated in black and white. There is no black and white evidence or cocumentary evidence that they were called for interview of Trade Test and that they have refused.

9. The Pandu Railway Depot and Bongaigaon Railway Depot are joint Units. There were necessities for filling up 2 posts of Motor Drivers who are of that category posts . A Trade Test was held with the D Categories Staff ofBongaigaon Depot. The D Category Staff of Workmen working at Pandu were not called for on two grounds; one is, for urgently to fill the post locally from Grade -D category staff; secondly , that the , Grade -D category staff who are working at Pandu Depot are not willing to come to Bongaigaon on transfer.

17. In evidence of Workman Sri Bishnu Kr . Das , I find that presently, New Bongaigaon and Pandu Units are divided and he has deposed that he is ready to go to work atNew Bongaigaon if he gets financial benefits . Later on ofcourse, he says he will not go to New Bongaigaon even if he gets financial benefits. It is to be remembered that there are 3 Workmen . If from the seniority list of point they are entitled to get promotion they shouldbe given the benefit of promotion . As regards the transfer if an incumbent is not obeying the order of transfer then there should be action as per procedure . Before promotion on the ground of transfer they should not be deprived from promotion.

Hence , 2 posts were filled up from the D category technician of Bongaigaon and promoted to C category posts . Hence , the Management is not committed any illegality in relation to the Workmen and prayed to dismiss the claim of the Workmen with no Award.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Mr. K. K. Biswas for the Workmen and Mr. K.C. Sarma for the Management .

11. Perused the evidence of MW, 1 Sri Dilip Kar Choudhury and W. W. 1. Sri Bishnu Kumar Das including their cross - examination part which are recorded by my own hand.

12. The matter is simple that admittedly there are 2 Depots namely, ( 1 ) Bongaigaon and ( 2 ) Pandu. These 2 Depots admittedly are joint Depots under the Control of

18. Admittedly the workmen are not incompetent or inefficent than the Workmen promoted. Hence , in my opinion the Workmen who are already of course promoted to Driver ought to have been promoted much earlier with the benefits they are entitled . Hence , the Management is not justified for holding Trade Test for filling up the vacanies the posts of Motor Driver without considering the inter- se- seniority of the incumbent maintained at the Dy.. COS . Pandu . There oughtto have been combined Trade Test. Hence , he Workmen are entitled to get benefits with all consequential benefits with retrospective effect from their due date of promotion to the extent of their 10120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute videOrder No. L-41012 / 111/97 -IR (B-I) dated 4/6th February, 1998 for adjudication on the following schedule:

immediate juniors. Accordingly the Schedule is decided in favour of the Workmen . They are entitled for all the benefits to the extent of their juniors are presently enjoying.

SCHEDULE

19. Send the Award to the Government concerned asperprocedure immediately.

H. A. HAZARIKA, Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Management of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited in terminating the services of Shri Shivashankar Vinayak Vernekar is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief he is entitled ? " नई दिल्ली, 23 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3247-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोंकण रेलवे कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी आर-13/98) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/111/97- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 23rd August , 2005

S.O. 3247. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CR- 13 / 98) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corporatio Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-8-2005.

[No. L-41012/111 /97 -IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 5th August, 20105

Present :

Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 13/98

I PARTY

II PARTY

The Chief Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation td.. Cauvery,

Shri S. V. Vernekar Venkatesh Nivas. Nandanagadda, KARWAR- 581 304 Railway Colony. Shirwad. KARWAR- 581 306

AWARD

2. The case of the first party workman to be precise and concise , as made out in the Claim Statement , is that he isaDiploma Holder and resident ofKarwar Town and was appointed by the management as a Technical Mate on 1-10-90 on temporary basis on daily wages of Rs . 40 with some other allowance . On 1-5-91 he was appointed as a Foreman in the scale of Rs . 1600 to 2660 plus allowances as per the appointment order dated 23-4-91 . He was transferred to a place called Ankola and then after about 9 month he was transferred to Honavar. At that time the work was in progress laying down the Konkan Railway, a prestigious project to be executed by engineering skill : that he was issued a certificate dated 21-10-91 certifying that he is hard working and intelligent bearing good character. His work and performance was very much asppreciated by the management during the course of his cmployment . On 26-10-93 the management issued a notice stating that the first party was negligent at work site and that he was sleeping in the site office with all the doors and windows closed at about 45 AM on 23-9-93 when inspection was conducted ; that on the above said date first party was working as T- 5A (North phase) and he was to submit a daily progress report to the concerned authority. He worked to the best satisfaction of the management discharging his duties to the best of his ability and capacity. However . on 13-11-93 , the Chief Engineer. karwar issued a notice terminating his services on the ground that they were not found satisfactory. Therefore . the first party filed a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 41755/93 challenging the above said notice and obtained a limited stay order. However, the said Writ Petition came to be dismissed on some technical grounds reserving the right ofthe first party to work out his remedy before the proper forum. Thereupon the management issued order terminating his services w.c.f. 13-4-1994 ; that the order of termination is mala fide and discriminatory as much as the management regularized the services of other employees whojoined services along with him and also retained other cmployees in service those who were quite juniors to the first party. The Hon'ble High Court while dismissing the above said Writ Petition observed that the case of the first party to be considered by the management on humanitarian ground and he may be allotted any work or be given any suitable post.

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub - section 2A of Section 10 of

3. But the management instead of following those instructions terminated his services; that there is no 10121

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

justification in the allegations made by the management that services of the first party were not found satisfactory. There is no document to substantiate the said allegation; that the termination order since appears to have been passed based on certain allegations made against him is illegal and arbitrary tainted with malafides passed without conducting any enquiry and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the first party and therefore, suffered from violation of principles of natural justice and therefore, is liable to be set aside.

punitive or stigmatic and therefore there is no violation of principles of natural justice or any rules or regulations of the management corporation; that the notice dated 13-11-93 was challenged by the first party in a Writ Petition to the High Court and since he obtained an ex parte Interim Orderdated 28-12-93 with a direction to the management not to terminate his services , the management put in abeyance his termination order until further orders ofthe High Court . The High Court passed an order upholding order of termination on 26-4-94 giving option to the first party to work out his remedy before other forum . The management passed an office order dated 28-4-94 terminating the services of the first party w.e.f. 30-4-94. The appeal preferred by the first party against the said order of learned single judge in Writ Petition was dismissed on 29-6-95 . Thereupon the first party raised the dispute under Section 2 -A of the ID Act and that resulted into the present reference.

5. The management denied various contentions taken by the first party denying that it issued a certificate to him on 21-10-92 certifying his hard working , intelligent and that he bore good character and that the working of the first party was appreciated on number ofoccasions . It denied the contention that the management took heavy work from the first party and assured him that notice dated 26-10-93 will be withdrawn and that it has been issued only for the sake of termination of service and to reappoint him afresh in same cadre . It also denied that the above said Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court on technical grounds and not on merits . It denied that the management appointed and continued in service some of the employes appointed along with the first party though they had no eligibility or satisfactory work and that he only had been discriminated. At Para 13 of the Counter Statement, the management , again repeated that the appointment of the first party was purely provisional and contractual one with a condition that his services can be terminated by giving a month's notice or a month's wages in lieu thereof. Therefore, the termination on the expiry of 31-12-93 cannot be treated as punitive and opposed to the principles of natural justice . It is a termination simplicitor coming under Section 2 (oo ) (bb ) of the ID Act ; that there was no nexus between the warning memos issued to the first party and the notice of termination or order of termination and therefore , it cannot be said that it is not a termination simplicitor but as a measure of punishment thereby making it necessary to issue a charge sheet and then to hold an'enquiry before passing of the termination order. Therefore , the management in the last , requested this tribunal to reject the reference.

6. It is to be noted that after filing of the Claim Statement when the Second Party management did not appear and failed to file its Counter Statement , my learned Predecessor on the basis of oral and documentary evidence pressed into service on behalf of the first party, passed an 4. The management by its Counter Statement not disputing the fact that the first party initially was appointed as a Technical Mate vide order dated 1-10-90 and that in the year 1991 after holding an interview, he was appointed as a Foreman as per appointinent order dated 23-4-91 ; however, contended that his initial appointment was temporary on daily wage basis and his appointment as a Foreman was for a fixed period of one year to be extended depending upon the need ofwork . The first party having accepted the offer of appointment on 30-4-91 , reported duty and thereupon he was issued office order dated 5-6-91 for his appointment . This office order would disclose the terms and conditions of the appointment of the first party which in turn have been accepted by the first party while reporting duty. His appointment was extended or the same terms and conditions by order dated 7-7-93 making it clear that the extension of his appointment is only upto 31-12-1993 ; that as per Clause 1 of the offer of appointment, one months's notice was to be given by the management corporation while terminating the services of the first party if they are not found satisfactory. The services of the first party were found wanting to fulfil his duty which was to supervise the work done by the Contractor with the management . He did not properly supervise the work entrusted to him and he had already beenwarned and censured by his superiors in writing for his laxity in supervision and unsatisfactory service as could be evident from the memos dated 27-8-93 . 13-9-93 , 26-10-93 and 3-11-93 . Inspite of this the first party did not show any improvement in his performance. Besides , as the work in the project was also almost getting completed, the management thought it fit to notify the first party about his employment being coming to an end and therefore . accordingly as per the terms of appointment offer. he was issued with the notice dated 13-11-93 proposing to terminate his services on the expiry of 31-12-93 ; that the policy of the management corporation was that when ever temporary appointment had to be continued to bear in its mind the need of the work, the requirement of the staff and so also take note of the fact of employee's work being satisfactory or not so as to be continued for the period beyond the date of employment extended. Therefore, as the employment of the first party was extended only upto 31-12-1993 , his termination is in accordance with the terms of appointment and it is a termination simplicitor not 10122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

award dated 20-3-1999 allowing the reference with a directionto the management to reinstate the workman to hisoriginal post or to absorb him to a permanent post with a further direction to the management to pay a sum of Rs. 36,000 towards the back wages . Aggrieved by this award the management preferred a writ petition No. 23848 / 99 - L (TR) and the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 13-12-04 has remitted the matter back to this tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence . if any. There-upon the matter was taken up from the stage of the filing of the Claim Statement and the Management filed its Counter Statement referred to supra. On the completion of the pleadings , on behalf of the management , an affidavit evidence ofone Shri Nalinakshan. P. said to be the Regional Personnel Officer in the management corporation was filed and inhis further examination chief the documents at Ex . M1 to M13 were marked. Whereas , in continuation of the earlier statement of the first party workman made before this tribunal , he was further examined in chief and documents at Ex. W8to W10 were marked. In his earlier examination chiefdocuments at Ex. WI to W8 were marked (Ex. W8 in his further examination chief was doubly marked). both the witnesses have been cross examined by the respective parties. The statement of management witness in his affidavit is almost the replica of the Counter Statement filedby the management so also it is the case with the first party workman who almost repeated the averments made by him in his Claim Statement . I would like to come to their cross examination statements as and whenit is found necessary and relevant. The documents marked at Ex . Ml to M13 by the management are as under:

Ex. M1 : Annexure -A-Copy of the Appointment Orderdated1-10-90 issued to the first party.

M2 ( W1 ) : Annexure B-Copy of appointment letter dated 23-4-91 issued to the first party along with a typed copy.

M3 : Annexure-C- Copy of duty report dated 30-4-1991 submitted by the first party.

M4 : Annexure -D-Copy of Office Order dated 5-6-91 issued to the first party.

M5 :Annexure-E-Copy of Office Order dated 7-7-93 issued by the 2nd party.

M6 :Annexure-F-Copy of Warning Memo dated 27-8-93 issued to the first party.

M7 :Annexure-G-Copy of Warning Memo dated 13-9-93 issued to the first party.

M8 :Annexure-H-Copy of the Warning Memo dated 26-10-93 issued to the first party.

