रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० (एन ) 04/ 0007/ 2003-05
सत्यमेव सकते
REGD. NO . D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05
का
भारत राजपत्र The Gazette of India
प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
साप्ताहिक
WEEKLY
नई दिल्ली, सितम्बर 25 अक्तूबर 1 , 2005 , शनिवार/आश्विन 3 आश्विन 9 , 1927 NEW DELHI , SEPTEMBER 25- OCTOBER 1 , 2005 , SATURDAY /ASIVANA 3- ASVINA 9, 1927 सं०40 ] No. 40 ]
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 और अधिसूचनाएं Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence)
कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत एवं पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक एवं प्रशिक्षण विभाग )
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3451.- आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता 1973 ( 1974 के 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा 8 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार श्री एस. के. सक्सैना, अधिवक्ता को सी बी आई केस आर सी 8 एस 89 - सीबीआई /एस आईयू- III/एसआईसी- I/नई दिल्ली द्वारा मास्टर स्कम सिंह एवं डॉक्टर वीरेन्द्र सिंह सैनी, पूर्व एम एल ए रुड़की उत्तरांचल के विरूद्ध विद्वान विशेष न्यायाधीश , देहरादून, सीबीआई केस के समक्ष लंबित आपराधिक अपील तथा इससे संबंधित व आनुवंशिक किसी अन्य मामलों में विशेष लोक अभियोजक नियुक्त करती है।
[फा. सं. 225 /43/2005- एवीडी- II ]
चन्द्र प्रकाश, अवर सचिव 2800 GI/2005
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION (Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005 S.O. 3451. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub -section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri S.K. Saxena, Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial in case No. RC 8 ( S )/89 - SIU . III/ CBI/ SCR- 1 /New Delhi (Against Master Rakam Singh and Dr. Virendra Singh Saini , Formerly MLA from Roorkee ( Uttaranchal ) pending in the court ofLd. Special Judge (CBI cases) , Dehradun and any other matter connected therewith and incidental thereto.
[F. No. 225/43/2005 -AVD. - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH , Under Secy.
(10567) [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 10568
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
करेगा, जिसके लिए इसे आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।
( iii ) यह संगठन उपर्युक्त पैरा ( ii ) में सदर्भित आय एवं व्यय खाते के साथ लेखा परीक्षक से प्राप्त एक प्रमाण पत्र भी संलग्न करेगा:-
का.आ. 3452.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय की मदुरै बैंच में केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के रिटेनर काउंसेल श्री एस. जयकुमार, अधिवक्ता, मदुरै को दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उद्भूत अभियोजन, अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों अथवा अन्य विषयों कासंचालन करने के लिए विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
(क) जिसमें संगठन द्वारा सामाजिक विज्ञान/सांख्यिकी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त की गई उस राशि का उल्लेख किया गया हो, जिसके लिए दानकर्ता धारा 35 की उपधारा (1 ) खंड ( ii ) के अन्तर्गत कटौती का दावा करने के लिए पात्र हैं ।
[सं. 225/2/2005 - एबीडी- II ] चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
(ख) जिसमें यह प्रमाणित किया गया हो कि किया गया व्यय सामाजिक विज्ञान/सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए ही था ।
[ अधिसूचना सं. 190/ 2005 /फा. सं. 203/27/2005- आयकर नि.- II ]
निधि सिंह, अवर सचिव S.O. 3452. 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 Government hereby appoints Shri S. Jayakumar, Advocate , Madurai Retainer Counsel of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court as Special Public Prosecutor for conducing the prosecution appeals , revisions or other matter arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment .
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) Central Board of Direct Taxes New Delhi , the 12th August, 2005 (INCOME TAX)
[No. 225/ 2/ 2005 - AVD. - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.
वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )
केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड
नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2005
(आयकर )
S.O. 3453. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Centre for Research in Rural & Industrial Development (CRRID) , Sector 19 -A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh - 160019 has been approved by the Central Government for the purposes of clause (iii ) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 6 of the Income tax Rules , 1962 for the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2004 under the category, ' university, college or other institution' , partly engaged in research activities (and not as a scientific research association ' existing solely for research) subject to the following condidtion:-
(i) The approved organization shall maintain separate accounts for its research activities .