M9 (W3 ) : Annexure -J-Copy of the letter dated 3-11-93 from the Second Party.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] M10 : Annexure -K-Copy of Notice of Termination dated 13-11-1993 issued to the first party.

M11 : Annexure-L- Copy of Order of Termination dated 31-12-93 issued to the first party.

M12 : Annexure -M- Copy of Office order dated 1-1-94 issuedto the first party.

M13 ( W6 ) : Annexure N -Office Order dated 28-4-1994 issued by the Second Partyto the first party terminating his service along with a typed copy.

7. Ex . WI as seen above . is the appointment order dated 23-4-91. Ex. W2 is said to be a daily report of progress furnished by first partyto AEE . Ex . W3 is a copy of the letter dated 3-11-93 . Ex. W4 is order dated 13-11-93 terminating the services of the first party ( Ex . M11 ) . Ex . W5 is the representation of the first party to the Chairman and MD of the Corporation . Ex . W6 is the order dated 28-4-94 terminating the services of the first party subsequent to dismissal of his writ petition . Ex . W7 is the notification regarding seniority list of employces coming under the category of the first party said to have been made permanent in their job. Ex. W8 is the letter copy where under the first party sent copy of the Claim Statement to the Second Party before the aforesaid award was passed . Ex . W8 once again marked is the copy of the letter dated 21-11-03 regarding selection of Jr. Engincers by the Second Party. Ex. W9 is the copy of the office order dated 29-4- (04 regarding the selection of Section Engineers by the Second Party. Ex . W10 is the copy of the letter dated 24-10-96 regarding seniority list .

8. Learned counsel for the management filed his written arguments . His first main contention is that the order terminating the services of the first party is termination simplicitor not requiring any Domestic Enquiry to be conducted against the first party before his services were terminated and not attracting the provisions of Section 2 ( 00 ) read with Section 25F of the I. D. Act . He contended that as per Ex . M1 first party was appointed as Technical Mate on temporary basis on daily wages of Rs.40 for a period of3 months and thereupon after holding an interview, along with other candidates first party was selected for the job of Foreman and accordingly was appointed as per Ex . M2 dated 23-4-1991 , once again temporarily on contract basis initially for a period of one year to be extended for further period of 3 to 4 years and as per the officer order at Ex . M5 dated 7-7-93 services of the first party workman along with others were extended upto 3-12-93 on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in Ex. M2 . Learned counsel invited the attention of this tribunal to Clause ( 1 ) ofEx. M2 in justifying the action of the management in terminating the services of the first party as per order dated 31-12-93 vide Ex.M11 contending 10123

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

thatthe above said clause is very much clear laying down the condition that services of the first party are terminable during the contracted period of one year initially made and also during the extended period giving one month's notice on either side or on the payment of one month's emoluments in lieu of the notice in case services of the first party were not found necessary. Therefore, learned counsel submitted that there was nothing wrong on the part of the management in issuing the notice dated 13-11-93 vide Ex-M10 nothing the first party that his services will be terminated w.e.f. 31-12-93 as were found unsatisfactory, as notice since was issued in the light of clause I of the offer ofthe appointment at Ex -M2 . He submitted that from the wordings of notice at Ex . M10 and the termination order , Ex.M11 , it can never be said that his services were terminated by way of punishment attaching any stigma to the career ofthe first party. In the result it was a termination simplicitor.

9. His next contention was that the termination in question falls under clause 2 (00 ) (bb ) of the ID Act as the first party's appointment was on contractual basis initially for a period of one year and then was extended up till 31-12-93 . He also contended that in the meanwhile the project for which the first party was appointed also was nearing completion and therefore , services ofthe first party could notbe continued any more . To support his argument that services of the first party were not found satisfactory inviting the termination order, learned counsel placed reliance on three memos issued by way of warning at Ex . M6, M7 and M8 dated 27-8-93 , 13-9-93 and 26-10-93.

10. Insupport ofhis argument learned counsel relied upon decisions reported in 1991 ( 1 ) SCC cases page 691 State of UP V/s . K. K. Shukla , 1994 ( 1 ) ILR page 242- Dr. Shivalingaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, 1999 ( 3 ) SCC Page 60, 1993 (23 ) Administrative Tribunal Cases 389 SC and a case reported in 1976 LLJ I page 478 SC.

He contended that services of first party were not terminated on account of completion of the project as no such cases made by the management and it is also in the evidence that those who were appointed along with the first party have been retained by the management in as much as Juniors to him have been given promotions and still continued in services of the management . Therefore , learned counsel submitted that since undisputedly the first party was in continuous service of the management for a period of about 3 years and his service came to be discontinued on the misconduct alleged against him as perthe aforesaid charge memos termination in question is not a termination simplicitor but a termination punitive in nature attaching stigma to the career of the first party as no Domestic Enquiry was conducted and opportunity of hearing was not given to the first party before such termination order passed . He further contended that the firstparty being in continuous service of more than 3 years , his services could not have been terminated without the compliance of Section 25F read with Section 2(00 ) of the IDAct and therefore, it was a case of illegal retrenchment . Learned counsel submitted that it is not a case of contractual appointment coming under the purview of Section 2(00) (bb ) of the ID Act as services of other persons who joined along with the first party have been continued suggesting the fact that the employment held by the first party was still existence . To support his argument that case on hand was not a case of termination simplicitor , leamed counsel relied upon the case reported in AIR 1986 SC 1626-Jarnail Singh and others V/ s. State of Punjab and others and a case reported in 1999 I LLJ 1054 SC- Dipti Prakash Banerjee V/s . Sattebdranath Bose National Center and a case reported in 1999 1 LLJ page 432 SC- Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. UP State Agro Industries Corporation. In support of his case that the termination in question is hit by the mischief of Section 25F of the ID Act and does not fall under Section 2 ( 00 ) (bb) of the ID Act, he cited the rulings reported in 1997 LLR 589 Bombay High Court and 1997LLR 366 Rajasthan High Court .

12. After having gone through the records. I find very much substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. A careful reading of month's notice issued to the first party at Ex. M10 , termination order dated 31-12-93 atEx . M11 read with the charge memos at Ex. M9 referred to supra coupled with the memos at Ex . M6 to M8 , it can be very well gathered that the termination notice at Ex . M10 and the termination order at Ex . M11 had its foundation in the aforesaid memos at Ex. M6 to M8 and letter notice at Ex. M9 writtenby the Dy. ChiefEngineer, KRCL, Honavar to the Chief Engineer , KRCL , Karwar . Those memos and the said letters in order arc as under :-

Ex. M6 : Through Assistant Engineer/Ankola :

11. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party argued that the case on hand was not a case of termination simplicitor but by way of punishment attaching stigma to the career of the first party disabling him to seek any future employment , elsewhere. His contention was that in order to appreciate this fact , notice of termination of Ex . М10 and termination order at Ex. M11 , cannot be read in isolation to the alleged memos at Ex. M6 to M9 issued to the first party. He contended that if all these documents are to be read together , would make it abundantly clear that the termination order was founded and based on the aforesaid 3 notices/charge memos particularly the Memos at Ex . M8 & M9 issued on the allegations that the performance of the first party was not found to be satisfactory as he was found to be sleeping while on duty. Hisnext contention was that the appointment of the first party cannot be linked with any project as there is no mention of such project in Ex. M2 issued to the first party.

During the inspection of Reach- XII works in the afternoons of 28-8-93 you were not found in Ankola forjoint inspection of Reach XIII works . This clearly 10124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

shows that, you have deserted the work place without prior permission which is highly irregular.

Please note that, this letter is issued as a warning letter and any recurrence of such incident will have tobe viewed seriously. Please acknowledge reccipt ofthisletter.

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] currencyofthe post (31-12-93 ) by serving due notice . It will be liability for Konkan Railway if such staff are continued in service .

Sd/- ChiefEngineer. KRCL/Honavar

Sd/-

S.Balakrishna.

Dy. Chief Engineer

Ex. M7 : Punctuality in attendance:

On 10-9-93, when I was proceeding to Karwar I notice you to proceeding to site near Karwar Post at 8.45 A. M. Your site work being at Ankola, it is surprising to note that you are not punctual in attendance to your works . It is also reported on earlier occasions by AEN , that you are not regular andpunctual in attendance, which is highly irregular.

You are hereby warned to be careful in future and recurrence of such incident will be viewed seriously. Please acknowledge receipt of the letter.

Sd/-

S. Balakrishna,

Dy. Chief Engineer

Ex. M8 : Negligence at work site:

During my inspection at 00.45 hours on 23-10-93 at T. 5A North face, I found you sleeping inside the site office , with all the doors and windows closed . It was also noted that erection for 153 rings was going on atthat time. Especially when re -erection of the ring was going on inside the tunnel due to unsynımetrical erection of the ring in question , your presence at the site office at that juncture is beyond comprehension. Please note that repetition of such incidents of negligence will invite stern action . This serves as a severe warning .

Sd/-

XEN/ KRCL/Honavar

Ex. M9 : Termination of services on the expiry of the currency of the post :

Shri Shivashankar Vernekar . Foreman has joined Honavar division on 28-9-03 (FN ) as per the above office order. The performance of Shri Vernekar is found to be unsatisfactory and he has been found to be sleeping on duty at Tunnel site office when his presence was very much required inside the tunnel dueto erection problems . He has been issued a charge memo for the same and he refused to receive even the charge memo . He has already been imposed disciplinary actionby Dy . CE /Kumta and warned several times .

Inthe interest of building up a good disciplined and responsible cadre for future of Konkan Railway, he may be terminated from service on expiry of the 13. Therefore , from the perusal of the above said memos and the letter, one cannot buy the arguments advanced by the management that the order terminating the services of the first party was termination simplicitor and not a termination Punitive in nature attaching stigma to the career of the first party. The aforesaid memos read along with the aforesaid letter would speak to the fact that the first party workman allegedly committed misconduct while discharging his duties as he was found sleeping on duty. The first memo says that he was not found in Ankola forjoint inspection and thereby deserted the work place . Ex. M7 says that he was not punctual to his works and in attendance on many occasions . Ex. M8 says that he was found sleeping inside the site office with all the doors and windows closed and Ex . M9 is the report against the first party to say that his services were not found satisfactory as he was found sleeping on duty and that he also refused to receive the charge memo issued for the same and therefore, he has already been imposed disciplinary action and warned several times . Therefore , these documents if read together along with termination order as well as termination notice , one must attach due significance and weight to the arguments advanced by the first party that the termination in question resulted on account of alleged bad past service record of the first party. It is in this view of the matter one must further attach weightto the contention of the first party that this notice of termination atEx. M10 and termination order at Ex . M11 had their foundation in Ex. M6 to M9 . In fact there is no word used in the termination order. that the services of the first party were found unsatisfactory but one can easily make out that this termination order was at the result of the grievance of the management in issuing aforesaid charge memos to the first party and letter at Ex . M9 referred to supra . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in the above said case of Jarnail Singh & Others while dealing with sinular question at paras 52 and 33 laid down the principle as under:

"Para 32 : The position is now well settled on a conspectus of the decisions referred to herein before that the mere form of the order is not sufficient to hold that the order of termination was innocuous and the order of termination of the services of a probationer or of an adhoc appointee is a termination simplicitor in accordance with the terms of the appointment without attaching any stigma to the employce concerned. It is the substance or the order i.e. the attending circumstances as well as the basis ofthe order that have to be taken into consideration . In other words , when an allegation is made by the 10125 भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

employee assailing the order of termination as one based on misconduct , though couched in innocuous terms , it is incumbent on the Courtto lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as the basis and foundation of the order complained of. In other words , the court , in such case will lift the veil and will see whether the order was made on the ground of misconduct, inefficiency or. not . In the instant case we have already referred to as well as quoted the relevant portions of the averments made on behalf of the state respondent in their several affidavits alleging serious misconduct against the Petitioners and also the adverse entries in the service records of these petitioners , which were taken into consideration by the Departmental Selection Committee without giving them any opportunity of hearing and without following the procedure provided inArt . 311 (2 ) of the Constitution of India . While considering the fitness and suitability of the appellants for the purpose of regularizing their services in accordance with the Government Circular made in October 1980. Thus the impugned orders terminating the services of the appellants on the ground that " the posts are no longer required " are made by way of punishment.

departmental ertquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and will be bad. In the instant case though charge memos were issued against the first party alleging the misconduct ofdereliction of duty and committing misconduct found sleeping on duty but unfortunately no departmental enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of hearing was given to the first party despite the fact that he made a representation dated 10-2-94 at Ex . W5 in response to the termination notice at Ex . M10 (Ex. W4) . In all fairness the management was supposed to afford a personal hearing to the first party when he pleaded innocence and sought for enquiry into the matter as to how his services were found unsatisfactory . It appears that management was predetermined to get rid of the services of the first party and therefore , resorted to issuing the memos at Ex . M6 to M8 making it the basis by way of letter Ex. M9 to build up a case against the first party and then to terminate his services . Therefore , the management now cannot be allowed to say that the termination order is not linked with the aforesaid charge memos issued to the first party. Therefore , in the light of the principle laid down by their Lordship ofSupreme Court in the aforesaid two cases , it is to be held that the termination order in question had its foundation in the aforesaid memos and letter at Ex. M6 to M9 and i.e. why it cannot be said that it was not a termination punitive in nature attaching stigma to the career ofthe first party thereby disabling him to secure any future employment as well .

15. Now, coming to the question whether the appointment of the first party was on project side , as argued for the learned counsel for the first party, Clause 1 ofthe offer of appointment at Ex. M2 is very much silence on this point . It isto be seen that during the course of cross- examination ofWWI on behalf of the management though it was elicited from his mouth to say that his appointment as a Technical Mate was project base but there is no suggestion made to WWI to say that his appointment as a Foreman was also project linked. The contention of the management that the case on hand falls under Section 2(00)(bb) of the ID Act is again of no help . It is not in dispute that since from the date of his appointment as a Technical Mate on 1-10-90, the first party was in service of the management and later as a foreman uptill 31-12-93 . It is again not in dispute that he was in continuous service of the management during the said period . Here we have to take the assistance of Principle laid down by their Lordship ofBombay High Court in the case referred to supra at para 5, it is observed as under:

Para 33 : It is also appears on a consideration ofthe averments made in Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Additional Affidavit sworn by one of the appellants Swinder Singh on August 8, 1984 , which has not been controverted at allby the respondents , that the respondents though terminated the services of the Petitioners on the ground that " these posts are no longer required " have retained and regularized the services of ad hoc employees mentioned in Paragraph 7 as well as ad hoc Surveyors who were recruited later in the said post of Surveyors to the prejudice of the rights of the appellants , thereby violating the salutary principle of equality and non- arbitrariness and want of discrimination and as cnshrined in Arts . 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to refer here to the decision rendered by this court in Sughar Singh's case ( AIR 1974 SC 423 ) where it had been held that the order of reversion reverting the respondent from his officiating appointment to the post of Platoon Commander to the post of permanent Head Constables while retaining 200 other Head Constables who were junior to him in the officiating higher posts of Platoon Commanders was discriminatory and arbitrary being in contravention of the Arts . 14 and 16 of the Constitution. "

Para 5 : I do not find any merit in the above contentions advanced on behalf of the Company by Shri Rele. On facts, the matter may be examined . Firstly, in the present case , the company never pleaded computerization being the ground for not allegedly renewing the Contract of service .

14. Similar was the view taken by their lordship of Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee's case observing thatthe findings were arrived at in enquiry as to misconduct behind the back of the officer or without a regular

2558G1 / 05-18 10126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

circumstances , the Labour Court was right in allowing the reference. "

16. Similarly in above cited Rajasthan case , his lordship had an occasion to observe and uphold the rule of" last come first go " and laid down the principle that since the above said principle was not followed the termination was bad amounting to retrenchment . In the instant case the statement of first party in his examination chief that management prepared seniority list of his category and made those employees permanent as per Ex. W7 has not been challenged in his cross examination . His further statement that two foremen senior to him and about 55juniors to him were made permanent and promoted after the closure of the project was also not controverted in his cross examination . On the other hand the management witness in his cross cxamination to a question as to when the tunnel work has completed , he has shown his ignorance . To a question if the employees appointed as the foreman subsequent to the first party and were junior to him have been made permanent , subsequently, he was also unable to say if those juniors to the first party have been promoted as Junior Engineers then as Section Engineers . Therefore , if we take the statement of MWI showing his ignorance as not denying the said fact and the above said statement of first party on the point . it is crystal clear that the appointment of the first party and others alongwith him was not linked to any project nor was based on any contractual period as undisputedly as the other candidates were promoted to the higher post and retained service . Therefore , this being the case . services of the first party could not have been terminated in the absence of any Domestic Enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and also without the compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act . On the both these counts , the order terminating the services offirst party are liable to be set aside as illegal and void ab initio.

Secondly, in the present case , the company has invoked Section 2( 00 ) (bb) of the said Act, 1947 and since Section 2 (00) (bb) is an exception to the general rule of compliance of Section 25F of the said Act , the burden within the company to prove its case before the Labour Court . If we go through the evidence on record, there is no evidence to show as to when the Company decided to introduce the programme of computerization . The evidence on record further indicates that other co -workers who were also appointed on temporary basis were made permanent. The evidence on record clearly indicates that in any event , computerization took place in March 1989. Lastly, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the workman has worked for 240 days over a period of time and for at least three years he has been treated as temporary employee. Even in the case cited by Shri Rele before me , reported in 1996 1 CLR 328 , the learned single Judge has observed in para 8 of the said judgement that the provisions of Section 2 ( 00) (bb ) have been whittled down by a series of judgments of this court and otherHigh Courts and it cannot be extended to cases where the job continues and the employees work is also satisfactory and yet . periodical renewals are made to avoid regular status to the employee . It is further observed by the learned single Judge that where circumstances indicate that letters of appointment were issued as a camouflage to circumvent provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act or to deny the benefit of permanency to the workman who has worked for 240 days then the Company cannot resort to the provisions of Section 2 (00 ) (bb ) . Lastly, the letter of appointment cannot be treated as a conclusive piece of evidence . We have to see the contents of the letter in the context of the nature ofemployinent and the nature of the work including the period for which a workman has worked during the relevant time . On facts of the case, therefore , the judginent of the learned single Judge in the case of Director of Health Service (Supra ) has no application to the facts of this case . In the present case , the workman has been working for over a period of three years . He has claimed the status of permanency The company has not led evidence to show that on the ground of computerization , they were not willing to renew the contract of employment . On the other hand. the evidence shows that other workers who were also appointed on temporary basis have been made permanent . There is also no evidence to show as to whether those workers were appointed prior in point of time to Shri Pawaskar ( Respondent No. I herein) . There is also no evidence to show as to whether Shri Pawaskar was junior to the other workers and that the work for which Shri Pawaskar was appointed had come to an end . in the above

17. The principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in various cases referred to supra and cited on behalf of the management in fatet will lend support to the case of the first party rather than the management . The above said ruling of their Lordship of Supreme Court in the Dipti Prakash case as seen above , in fact supports the arguments advanced by the first party in holding that termination order is bad if it contains stignia but no regular enquiry has been conducted . Principle laid down in decision reported in 1991 SC 691 will not attract to the facts of the present case . In that case termination was effected on assessment of suitability on consideration of adverse entry and preliminary enquiry report which are not the foundation of the present termination order. Principle laid down by our Hon ble High Court in ILR 1994 Karnataka 242 again. to be distinguished on the facts involved in the case . Moreover, in the light of principle laiddown by the Supreme Court on the point in question 10127

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 25th August , 2005 already discussed above, the management cannot take help of the aforesaid decision .

S.O. 3248.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref: No. 40/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court. Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 24-08-2005.

18. Similarly, the principle laid down in the above said Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar case run against the interest of the management . In the instant case there is a direct nexus between the termination order and the preceding memos and the said letter at Ex . M6 to M9 referred to supra. In the result impugned punishment order terminating the services of the first party cannot be maintained and accordingly is set aside as illegal and void ab initio.

No. L- 12012 /41 /2001 - IR (B - 11 ) | C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 4th August . 2005

PRESENT :

Shri A. R. Siddiqui . Presiding Officer. C. R. No. 40/01

IIParty

IParty

The Managing Director,

Shri K. P. Iqbal Hussain .

SyndicateBank .

S/o Late K. P. Ahad.

HeadOffice,

No... Ist Cross.

Manipal- 576119

IstMain.

Vivekanagar.

Bangalore-560047

AWARD

19. In the light of the aforesaid finding , now the next question would be as to ' what reliefs and benefits the first party is entitled for ' . The termination order being set aside, the natural consequences to follow would be by way of his reinstatement in service . As far as the backwages are concerned, the management on which the burden ofproofwas cast to show any gainful employment ofthe first party while out of its service, has not produced any evidence to the above effect . MWI has not spoken on this aspect . The first party also took no pains to establish before this tribunal that he had not been gainfuliy employed after his services were terminated. Therefore, keeping in view the lapses on the part of both the parties and also taking into consideration of the fact that the first party's services were terminated long back in the yсат 1993 and a long period of more than 10 years has been elapsed as on today from the date of his termination, it appears to me that ends of justice will be met if the first party is ordered to be reinstated in service with 60 per cent ofthe back wages from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement with continuity of service and other attended benefits . Hence the following Award.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section 2 A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L - 12012 /41 / 2001 [ IR ( B - II ) | dated 4th/7th June , 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

The management is directed to reinstate the first party in service with 60 per cent of the backwages from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits .

(Dictated to P.A. , transcribed by her corrected and signed by me 5th August , 2005 ).

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in terminating the services of Shri K. P. Iqbal Hussain former Clerk ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

नई दिल्ली, 25 अगस्त, 2005

2. The first party workman in his Claim Statement challenged the Enquiry Proceedings conducted against him, findings of the enquiry holding him guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against him and the dismissal order passed against him based on the above said enquiry firdings . The averments made in the Claim Statementat Para 2 , 3 , 4, 6 to 12 are as under :

का. आ. 3248- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-8-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/41/2001- आई. आर. ( बी. 11 ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

Para 2 : That the first party workman joined the services of the Second PartyManagement a:: Special Staff with effect from 14-1-1974 . He reported for duty at Central 10128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Accounts Office, Syndicate Bank , Gandhinagar Branch . Bangalore . Ist party worked as Special Staff till 14th July, 1980, and he was promoted as Clerk and posted to Mysore Road Branch of the Second Party management to work upto 1982 and thereafter the first party workman was transferred to Wilson Garden Branch of the Second Party where the first party workman worked for about 7 years i.e. upto 1989. The first party was once again transferred to Gandhinagar Branch and he was posted to work at Currency Chest, as a clerk.

workman on 25-9-1998 accompanied cash remittance of Rs.40 crores in 78 boxed from currency chest, Bangalore . to Currency Chest . Gulbarga . On 25th September, 1998 the cash remittance was arrange by loading 78 boxes in the SLR Udayan Express in the presence of both the custodians i.e. Sri Misrikote and Sri Vasudeva Prabhu . After loading the cash upto 11.30 P. M. both the custodians and the first partyworkman left the railway station after the SLRs were locked and keys were handed over to the police. The first party workman submits that as per the directions and guidelines from RBI the procedure of packing was taken up. Even though the amount under remittance was loaded in the currency chest at Gulbarga on 26-9-1998 , the opening of the box and verifying the bundles commenced on 28-9-1998 . On 28-9-98 and 29-9-98 the first party workman with other officials could open only about 48 boxes containing the currency notes and all the boxes containing the notes were found intact and while opening the contents tallied with the slip maintained . The first party workman subntits that the 30th September, 1st October and 2nd October were the bank holidays on account of Deepavali .