:
का. आ. 3453.-सर्व साधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पृठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ 'विश्वविद्यालय कालेज अथवा अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 1-4-2001 से दिनांक 31-3-2004 तक की अवधि के लिए ग्रामीण एवं औद्योगिक विकास में अनुसंधान हेतु केन्द्र ( सी आर आर आई डी ) , सेक्टर 19 -ए, मध्य मार्ग , चण्डीगढ़ , 160019 जोअंशतः अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों में कार्यरत है, ( और न किअनुसंधान केलिए एक मात्र मौजूद ' वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ' के रूप में है ) , को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है:-
(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने अनुसंधाम कार्य- कलापों के लिए अलग खाते रखेगा ।
(ii) For each of the financial years for which the approval is being given, the approved organization shall submit a copy of its audited Income and Expenditure account in respect of the research activities for which it has been approved under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of Income Tax Act, 1961 to the Commissioner of Income- tax or Director of Income -tax (Exemptions) having jurisdiction , on or before the due date of filing of return in income or within 90 days from the date of this notification, whichever expires later .
(iii) The approved organization shall also enclose with the Income and Expenditure account referred to in paragraph ( ii ) above , a certificate from the auditor:----
(a) specifying the amount received by the organization for social science/statistical research in respect of which the donors are (ii ) वित्तीय वर्षों के प्रत्येक वर्ष के लिए जिसके लिए यह अनुमोदन प्रदान किया जा रहा है, अनुमोदित संगठन अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों के संबंध में लेखा परीक्षित आय एवं व्यय खाते की एक प्रति इसके क्षेत्राधिकार वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को आय कर विवरणी दाखिल करने की नियत तारीख को अथवा उससे पहले अथवा इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से १० दिनों के अन्दर, जो भी बाद में समाप्त हो, प्रस्तुत [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10569 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
eligible to claim deduction under clause (iii) ofsub - section ( 1) of section 35.
(b) certifying that the expenditure incurred was for research in social science/statistical research.
(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received. and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc.) for anyperiod during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub - section (5) of Section 11;
[Notification No. 190/2005 /F. No. 203/27/2005 - ITA- II ) ] NIDHI SINGH, Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005 (आयकर )
(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment ofthe objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;
(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance with: the provisions of the Income -tax Act, 1961 ;
(v) that in the event ofdissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to an organisation with similar objectives.
का. आ. 3454. आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उपखंड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत | शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " द इंस्टीट्यूट | ऑफ रोड ट्रांसपोर्ट, तारामणि, चेन्नई " को कर-निर्धारण वर्ष 1997-1998 से 1999-2000 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात्:-
(i ) कर निर्धारिती अपनी आये का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;
[Notification No. 200/2005/F. No. 197/37/2005 - ITA- 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005 (आयकर) का. आ. 3455.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का ( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगा;
43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 237 ) के उपखंड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " द इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ रोड ट्रांसपोर्ट, तारामणि, चेन्नई" को कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2000-2001 से 2002-2003 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात्:-
( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;
( i ) कर निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी ओय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;
( iv) कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।
( v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी ।
( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगा;
[अधिसूचना सं. 200/2005/फा. सं. 197/37/2005- आयकर नि.- I ]
दीपक गर्ग, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 20th September, 2005 (INCOME TAX)
( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो किकारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा-पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;
( iv ) कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।
S.O. 3454. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-clause ( iv) of clause ( 23C) of Section 10 of the Income -tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the " The Institute ofRoad Transport, Taramani , Chennai " for the purpose of the said sub -clause for the assessment year 1999-1998 to 1999- 2000 subject to the following conditions , namely :-
(v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अंतिरिक्त राशियों और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी ।
[अधिसूचना सं. 201/2005/फा, सं. 197/38/2005- आयकर नि.-I ] (i) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;
दीपक गर्न, अवर सचिव THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
10570
New Delhi, the 20th September, 2005 (INCOME TAX)
S.O. 3455. In exercise of powers conferred by sub -clause ( iv) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ), the Central Government hereby notifies the " The Institute of Road Transport , Taramani , Chennai " for the purpose of the said sub- clause for the assessment years 2000-2001 to 2002-2003 subject to the following conditions , namely:-
(i) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate forapplication, wholly and exclusively to the objects forwhich it is established;
(ii ) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc. ) foranyperiod during the previous years relevant tothe assessmentyears mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub - section (5) of Section 11 ;
(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect ofsuch business;
(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income- tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961;
(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to an organisation with similar objectives.