Para 7 : Once again the opening of the boxes was taken up on 5th October . 1998. At this stage, it is necessary to state that the Senior Manager by name Shri Jayaprakash who was also present at the time of opening of 48 boxes on 27th and 28th September , 1998 had left to Darjiling on LFC giving the charge to Shri Vikram Naik , the Branch Manager. It is only thereafter on 2 successive days i.c. on 5th and 6th October in the presence of said incharge officer the opening of the remaining boxes was taken up .

Para : That since from the date of his initial appointment in the year 1974 , he was discharging the duties entrustedto him with utmost devotion and sincerity. Theservice record maintained by the first party workman with the second party management is clean and excellent one inasmuch as there is not even a single black spot in his service career of about 24 years . The first party work man submits that looking at his hard work, sincerity and devotion in discharging his official duties , he was promoted as Clerk in the year 1980 and he was posted to Gandhinagar Branch in the year 1989 and thercafter was asked to work as Potdar. The first party workman continued to work with the Second Party management as clerk/ potdar till he was illegally dismissed from service vide order dated 27-12-1999 . The said order has been served on the first party workman on 4-1-2000 . The first party workman submits thatjon receipt of the order of dismissal , the first party workman submitted a detailed appeal to the appellate authority on 14-3-2000 . Thereafter a personal hearing givento the first party workman , the General Manager vide his order dated 17-4-2000 was pleased to concur with the findings ofthe Disciplinary Authority and confirmed the penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the first partyworkman , by dismissing the appeal .

Para 4 : Thatvide , order dated 14th October, 1998 , passed by the Assistant General Manager, he was placed under suspension on some false and baseless allegations .

The first party workman submitted his reply denying the allegations . Not being satisfied with the reply submitted bythe first party workman, the Second Party Management issued a charge sheet against the first party workman date 14-1-1999 on the same allegations. The first party workman submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 15-2-99 denying the allegations . Not being satisfied with the repiy submitted by the First Party workman the Second Party Management initiated disciplinary proceedings a ainst the first party workman . Thereafter , a farce of an en iry was held, wherein the first party workman was denic , all the reasonable and adequate opportunities to put forth his defence and the entire enquiry was held to utter violation ofthe principles of natural justice.

Para 8 : That on 5-10-98 , the process of emptying the remaining cash boxes and stacking of the cash in the cash bin was taken up . In Box No. 12 which contained the currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination . It was found that one of bundles had only 9 packets instead of 10 packets and thus there was shortage of one packet of 100 picces of Rs . 100 denomination totalling Rs . 10,000 ( Rs . Ten thousand only ) . Once again on 6-10-98 , the first party workman and his joint custodians of the cash , Mrs. Vasumathy of Currency Chest . Gulbarga were supervising the opening of the cash boxes and stocking of the cash in the bin . While keeping the cash inside the bin, she noticod that few bundles of Rs . 100 denominations are lose and falling . On counting the lose packets . it was revealed that there were only 9 packets of Rs . 100 denomination and not 10 as required. Subsequently on verification of empty boxed in one of the boxes kept above the bin, the missing packet of Rs. 100 denomination was traced out. Under the circumstances , the Second Party suspected that the first party workman has surreptitiously removed the bundle and kept the same on the top of the bin.

Para : That he was working as Potdar with the Second Party Management at Currency Chest . Gandhinagar, Bangalore. On remittance duty. the first party

Para 9 : Placing reliance on the above said allegations a charge sheet was issued to the first party 10129

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

the bundles and which was subsequently traced out on the tope of the bin on the same day . The first party workman submits that he is no way responsible for the missing of the cash and for shortage of cash as alleged against him. Even though he was vigilant the incident occurred and he could not avoid the same in spite of his best efforts . The first party workman denied the allegations made against him and he pleaded that he has not committed the misconduct and is innocent of the allegations. The case of the first party workman is that of total denial of the allegations.

workman on 14-1-1999 . Along with the said charges one more allegation was also levelled against the first party workman. The said allegation is that on 5-10-98 , the first party workman initialed in the attendance register pertaining to 3-10-1998 to make it believe that he was present at the currency chest Gulbagra on 3-10-98 and thus made an attempt to gain undue advantage at the cost of the Bank . Accordingly, the charge sheet , dated 14-1-1999 was issued to the first party workman. Thus it was further alleged against the first party workman that he was committed gross misconduct as per the clause 19.5 (j ) ofthe Bipartite Settlement and the first party workman was asked to submit the statement of his defence within 15 days.

3.At para 13 , he contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse inasmush as the evidence adduced in the enquiry was not considered while drawing the findings . The undue weightage was attached to the statements of the management witnesses discarding the defence statement . In fact , there is no evidence on the record to show that the first party committed the misconduct as alleged against him as no witness deposed to the above effect . The findings are based on surmises and conjunctures and therefore , are perverse in nature liable to be set aside .

Para 10 : On receipt of the said charge sheet , the first party workman has submitted detailed reply to the charge sheet on 15-2-1999 denying the charges . In his statement , the first party workman has clearly stated that it is true that he has accompanied the cash remittance of Rs. 40 crores in 78 boxes as Potdar from the Currency Chest. Bangalore to Currency Chest , Gulbarga on 25-9-1998 . But he has denied the charges in toto . The first party workman pleaded that he is innocent of allegations levelled against him and submitted that he has not committed the misconduct and requested the management to exonerate him of the charges levelled against him and not to procced with the enquiry.

Para 11 : That as per the procedure , the packing process was done . The cash hasbeen opened from the boxes in the presence of the joint custodians showing the details of the cash taken from the bin book , which willbe kept on the tables for verification . After verification the cash bundles were packed in the presence of both the custodians as well as the first party workman. After packing work is over, the chest slip has been prepared in duplicate, out of which one slip was kept within the boxes and other one is affixed outside the box. The said slip contains the details and denominations number of pieces and also the value along with total weight. Thereafter, the cash has been taken to the Railway Station and it has been loaded to the train.

4. At para 14, he contended that the Disciplinary Authoritymechanically accepted the findings and imposed the maximum penalty of dismissal, excessive and highly disproportionate comparing to the alleged misconduct in as much as his past clean and excellent service records of 24 years and the duties he discharged as Potdar for the last 8 to 9 years in remitting Rs . 300 crores till date was ignored by the Disciplinary Authority. At Para 15, he averred that he accompanied for remittance of Rs . 40 Crores from Bangalore to Gulbarga there being no proper arrangement made by the management in posting a regular Class I Officer for the remittance purpose . At Para 16 , he averred that had there been the case of the Second Party that the first party has tampered the bundles and removed the cash, he could have been dealt with penal provisions . Inthis case no police complaint has been registered against the first party but against the other employees of the Bank. Therefore , the present charge sheet against him was only a formality to save the skins of the higher officials and as a measure of victimization . At para 17. he contended that merely because he accompanied the cash and there has been shortage of cash for which he is no way responsible . He has been held guilty of the charges merely on suspicion. In fact he ought to have been called upon to make good of the shortage amount when the amount in question and the culprits were not traced out as was being done by the management in other cases . No such opportunity was given to him and he was illegally dismissed from service . In a similar incident occurred immediately after the incident. in question at the same branch at Gulbarga involving shortage ofRs . 20,000, the official was asked to make good ofthe shortage amount . But in his case he was imposed punishment of dismissal adopting the treatment of Para 12 : That after going to Gulbarga . the cash was loaded in the strong room on 26-9-1998. Thereafter . the opening of the boxes was taken up in the presence of the joint custodians . The first party workman submits at Gulbarga on 26-9-1998 , the opening of the box and verifying the bundles was carried out on 28th and 29th September. 1998. The first party workman submits that on 5th October. 1998 , as stated above, when handing over the cash to the joint custodian, it was found a bundle of 100 denomination contained only 9 packets and there was shortage of one packet of Rs . 100 denomination amounting to Rs . 10,000 . The first party workman submits that once again on 6-10-98, similar problem arose and once again there was a packet of Rs . 100 denomination was missing from one of 10130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

8.Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties on Domestic Enquiry issue , my learned Predecessor took up the above saidissue in the first instance , for trial . During the said trial the management examined the Enquiry Officer as MW1 and got marked 8 documents at Ex . Ml to M8. On his part the first party examined himself as WW1 and in his cross -examination Ex . M9 was marked. discrimination. At para 18 , he contended that the police could not trace the cash of Rs . 10,000 which disappeared on 5-10-98 and he ought to have been continued in service like other employees who were equally responsible , particularly, when the police officials have filed ' C ' report on the complaint made by the management against its bank officials. At para 20, he contended that at the time of emptying the boxes not only he was present but also joint custodian and other supporting staff like the Attender and the Peon were present in strong room using their services for emptying the cash boxes . The other bank officials including Smt . Vasumati , one of the joint custodian was present at the time of remittance to be held equally responsible has been set free after Disciplinary Action with the minor punishment and whereas , he was singled outby dismissing him from service.

9. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties on the above said issue , this tribunal by its order dated 16-7-04 recorded a finding to the effect that the Domestic Enquiry held against the first party by the Second Party is fair and proper. Thereupon the matter came to be posted to hear the learned counsels on the perversity of the findings and the quantum of the punishment . In the meanwhile , learned counsel for the firstparty filed an application calling upon the management to produce certain documents and that being allowed, the management produced a list with 5 documents as per the orders and they were marked as Ex . W1 to W5 at the instance of the first party. Thereafter the learned counsels were heard on the above said points and the matter is now posted for award .

10.Before adverting upon the respective arguments/ contentions raised by the parties , it is worthwhileto bring on record the very charges of misconduct levelled against the first party running as under :-

5.At para 21 , as far as the 3rd charge is concerned, he contended that he initialed the attendance register on 3-10-98 . He did not attend the office on 3-10-98 and left Gulbarga with the permission of the Sr. Manager who told thatremittance of the cash will be taken up only 5-10-98 . Therefore , since he remained absent on 3-10-98 with the permission ofthe Manager , he committed no misconduct as alleged against him. In the last para of the Claim Statement he submitted that the punishment of dismissal is illegal, harsh and highly disproportionate keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct alleged, that too not committed by him . He contended that he being the only earning member of the family, he and his family members are on the verge of starvation unable to secure alternate employment and therefore , he may be reinstated in service withall consequential benefits setting aside the dismissal orderpassed against him .

"You have been functioning as Clerk at our Currency Chest, Gandhinagar , Bangalore since 25-5-1989 . While functioning as such , you have , on 25-9-98 accompanied a cash remittance of Rs . 40,00 crores in78 boxes as Potdar from currency chest , Bangalore to Currency Chest Gulbarga and the opening of cash boxes and handing over the cash to currency chest , Gulbarga , commenced from 28th September, 1998 onwards. It is now alleged against you as under :-- 6.The management by its Counter Statement among other things contended that dismissal order has been passed against the first party on a proved misconduct after conducting a fair enquiry as per the principles of natural justice and in accordance with the provisions of Bipartite Settlement . Therefore , the averments made by the first party otherwise are false and incorrect .

7. At para 4 , the management gave the details of charges levelled against the first party to which I will come a little later . At para 6, it was contended that the copy of the report of the enquiry findings was made available to the first party and after having been given an opportunity ofpersonal hearing on proposed punishment of dismissal . the Disciplinary Authority was justified in passing the impugned punishment order. His appeal was also dismissed against the punishment order. Therefore , the punishment ofdismissal was quite proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party . Therefore , the reference is liable to be dismissed ( pleadings with respect to the validity and fairness or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings are omitted there being separate finding on thesaid point)

( 1 ) That on 5-10-98 , when the process of emptying the cash boxes you had accompanied and stacking of the cash in the cash bin was going on in your presence , in box. No. 12 which contained currency notes of Rs . 100 denomination , it was observed that one of the bundles had only 9 packets instead of 10 and thus there was a shortage of one packet ( 100 pieces) of Rs . 100 denomination totallingto Rs. 10,000 . As per clause 7.2 ( f) of the Currency Chest Manual , it is the responsibility of the Potdarto ensure that the correct denomination and quantity of notes as mentioned in the invoice have been packed in each box . Since you have accompanied the cash box No. 12 in the remittance as Potdar, you have failed to ensure that correct denomination and quantity of notes are packed in each box and on account 10131

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10 , 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

of your negligence/failure to do so , there was cash shortage to the tune of Rs . 10,000 in Box No. 12, thereby the bank is exposed to financial loss ofRs . 10,000.

each packet containing Rs . 10,000 in Rs . 100 denomination. He contended that first party as a Potdar only was supposed to carry those boxes to CC Gulbarga for the purpose of remittance to be taken place again in the presence ofjoint custodians namely MW3 and therefore, he cannot be hold guilty of the negligence particularly whenundisputedly there was no tampering ofthe boxes during the course of transit and till they reached to CC Gulbarga and handed over to the joint custodian there for the purpose of remittance.

12.Whereas , learned counsel for the management submitted that under the currency chest manual it is the duty of the Potdar to see that the cash was properly counted, verified and stacked in the boxes in his presence under a detailed slip to be prepared with regard to the quantity of the amount , denominations of the notes packets and bundles etc. in the presence of joint custodian. Therefore, he cannot disown his responsibility by saying that it is a joint custódians alone who were responsible to seeand follow the correct procedure as per the CC manual and it is they alone should be held responsible for the negligence caused resulting into the shortage of money under remittance .

(2) That on 6-10-98 , while Vasumati , one of the Jt. Custodians of Currency Chest was supervising the opening of the cash boxes and stacking the cash in the Bin in your presence, she went out of the cash vault leaving the cash bindoor unlocked and leaving you alone in the cash vault for the purpose ofcalling the Attender for assisting you in pushing the cash box near the bin. Immediately on her return , while keeping the cash inside the bin, Ms. Vasumathi noticed few packets of Rs . 100 denomination are loose and falling . On counting the loose packets , it revealed that there were only 9packets and not 10 as required. Subsequently, on verification of empty boxes, in one of the boxes kept above the bin, the missing packet of Rs . 100 denomination was found. The above circumstances goes to show that you removed one packet of Rs . 100 amounting to Rs . 10,000 surreptitiously and kept the same on the tope ofthe cash bin .

13. In order to appreciate the respective contentions ofthe parties, let me bring on record the very observations inthe findings of the Enquiry Officer found on pages 8 , 9 & 10 relating to the 1st Charge levelled against the first party.

Regarding Cash shortage of Rs . 10,000 on 5-10-98

(3 ) That , though you were not present at the Currency Chest , Gulbarga, on 3-10-98 , you initialed in the Attendance Register pertaining to 3-10-98 to make believe that you were present/ on duty at Currency Chest , Gulbarga on 3-10-98 . Thus you made an attempt to gain undue advantage at the cost of the Bank .

The above acts on your part constitute "Gross Misconduct " within the meaning of clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement . You are therefore charged with the gross misconduct of doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank vide clause No. 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement . You shall continue to be under suspension in terms of Suspension Order No. 1/98/ IRC/ S dated 14-10-98. You are requiredto submit your statement of Defence, if any, within 15 days of receipt of this chargesheet by you " .

There is another allegation against the CSE that because of his negligence , there was cash shortage to the tune of Rs . 10,000 in box No. 12 contained currency notes of Rs . 100 denomination, that one of the bundles had only 9 packets instead of 10 , thus there was a shortage of 1 packet ( 100 pieces ) .As per Manual of instructions ( MEX - 7 ) Para 7.2 it is the responsibility of Potdar to ensure that the correct denomination and quantity of notes as mentioned in the invoice are packed in each box . In the instant case. the CSE had been functioning as Potdar for 9 years and he was working at Currency Chest. Bangalore since 1989. Therefore . CSE must know the above provision . This provision has been quoted inthe chargesheet . The Currency Chest Sr. Manager (MW -6) also relied on this document. It is not in dispute that there was a cash shortage of Rs . 10,000 on 5-10-98 in box No. 12 which was opened in the presence of the Potdar . It is also not the case of the CSE that box No. 12 was opened and stacked in his absence .During the enquiry, at no point of time , he made such a statement . Therefore, how the shortage can occur in box. No. 12 in which cash was kept/ stacked in his presence at Currency Chest , 11. Coming to the 1st charge, learned counsel Shri Vishwanath Bhat representing the first party vehemently argued that the shortage of Rs . 10,000 happened at the time of remittance of Currency Chest : Gulbarga cannot be attributed to the first party as. the counting of the cash and stacking of the bundles in the boxes at CC Bangalore had taken place not on account of negligence of the first party but on account of the joint custodian at Bangalore , namely , MM1 and MW6 Shri M. S. Misrikoti and Shri M. V. Prabhu . He contended that it is they who counted , verified and stacked the Currency in the boxes making a bundle of Rs . 1 lakh in 10 packets 10132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ofthe joint custodians and the Potdar . Who exactly could have been negligent ? According to charge sheet , it is Potdar. Therefore , when I enquired the Potdar about the allegations that he was negligent . he came out with a detailed answer that on the day ofremittance arranged at Currency Chest , Bangalore. RBI Inspectors were present , the cash verified by them was directly arranged for remittance to Gulbarga that since the RBI Inspectors verified the cash, therc was no scope for the CSE to doubt any shortage . that said cash was brought by the attenders for stacking in the boxes and that though CSE also verified the cash, due to heavy cash arranged , the particular bundle could have missed proper observation by him. He also added that his action was unintentional. In my view the CSE's answer amounts to admission to negligence on his part . His answer was because of heavy cash, he would have not properly verified that particular bundle at Currency Chest , Bangalore . Further , though the CSE pleads that the RBI Inspectors were present and that they verified the eash the CSE did not bring this points during the cross - examination of MW6 who was incharge of Currency Chest . Bangalore . The CSE also did not appear as a witness . Therefore , the presence of RBI Inspectors has not been established in the enquiry. The CSE's submission that the cash verified by RBI Inspectors was directly arranged for remittance to Gulbarga cannot be accepted because as per manual of instruction it is the Potdar who has to be satisfied with the correctness of the eash bundles . The CSE's further submission that there was no scope to doubt any shortage when the cash was already verified by RBI Inspectors is against the rules of the Bank . In other words the CSE unnecessarily and without any basis bringing the RBI Inspectors in picture . It is all done by CSE only to cover up his lapses . Had the CSE performed his duty at Currency Chest , Bangalore sincerely as required ofhim . He should not have pleaded beforc the enquiryforum that his act was unintentional he might have not properly verified the bundle . cash counted by RBI Inspectors would be directly sent for remittance and that there could be no scope for shortage of the cash verified by the RBI Inspectors. In the above circumstances the allegation framed against the CSE that he was negligent is fully established . "

Bangalore . The CSE admits having verified the correctness of the cash kept in Box No. 12 at Currency Chest Bangalore . Though he had verified, still he felt that, that particular bundle might have missed proper observation by him while verifying the same . The CSE further said that it was unintentional and entire cash was taken in good faith and without negligence . The CSE's plea that there was no negligence cannot be accepted. As it was his dutyto ensure that correct denomination . and quantity of notes as mentioned in the invoice kept in each box, the CSE failed from his duty and failed to ensure that the correct quantity of notes werekept in box No. 12. Therefore , the CSE is at fault . MEX- 1 is the schedule of remittance of Rs . 40 crores sent to Currency Chest . Gulbargafrom Currency Chest, Bangalore . It shows number of boxes.MEX- 2 is Potdar Certificate . It shows the total value of remittance , number of boxes , the distance to be travelled etc. MEX- I and MEX- 2 have been signed by the Potdar for having accepted 78 boxes containing the currency ofRs. 40 crores . MEX- 3 is thedetails ofremittance . It confirms that the packet of notes have been verified and packed in the presence ofPotdar and the manager, Currency Chest. Bangalore . Regarding the procedure . MW6 has explained that the joint custodians take out the cash from respective bins same is kept on the table for verification . After verification of cash by the joint custodians the Potdar verifies the cash , packetwise . andafter confirming the correctness , the cash will be stacked in the boxes . Once it is stacked , before mailing the boxes , once again the joint custodians will verifythe number ofbundles. Then stacking of the boxes will be done immediately. Regarding the above procedure CSE also confirms before the enquiry forum that it was his duty to ensure the correctness of each bundle which contains 10 packets. He also would prepare the remittance schedule and Potdar certificate . This boxes would be opened at Currency Chest , Gulbarga in his presence and the joint custodians MEX - 4 , a letter dated 9-10-98 shows that while stacking Rs . 10 denomination bundles from box No. 12 on 5-10-98 at currency chest , Gulbarga, it was found that one of the bundles had only 9 packets instead of 10. Thus there was a shortage of Rs . 10,000 . Immediately, Currency Chest , Gulbarga raised a Dr. IBA (MEX- 4 ) onCurrency Chest, Bangalore for Rs . 10,000 and requested them to respond. But as per the evidence made available before the enquiry , this Dr. IBA was not responded. It shows that one packet has been removed from one bundle ofRs . 100 denomination , which contained 10 packets . It is an act of pilferage by some one who handled the cash . This Pilferage has taken place because of negligence on the part

14. After having gone through the oral and documentary evidence brought on record before the enquiry officer and the aforesaid discussion made by the Enquiry Officer witlı his observations and reasonings given on the charge holding the workman guilty of the misconduct i.e. committing negligence , I do not find much substance in the arguments advanced by the first party 10133 भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

and afterthought story brought in picture falsely implicating the first party to put up a show that a drastic action has been taken in whole of the episode and in the process the first party was made victim and singled out dismissing him from service. He contended that first ofall undisputedly there has been no evidence and it is also not the case of the management that the first party was caught removing a packet of Rs . 10,000 from out of the bundles of Box No. 5 and kept it in Box No. 42 placed above the bin in the Strong Room.

16. Secondly, the story of the management in framing the charge in question is simply based on suspicion taking the help of belated and afterthought statement of MW3 , one of the twojoint Custodians at CC, Gulbarga alleging that at one point of time she went out ofthe Vault allowing the first party alone to be inside the strong room and therefore he must be the person who must have removed cash in question from Box No. 5 and kept in Box No. 42 placed above the bin . He contended that the entire basis ofthe charge in question is the allegation that when MW3 went out of the Strong Room , the first party committed the mischief in removing the cash from the Box No. 5 and kept in Box No. 42. He contended that it is on the basis of the above said statement given by MW3 in her Examination Chief, the enquiry officer jumped to conclusion that the first party being alone inside the Vault must have committed the said mischief intending to misappropriate the said cash. He contended that enquiry officer did not appreciate the statement of MW3 in her cross - examination and so also the statement of MW5 making it very clear that at no point oftime first party was alone inside the Vault and therefore, had no opportunity to commit such mischief. Enquiry Officer very conveniently based his findings on the statement of MW3 made in Examination Chief not at all considering her statement in cross -examination coupled her statement at Ex. M8 made before MW7, Investigation Officer which has been conspicuously silent over the crucial allegations rather the very basis of the charge levelled against the first party workman that first party was alone in the Vault when MW3 went out of the Vault to call some Attender to help him to push Box No. 5 from . nearby Cupboards to bin No. 106. Therefore , learned counsel invited the attention of this tribunal to re- appreciate the evidence brought on record before the EnquiryOfficer in order to see whether the charge on hand has been proved against the first party by any sufficient and legal evidence . He submitted that when admittedly the Peons and Attenders were helping the joint custodians in stacking the currency bundles into the bin , it was too much for the management to hold the first party alone responsible for removal of one of the packets from any of the bundles in Packet No.5 to be placed in Packet No.42.

workman . The procedure with regard to the remittance made from one Currency Chest to the other has been very much brought on record in the testimony of the management witnesses and that has not been denied and challenged by the first party workman . In fact he had also spoken to very same procedure in his claim statement as noted above . It is no doubt true that having regard to the above said procedure , the joint custodians at CC , Bangalore were very much answerable and responsible for the correctness and due verification of the amount to be kept in the boxes being remitted to Currency Chest, Gulbarga . The first party workman as a 'Potdar ' under the CC manual was supposed to present at the time ofcounting the cash , making of the packets and putting them into bundles to be stacked into the boxes , the cash was supposed to be verified and properly kept in the boxes before they were taken outside the strong room for the purpose of remittance . It was again necessary for the first partyto be present at the receiving end i.e. at CC, Gulbarga and to hand over the cash amount to the joint custodian thereunder due verification. If any shortage comes to light at the receiving end then it will amount to say that, that shortage either has taken place at CC Bangalore or on account of some Pilferage at CC , Gulbarga . As far as pilferage is concerned it is not the case of the management . The case of the management is that the shortage of Rs. 10,000 must have taken place at CC , Bangalore itself due to the negligence of the first party when the cash was being stacked in the boxes to be carried to CC, Gulbarga. This aspect of the case has been fairly dealt with by the learned Enquiry Officer and he has assigned valid and convincing reasonings as to how the first party as a Potdar can be held responsible for the shortage occurred in the remittance of the cash from CC , Bangalore to CC Gulbarga . Merely, because there was no tampering of the boxes during the course of transit or till they were delivered at CC, Gulbarga, it cannot be said that the first party as a 'Potdar' cannot be held responsible for the shortage occurred . To prove the charge of shortage as noted above , there has been sufficient and legal evidence pressed into service on behalf of the management and on the basis of the such evidence learned Enquiry Officer therefore, has cometo the right conclusion holding the workman guilty ofmisconduct levelled against him i.e. he was negligent in handling the cash for the purpose of remittance . Therefore , going by the observations and the reasonings supporting the findings of the enquiry officer brought on record, it cannot be said that it is a case of ' no evidence ' or ' no legal evidence ' to establish the charges of misconduct of negligence levelled against the first party. The findings of the enquiry officer on the point in my opinion suffered from no perversity and therefore , need no interference at the hands of this tribunal .

17. As against this , the learned counsel for the management supported the findings of the enquiry officer holding the first party guilty of the misconduct as against 15.Now coming to the 2nd Charge , learned counsel forthe first party argued that it is a make believe, improved

2558 G1/05-19 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 10134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19, 1927

イ

the strong roomdoor . Therefore , from all these answers put together it can be very safely gathered is that MW3 never stepped out of the strong room to call any attender so as to help the first party pushing box No. 5 from cub board to bin No. 106. If we go by the above said statement ofMW3 elicited from her mouth in the aforesaid answers givenby her to the various questions put to her on behalf ofthe first party, Presenting Officer and so also the enquiry officer, the statement made by her in examination chief that she went out of the strong room to call the said attender must collapse on its own weight. It is very interesting to note at this stage that the story built up by the management that MW3 went out of the strong room and the first party had opportunity to commit the mischief finds absolutely no mention in her statement at MEX. 8 made before the Enquiry Officer. This important piece ofevidence i.e. the statement of MW3 which must have been made the basis of the charge against the first party ( there was no other complaint either by MW3 or by any other authority against the first party about the alleged misconduct ) has not at all been discussed and taken into consideration by the enquiry officer though he referred to it in his enquiry report.

19. It was well argued for the first party that the above said statement at Ex . MEX. 8 which was made by MW3 , three days subsequent to the incident on hand is absolutely silent on this crucial aspect of the case . In this statement MW3 while speaking to the remittance of cash taken place at CC , Gulbarga in her presence on 3-10-98 . 5-10-98,6-10-98 and 8-10-98 she stated as under:

ChargeNo. 2 levelled against him. From the reading ofthe discussion of evidence of MW3 and the reasonings given by the enquiry officer in taking the charge in question proved against the first party as argued on his behalf, it canbeverywell seen that the Enquiry Officer just referred tothe statement of MW3 made in her examination chiefto the effect that on 6-10-98 the CSE ( first party) was pulling Box No. 5 with great difficulty so she went out of the strong room to bring Chandrakanth or Shri Niranjan (Attenders) to help the first party to drag the box. When she returned, she found that the first day had taken the box near Bin No 106 then she and the first party started stacking the cash from Box No. 5 into the bin which was half filled with the bundles from box No. 42 loose packets when already stacked bundle fell on her hand, she stopped stacking the bundles and gave all the loose packets to the firstpartyto tie them into a bundle and it was found that therewere only 9 packets and not 10. She searched all around inside the Bin but in vain . Therefore , based on the above said statement of MW3 , as could be read from the findings, the enquiry officer arrived at the conclusion that whenMW3 was outside the strong room to call the above said Attenders, the first party must have or might have committed the mischief of remove of cash and therefore , he was held guilty of the misconduct alleged . Now the question arises as to whether the Enquiry Officer was justified in relying upon the above said statement ofMW3 made in Examination Chief alone so as to jump to the above said conclusion ignoring her statement in cross examination and her statement made on 9-10-98 before the Investigation Officermarked during the enquiry at MEX.8.

"I joined duty on 3-10-98 . after I left Gulbarga on 26-9-98 after acknowledging the receipt of 78 boxCS from CC Bangalore . On 26-9-98 we have loaded all the 78 boxes in the chest and left at 5.30 P.M.

On 3-10-98 when I joined 48 boxes were already stacked and 30 boxes were yet to be stacked we did not open any box on 3-10-98 . On 5-10-98 nine boxCS were opened and stacked. While stacking from box No. 12. I observed a bundle containing 9 packets . while verifying the bundles before stacking it in the Binimmediately I brought the fact of deficit to the notice of the Potdar present there. After stacking the entire box I asked Potdar to give the information toBangalore chest . In the evening Mr. K. V. Nayak. Manager , Station Bazar, who was also Jt . Custodian for the day was informed about everything . Mr. Nayak was not present while opening the box No. 12 and during the observation of the deficit we drew Dr. IBA on CC Bangalore for the deficit. On 6-10-98 and 7-10-98 the stacking continued. On8-10-98 after the completion of stacking of all the boxes we started searching all the boxes that were already opened to see whether any packet is left unnoticed in any box . When that sort of a thing was not found we started verifying all the Bins that are 18. Learned counsel for the first party has drawn the attention of this tribunal to the answers given by MW3 against the various questions in her cross examination so as to suggest that at no point of time first party was alone in the Strong Room and that MW3 was never outside the strong room. Her answer to question No. 20, as to how far she might have walked from the Vaultto call Shri Chandrakanth For that she stated that she walked upto the Grill door. To the question as to what is the distance between the grill door and the safe door ? She stated that itwas just one step. To the question as to whether she could see a person standing at the grill door from the placewhere Mr Iqbal ( first party ) was trying to drag the box ? She gave the answer saying that if box is near the cupboard i.e. in its original position she can see a person near the grill gate . To question No. 24 when asked as to whether she personally saw Mr. Iqbal tampering the bundle ofcurrency from the bin and keeping the currency packet ofRs . 10,000 in Box No. 42 on 6-10-98 ? Her answer was that she did not see . In her re - examination by the management representative to a question as to what was the approximate distance between the cub boards and bin No. 106 ? Her answer was about 10 feet . To question No. 1 put to her by the enquiry officer himself as to from where she called the Attenders or PTS ? Her answer was from 10135

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

stacked with Rs . 100 denomination received in the 2nd remittance to see whether there is any bundle with 11 packets . On 8-10-98 we found out one bundle with 9 packets in the bin No. 47. The matter was reported immediately over the phone to CC, Bangalore.Meanwhile on 6-10-98 while stacking from boxNo. 5, a bundle from the Bin No. 106 was found to contained 9 packets . The missing packet was subsequently traced from the box No. 42. The stacking ofwhich was already completed. This matter was immediately brought to the notice ofMr. K. V. Nayak , Manager , Station Bazar and also the Jt. Custodian for the day. Potdar was present during stacking verifying the bundle. "

was all along inside the strong room and that means to say that she never went outside the strong room on the above said date . This statement of MW5 was again not at all considered and appreciated by the Enquiry Officer in its proper perspective . The arguments advanced by the first party that the story of the management to show that at one point of time first party alone was inside the safe/ strong room so as to commit the mischief was improved and after -thought story built up by the management cannot bebrushed aside lightly. It is on record that for the shortage taken place on 5-10-98 , MW3 without any loss of time made a report at MEX. 4 reporting the incident to the CC, Bangalore and also called upon the first party to inform the incident. Whereas , admittedly in her own words , MW3 never made any report for the incident said to have been take place on 6-10-98 and her explanation to that was that asthe cash was traced she had shown gesture of forgiving the incident . If really MW3 had a slightest doubt or suspicion in her mind that the mischief was committed by the first party in removing the cash either from box No. 5 or from bin No. 106 , she would have been the last person not to bring to the notice of this fact to the notice above said Mr. Nayak (MW4 ) the other joint custodian along with her at CC, Gulbarga. She must have also reported this incident to Mr. Mishrikote and Mr. Prabhu, the joint Custodians at CC Bangalore (MW1 and MW6 ). Therefore, the conduct ofMW3 in not informing or taking the serious note of the fact of either missing of the cash or tracing it out and at the same time not suspecting the first party for having committed any such mischief would tell tale up on the story of the management implicating the first party for the charge alleged against him . It is also to be notedthat no complaint either by MW3 or by any authority much less MW4 was made either to the higher authority or to the joint custodian at CC, Bangalore for the incident which took place on 6-10-98 . It is for the first time on 9-10-98 whenMW3 made her statement before MW7 , she reported the said incident but mentioned nothing about involvement offirst party in removing the cash from Box No. 5 or bin No. 106 or keeping it in box No. 42. Therefore , as argued for the first party the story put forth by the management byway of Second Charge against the first party is by way of improved and after- thought attempt by it to implicate him so as to put up a show that the management did not take lightly the shortages of cash taken place on 5-10-98 and 6-10-98 and in the process the first party was made the victim.

21. As couldbe seen from the evidence brought on record before the Enquiry Officer except MW3 and MW5, evidence of other witnesses is not at all relevant for the purpose i.e. to speak to the alleged incident . MWI was dropped in place of MW6 . MW2 was not the joint custodian as on 5-10-98 . MW4 in his statement has made it clear that he was visiting the strong room at the end of 20. As could be seen from her statement when she spoke to the incident dated 6-10-98 she only stated that while stacking from box No. 5 a bundle from the bin No. 106 was found to contain 9 packets and the missing packet was subsequently traced from the box No. 42 the stacking ofwhich was already completed and this matter was immediately brought to the notice of the Manager , Shri K. V. Nayak. She said nothing about her leaving the strong room leaving first party alone there unlocking bin No. 106 and that she returned back after some time to find that box No. 5 was already pushed from nearby cup board to nearby bin No. 106. This was the story for the first time brought in picture by way of another statement alleged to have been made by MW3 on 9-10-98 before the Investigation Officer. It is very interesting to note that the above said statement is neither signed by MW3 nor has been marked during the course of enquiry. The statement of her marked during the course of enquiry is at Ex. MEX 8and that should have been taken note of and appreciated by the learned enquiry officer to test veracity of her statement made before him in her examination chief. He never discussed this material piece of evidence nor as noted above , the statement of MW3 in her cross- examination suggesting that she never came out of the strong room leaving the first party all alone there so as to commit the mischief alleged. The fact that MW3 never came out of the strong room to call the attender to help the first party also has been very much admittedly the management witness , MW5 in his cross -examination . To question No. 3 put to him as to whether he heard Smt . Vasumathi (MW3 ) calling the attender from the safe on that day ? His answer was in the affirmative stating that he heard Smt . Vasumathi calling the attender from inside the safe. To question No. 10, very interestingly when asked whether he observed on 6-10-98 any one of the custodian singly remaining inside the safe room ? Answer given by MW5 was that on 6-10-98 Smt . Vasumathi alone was there inside the safe. Therefore , the above stated statement of MW5 instead of substantiating the case of the management that at some point of time first party was alone inside the strong room would go to show that MW3 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005 /BHADRA 19 , 1927

10136

the matter very serious by adding the number of charges . There was no mention of this charge as per the suspension order against the first party as argued for the first party and notdenied on behalf of the management. It came into picture only by way of charge sheet. It is the case of the first party that he had left Gulbarga to Bangalore on 3-10-98 with the permission of the Branch Manager on an understanding that the remittance work will be taken up only on 5-10-98 . However, he did not dispute the fact that he initialed the attendance register showing his presence on 3-10-98 without the permission of the authority concerned. In fact for such a minor lapse on the part ofthe firstparty the manager concerned could have been asked him to seek leave on the above said date or else he will be taken as absent on that day. He also could have issued a memo to the first party as to why he signed the register without his permission . Nothing of the sort was done and onone fine morning it was made one of the issues by way of issuing the charge sheet on hand . However, since first party admittedly did not take permission of the concerned authority putting his initial in the attendance register nor applied for leave for the said date he has to be held responsible for the lapse in question. The findings given by the Enquiry Officer holding the first party responsible for the said charge therefore , need not be interfered.

the stacking of the cash into the bin and was going outside the strong room he being the Manager at Station Bazar branch , Gulbarga holding the additional charge of custodian at CC , Gulbarga . MW6 is one of the two joint custodians at CC, Bangalore and MW7 is the Investigation Officer. Therefore , the only relevant evidence to speak to the incident in question was the evidence of MW3 and MW5 and as we have been above their statements in examination chief have been very much shaken and demolished in their cross - examination when they came out to speak to the fact that MW3 never came out of the strong room leaving the first party alone inside there. More over as argued for the first party neither MW3 who was inside the strong room nor anybody else saw the first party removing the cash either from box No. 5 or from bin No. 106 so as to keep it inside the box No. 42 placed above the said bin . Then it is not understandable how the management could hold the first party alone responsible for removal of the cash fromt the box or from the bin andto keep in box No. 42. It has come in the evidence that there were two attenders namely Niranjan and Chandrakanth helping the first party and MW3 in opening the boxes and stacking the bundles in the bin and at one point of time MW5 also had come inside the strong room being called by MW3 . This mischief might have been done by somebody other than the first party and MW3 present in the strong room on the date of incident took place . Undisputedly, the cash in question was never found on the person of the first party either while he was inside the strong room or while he was going out of it after having completed the stacking work ..

22. In this context one cannot lose sight of the fact that the first party is in the service of the management have been unblemished service record of about 24 years . He is said to have worked as a Potdar for a period of 8 to 9 years handling as huge as Rs. 300 crores for the purpose of remittance and therefore , it was too much for the management to point the finger against the honesty and integrity of the first party workman levelling the silly charge that too without any basis just based on assumptions and presumptions . Therefore , as argued for the first party the findings of the enquiry officer based on surmises and conjuncture and not based on any legal 01 sufficient evidence certainly suffered from perversity and are liable to be set aside at the hand of this tribunal . In the result the findings of the enquiry holding the first party guilty of the Charge No. 2 are hereby set aside as perverse.

24. Now, the next question to be considered would be as to ' what the punishment first party deserved when the serious charge of misconduct of removal of the cash has not been established' . The first party has produced before this tribunal the punishment order copies in respect ofthe joint custodians Shri Mishrikote and Prabhu at CC , Bangalore who were charge sheeted for the shortage took place on 5-10-98 , the punishment of reduction in basic payby one stage in time scale of pay with immediate effect for a period of one year noted down by the Disciplinary Authority was modified by the Appellate Authority making it for a period of 6 months instead of one year vide Ex . W1 in case of Mr. Prabhu . For the other joint custodian . similar was the punishment imposed for the aforesaid shortage taken place on 6-10-98 vide Ex . W4 . For incident of shortage of Rs . 20,000 and Rs . 10.000 detected on 8-10-98 and 20-10-98 for Mr. Jayaprakash ( Ex . W2 ) was charge sheeted . He was awarded the punishment of 'Censure' . Similarly MW4 , Mr. Nayak for the incident of shortage taken place on 6-10-98 being charge sheeted and heldguilty was also " Censured ' . MW3 for the incident on account of shortage taken place on 6-10-98 was held to be negligent in performing her duties and ultimately by way ofpunishment she was also Censured. Therefore , keeping inview the yardstick adopted by the management in taking a lenient view against the aforesaid banking officials for the incident of shortage and taking into account the fact thatthose officials of the bank also sailed in the same boat inwhich first party was sailing , similar punishment can be meted out to him . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a 23.Now coming to the 3rd Charge level. d against the first party that despite he being absent at the strong room on 3-10-98 he initialed the attendance register on 3-10-98 as well as on 5-10-98 , undisputedly. to make it clear that he was present at CC Gulbarga on 3-10-98 and that it was an attempt by him to gain undue advantage at the cost of the bank. As argued for the first party it is again an attempt on the part of the management to make 10137

भारत का राजपत्र: सितंबर 10, 2005/ भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 26th August, 2005 decision reported in 2002 SC case (L & S) 909 had laid down the principle that in a case where three workmen on almost identical charges found guilty of the misconduct in connection with the same incident they were found guilty in separate proceedings one of the them cannot be singled out for punishment of dismissal . At this stage , past record be noted.

S.O. 3249.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal , Ajmer as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Board of Secondary Education and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 26-8-05.

[No. L-42012/293/99- IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

25. As far as 3rd Charge is concerned it is quite minor in nature and might invite minor punishment . In the result the punishment of dismissal passed against the first party is hereby set aside substituting it by way of lesser punishrnent of withholding his two annual increments for aperiod of 2 years from the date of impugned punishment order.

न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर ( राज. )

पीठासीन अधिकारी:

अतुल कुमार जैन , आर एच जे एस

सी आई टी आर-4/2000

1. दिलीप कुमार पुत्र पांचूलाल , निवासी-1342/8 , भगवान गंज, अजमेर ।

बनाम

सेंट्रल बोर्डऑफ सैकेंड्री एज्यूकेशन, जरिये क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी, सीबी एस ई, अजमेर ।

5/2000

2. जितेंद्र कुमार पुत्र ओम प्रकाश, निवासी गोविंदपुरा, अजमेर । 26. Now, coming to the relief, reinstatement and backwages etc. it goes without saying that since the punishment ofdismissal has been set aside , the first party is entitled to reinstatement in service . There has been no evidence let on the part of the management to speak to the fact that the first party has been gainfully employed when he was out of its service. On the other hand the first party has filed an affidavit swearing to the fact that he is not being gainfully employed from the date of the dismissal order. Therefore, keeping in view the fact that the impugned dismissal order was passed in the month of December 1999 and a long period of 6 years has already been elapsed, from that day onwards and the fact that he has been found guilty of the aforesaid charge Nos . 1 & 3 , it appears to me thatends ofjustice will be met if the first party is awarded 75% of the backwages from the date of dismissal order till the date of his reinstatement with all consequential benefits .Hence the following Award :

बनाम

AWARD

क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी , सी बी एस ई , अजमरे ।

6/2000

3. विशाल सिंह पुत्र भैरू सिंह, निवासी 989/32, अलवर गेट, अजमेर ।

बनाम

The management is directed to reinstate the first party workman in service with 75 per cent of the back wages , continuity of service and all other attendant benefits from the date of dismissal till the date of his reinstatement . Two Annual Increments for the period of 2 years are hereby withheld without cumulative effect from the date of impugned punishment order.

क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी, सी बी एस ई, अजमेर । (Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 4th August 2005).

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer उपस्थित:

नई दिल्ली, 26 अगस्त, 2005

श्री बी. एल . सैवरिया, एड. श्रमिक पक्ष की ओर से ।

श्री एल. के. सोगानी, एड. बोर्ड की ओर से ।

दिनांक: 13-5-03

अवार्ड

का. आ. 3249- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बोर्ड ऑफ सैकेन्डरी एजुकेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, अजमेर के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-8-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

भारत सरकार द्वारा भेजे गये उक्त तीनों रेफरेंसों में तथ्य एवं वाद बिंदु लगभग समान है । अतः तीनों रेफरेंसों का समान आदेश के द्वारा सुगमता से निपटारा किया जा सकता है । [सं. एल-42012/ 293/99- आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी 10138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10, 2005/BHADRA 19 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

था । यह गवाह कहता है कि अक्टूबर से मई माह में बोर्ड ऑफिस में कार्य कीअधिकता रहती है । उभय पक्ष के अन्य गवाहान् ने श्री देवदास के बयानों को नहीं झुठलाया है ।

हमारे समक्ष विचारणीय बिंदु यह है कि क्या 28-5-99 को तीनों श्रमिक प्रार्थीगण दिलीप कुमार, जितेंद्र कुमार तथा विशाल सिंह को जूनियर असिस्टेंट के पद से विपक्षी द्वारा टर्मिनेट किया जाना वैधानिक एवं उचित था एर्व यदि नहीं, तो उक्त श्रमिकगण किस अनुतोष के अधिकारी हैं ?

प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण का कहना है कि कांट्रैक्च्युअल अपाईटमेंट की आड़ में विपक्षी बोर्ड धारा 25एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 के प्रावधानों कीअनदेखी कर रहा है तथा 240 दिन का प्रत्येक श्रमिक का एक वर्ष में सेवाकाल पूरा होने पर भी ठसे न तो सेबा में नियमित किया जा रहा है और न ही सेवा में बहाल किया जा रहा है । श्रमिक गण ने स्टेटमेंट ऑफ क्लेम दि. 30-6-2000 को हमारे न्यायालय में पेश किये थे तथा विपक्षी की ओर से जवाब दि. 11-5-01 को पेश किये गये थे । तीनों पत्रावलियों में प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने साक्ष्य में खुद का हलफनामा पेश किया है तथा उससे विपक्षी ने जिरह की है । सभी पत्रावलियों में विपक्षी की ओर से एस. देबदास, क्षेत्रीय अधिकारी , केंद्रीय बोर्ड सैकेंड्रीशिक्षा, अजमेर तथा एम. एल. चौहान, अनुभाग अधिकारी, सीबी एस ई, अजमेर के शपथ पत्र पेश हुए हैं तथा उनसे प्रार्थी श्रमिक- गण के वकील श्री बी. एल. सैवरिया ने जिरह की है । श्रमिक गण की ओरसे दस्तावेजात् प्रदर्श डब. 1 लगाया डब. 8 तथा नियोजक की ओर से हाजरी रजि. की नकलें प्रदर्श एम -1 तथा प्रदर्श एम-2 पेश किये गये हैं ।

श्रमिक पक्ष का तर्क है कि सी बौ एस ई, अजमेर में जूनियर असिस्टेंट का कार्य स्थाई प्रकृति का था तो साल में बारहों महीने चलता था तथा चूँकि सभी तीन श्रमिकगण ने उस पद पर उन्हें नौकरी से हटाये जाने से पूर्व के वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक समय तक लगातार कार्य किया था अतः उनका कहना है कि उन्हें धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के तहत नियमानुसार रिट्रेंचमेंट नहीं किये जाने की वजह से निरंतर सेवा में मान लिया जाये तथा फुल बैंक वेजेज उन्हें 28-5-99 से पुनः सेवा में लिये जाने तक के लिए दिलाये जायें । सभी प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण 2000 रु. के नियत मासिक वेतन पर बोर्ड द्वारा लगाये गये थे । श्रमिक पक्ष का यह भी कहना है कि उनकी सेवाओं को नियमित भी किये जाने के आदेश भी पारित किये जावें ।

इस प्रकरण में हमारे समक्ष उभपक्ष ने स्वीकार किया है कि सभी तीन श्रमिक प्रार्थीगण ने उन्हें नौकरी से हटाये जाने से पूर्व बोर्ड ऑफिस मेंविपक्षी के यहां पर एक वर्ष में लगातार 240 दिन से अधिक समय के लिए जूनियर असिस्टेंट के पद पर दो हजार रु . प्रति माह समेकित वेतन पर कार्य किया है । धारा 2 ( ओओ ) ( बीबी ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 में स्प्ष्ट बताया गया है कि यदि नियोजक अपने यहां श्रमिक को किसी संविदा के तहत नौकरी पर रखता है एवं संविदा की अवधि पूरी होने पर यदि संविदा का नवीनीकरण नहीं किया जाता है जो संविदा अवधि की समाप्ति पर श्रमिक का टर्मिनेशन औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के तहत रिट्रेंचमेंट ( छंटनी ) की परिभाषा में नहीं आयेगा और ऐसे मामलों में जाहिर है कि धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 लागू नहीं की जा सकती है । सीजनल प्रकृति के कार्यों के लिए श्रमिकों को संविदा के तहत निश्चित अवधि के लिए कार्य पर लगाया जाना इंडस्ट्रियल लॉ में अनुचित नहीं माना गया है । माध्यमिक शिक्षा परिषद, यू. पी./अनिल कुमार मिश्रा एआईआर 1994 एस सी पेज 1638 वर्तमान प्रकरण में पूरी तरह लागू होता है । उक्त नजीर में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय की पूर्ण पीठ ने यह निर्धारित किया था कि श्रमिकों में एड हॉक असाइनमेंट पर एज्यूकेशन बोर्ड में उन पदों पर कार्य किया था जो स्वीकृत नहीं थे , तो ऐसी सूरत में श्रमिकों ने भले ही 240 दिन की अवधि कार्य पर पूरी कर ली हो तो भी वे नियमितिकरण के अधिकारी नहीं कहला सकते हैं । इस नज़ीर में माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह भी तय किया कि धारा 25 एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. के तहत छंटनी की प्रक्रियानिर्धारित की गयी है लेकिन उसमें यह कहीं नहीं कहा गया है कि 240दिन की सेवा अवधि पूरी होते ही कोई वर्कर नियमितिकरण का हकदार हो जाता हो।

विपक्षी सी बी एस ई , अजमेर का कहना है कि अस्थाई प्रकृति केकार्य हेतु आठ माह की नियत अवधि के लिए 2000 रु. प्रति माह पर तीनों श्रमिकों को जूनियर असिस्टेंट के पद पर बोर्ड ने लगाया था तथा 28-5-89 को उनकी कांट्रैक्चुअल अपाइंटमेंट की अवधि पूरी होने पर उन्हें सेबा से हटा दिया था । विपक्षी का कहना है कि वर्तमान मामले पर औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. की धारा 1947 की धारा 2 ( ओओ ) ( बीबी) लागू होती है तथा प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण का टर्मिनेशन रिट्रेंचमेंट की परिभाषा में नहींआता है अतः श्रमिकगण धारा 25एफ औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. 1947 के तहत कोई लाभ पाने के अधिकारी नहीं है ।

माननीय राज. उच्च न्यायालय की खंडपीठ ने राम प्रसाद/स्टेट ऑफ राज. 1992 एल आई सी 2139 ( 2140 ) में औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. की धारा 2 ( ओओ ) ( बीबी ) को अवैधानिक घोषित करने से इंकार कर दिया था ।

गुजरात उच्च न्यायालय की खंड पीठ ने भी जे. जे . श्रीमाली/डी. डी. ओ. जिला पंचायत 1989 एल आई सी 689( 697 ) में यह निर्धारित किया था कि सेबा करार में यदि यह शर्त रखी गयी हो कि अकाल राहत का काम खत्म होने पर कर्मचारी को सेवा से हटा दिया जायेगा तो ऐसे मामलों में अकाल राहत का काम खत्महोने पर हटाया जाने पर कर्मचारी छंटनी के मुआवजे का हकदार नहीं कहलायेगा तथा उसकी सेवायें धारा 2( ओओ ) ( बीबी ) आई. डी. एक्ट 1947 के तहत गवर्न होंगी । विपक्षी के गवाह श्री एस. देवदास ने जिरह में बताया है कि नियुक्तिके समय उन्होंने श्रमिकों के नाम रोजगार कार्यालय से मंगाये थे तथा फिर उनकी परीक्षा व साक्षात्कार लिये जाने के बाद एवं मेडिकल जांचके बाद ही उनको नियुक्ति प्रदान की गयी थी । वह कहते हैं कि यह गलत है कि उक्त श्रमिकों को हटाने के बाद उन्होंने नये श्रमिकों को काम पर रखा हो। यह कहते हैं कि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण जो काम करते थे वह काम अब बोर्ड नियमित कर्मचारियों से करवाती है । इस गवाह का कहना है किपरीक्षा के दिनों में उनके यहां कार्य बढ़ जाता है तथा प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण से लिया गया कार्य सीजनल प्रकृति का होने के कारण उन्हें केवल मात्र आठ माह के लिए कांट्रेक्ट बेसिस पर नियुक्त किया गया

माानीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने 1996 एल आई सी 221 मोरिंडा कॉपरेटिव शूगर मिल्स/ राम किशन में यह निर्धारित किया था कि जहां 10139

भारत का राजपत्र : सितंबर 10, 2005/भाद्र 19, 1927

[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

पर शक्कर की फैक्ट्री में गन्ने के मौसम में ही कर्मचारियों से काम लिया जाता था, यहां भले ही किसी कर्मचारी ने लगातार 240 दिन तक गन्ने के सीजन में काम किया हो तो भी नौकरी से हटाये जाने पर वह छंटनी के मुआवजे का हकदार नहीं होगा क्योंकि इस पर धारा 2 ( ओओ ) ( बीबी) आई . डी. एक्ट 1947 लागू होगी ।

उक्त स्पष्ट नज़ीरों एवं सेवा करार प्रदर्श डब . 4 की स्पष्ट शर्तों को देखते हुए इस प्रकरण में श्रमिक पक्ष द्वारा पेश की गयी निम्न नीरें भी श्रमिक पक्ष को कोई राहत दिलवाने की अधिकारी नहीं रह जाती है:-

1 .. 1999 एल एल आर एस सी 433 सैक्रेट्री एच एस ई बी/ सुरेश

2. 1995 एल एल आर एस सी 552 जी ई बी/एस एम एस 3. 2801 एल आई सी 3273 झारखंड बलिहारी कोलरी/पी. ओ.

4. 1990 एल एल आर गुजरात 589 एफ सी आई वर्कर्स यूनियन/एफसी आई

5. 2002 एल एल आर एस सी 933 जी. आर. /वी. टी. नि.

6. 2002 एल एल आर एस सी 928 मैसर्स प्राण नाथ दीपक कुमार उक्त नज़ीर वर्तमान प्रकरण में इसलिए लागू नहीं होती है क्योंकि प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण से जूनियर कर्मचारी बोर्ड में सेवारत होना प्रार्थी पक्ष नहीं बता सके हैं । 7. 2003 ( 1 ) एल एल जे राज. पेज 256 स्टेट ऑफ राज. / महेन्द्रजोशी

8. 2001 (11 ) एल. एल जे राज. पेज 1593 स्टेट/हरचंद 9. 2001 ( 11 ) एल एल जे पी एंड एच पेज 1610 एस डी ओ अंबाला/पी. ओ.

10. 2003 एल एल आर राज. पेज 154 एन . के. शर्मा/ म्युनिसिपल बोर्ड

11. 2003 एल एल आर 154 झारखंड 154 ए. पी. कोलरी/पी. ओ.

12. 2002 एल एल आर राज. 907 स्टेट ऑफ राज. /महामंत्री टोंक जिला वन संघ

13. 2002 कर्नाटका एल एल आर 1145 नागप्पा/मैनेजमेंट 14. 2002 एल एल आर गुजरात 955 सुनील/गुजरात बिजली बोर्ड

15. 2003 एल आई सी मद्रास पेज 15 टी पी टी कॉर्पोरेशन/ एस. के.

16. 2003 एल एल आर आंध्रा पेज 202 के. एल. के. पी. ओ. 17. 2003 एल एल आर इलाहाबाद 236 एन. के. जैन/पी. ओ. 18. 2003 एल.आई सी आंध्रा 204 वी. सी. /डी जी, आर पी एफ 19. 2001 एल आई सी दिल्ली 3597

20. 2001 ( 11 ) एल एल जे पंजाब 1149 स्टेट ऑफ हरियाणा/ मनीराम

21. 2002( 11 ) एल एल जे गुजरात 607 एस . बी. जानी/ गुजरात बिजली

22. भीमराज. /बी. आर. एस. डी. वी. संघ 2003 ( 3 ) डब्ल्यू एल एन 690

इस प्रकार तीनों प्रकरणों में प्रार्थी श्रमिकगण औद्योगिक विवाद अधि. की धारा 2( ओओ ) ( बीबी) से अनुशासित होती है एवं उनका मामला रिट्रॅचमेंट की परिभाषा में नहीं आने से 240 दिन की सेवा पूरी कर लेने पर भी वे किसी मुआवजे अथवा सेवा की निरंतरता बनवाये रखने के अधिकारी नहीं कहे जा सकते हैं । माध्यमिक शिक्षा बोर्ड से यह अपेक्षा अवश्य की जा सकती है कि भविष्य में पुनः कांट्रेक्ट बेसिस पर सीजनल नियुक्ति करते समय पूर्व के अनुभवी इन कर्मचारियों को वह नये अभ्यर्थियों की तुलना में वरीयता देने का प्रयास करेगा । इस प्रकार के रेफरेंस उक्त प्रकार से श्रमिक पक्ष के विरुद्ध तथा नियोजक के पक्ष में निर्धारित किया जाता है ।

अतुल कुमार जैन, न्यायाधीश श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 अगस्त, 2005

का. आ. 3250.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतदद्वारा 01 सितम्बर, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77, 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्तं की जा चुकी है ] के उपबन्ध तमिलनाडू राज्यके निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्, "जिला कॉचीपुरम में श्रीपुरूम्पुदूर तालुक के श्रीपुरूम्पुदूर, मण्णूर, सेंगाडु, मूवलूरकुप्पम, तण्डलम, नेमिली , पेन्नलूर, माम्बाक्कम, पोण्डूर, इरुड्‌का‌द्रुक्को‌ट्टै , काट्राम्बाक्कम , इंरूगुलम, वडमंगलम, पांडिचेरी , किलाई, सिरूकिलाई, आयकोलतूर, वलरपूरम , पिल्लैप्पाक्कम , वेंकाडु , इरूम्पेडु , कोलतूर, ओड्‌डनकरनै , गुण्डु पेरूम्पेडु , सिरूकलतूर, बडकाल, अरनेरी, आदि राजस्व ग्राम । "

[संख्या: एस-38013/48/2005 - एस. एस. - 1 ] संयुक्ता रे, अवर सचिव 10140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : SEPTEMBER 10 , 2005/BHADRA 19, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] MINISTRY OF LABOUR & EMPLOYMENT

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State ofTamil Nadu namely : ---

NewDelhi, the 17th August, 2005

"Areas comprising the Revenue Villages of Sriperumdudur, Mannur, Sengadu , Mevalurkuppam, Thandalam, Nemili , Pennalur , Pondur, Mambakkam, Irungattukottai , Katrambakkam , Irungulam , Vadamangalam , Pandicherry, Kiloy, Sirukiloy, Ayakolathur, Valarpuram , Pillaipakkam , Venkadu , Irumpedu , Kolathur , Oddankaranai , Gundu Perumpedu , Sirukalathur, Vadakal and Araneri of Sriperumpudur Taluk in Kancheepuram District . " S. O. 3250.-In exercise ofthe 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 Sept. , 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 ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

[No. S-38013/48/2005- S. S.-I. ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press . Ring Road, Maya Puri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054, 2005