[Notification No 201/2005/F. No. 197 /38/2005 - ITA -I ] DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005
(आयकर )
का. आ. 3456.- आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उपखंड ( iv ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " द इण्डियन नेशनल ट्रस्ट फार आर्ट एण्ड कल्चरल हेरिटेज , नई दिल्ली " को कर-निर्धारण वर्ष 2005-2006 से 2007-2008 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात्:-
(i ) कर निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्योंके लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;
(ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगा;
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] ( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जो किकारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;
(iv ) कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।
(v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी । [अधिसूचना सं. 202/2005 फा. सं. 197/81 /2005- आयकर नि.- I ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th September, 2005 (INCOME TAX)
S.O. 3456. In exercise of powers conferred by sub -clause ( iv) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the " Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage , New Delhi " for the purpose of the said sub -clause for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 subject to the following conditions , namely :-
(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;
(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub-section ( 5) of Section 11 ;
(iii ) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;
(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income -tax Act , 1961 ;
(v) that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organisation with similar objectives .
[Notification No. 202/2005 F. No. 197 / 81 /2005 - ITA- 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secу . नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005 (आयकर )
का. आ. 3457.- आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड (23 ग ) के उपखंड ( v ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " श्री जैन स्वेताम्बर नकोदा पार्श्वनाथ तीर्थ, मेवानगर, जिला बाडमेर , राजस्थान " [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
10571 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income - tax Act, 1961;
को कर- निर्धारण वर्ष 1999-2000 से 2001-2002 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है , अर्थात्:-
(v) that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and, the assets will be given to an organisation with similar objectives.
(i ) कर निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उनका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्योंके लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
[Notification No. 205/ 2005/F. No. 197/ 70/2003 - ΙΤΑ - Ι] DEEPAK GARG , Under Secy . (आयकर)
( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा ।
का. आ. 3458. आयकरअधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43) की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उपखंड ( v ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा " श्री जैन स्वेताम्बर नकोदा पार्श्वनाथ तीर्थ, मेवानगर , जिला बाडमेड , राजस्थान " को कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2002-2003 से 2004-2005 तक के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त उपखंड के प्रयोजनार्थ अधिसूचित करती है , अर्थात्:-
( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो किकारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;
( iv ) कर निर्धारिती आय कर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आय कर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष दाखिल करेगा ।
(i) कर निर्धारिती अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उनका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है;
(v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी ।
[ अधिसूचना सं. 205/2005/फा.सं. 197/70/2003- आयकर नि.- 1 ] दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005
( ii ) कर निर्धारिती उपर्युका कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर - जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगा;
( INCOME TAX)
( iii ) यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्तिके लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों;
S.O. 3457. In exercise of powers conferred by the sub -clause (v ) of clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( 43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the " Shri Jain Swetamber Nakoda Parsavanath Tirth , Mewanagar, District Barmer, Rajasthan " for the purpose of the said sub - clause for the assessment year 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 subject to the following conditions , namely :-
(iv ) कर निर्धारिती आय कर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आय कर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष दाखिल करेगा;
( i) the assessee will apply its income , or accumulate for application, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;
(v) विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त राशियाँ और परिसम्पत्तियाँ समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएगी ।
[अधिसूचना सं. 206/ 2005/फा. सं. 197/79/2005- आयकर नि.- 1 ]
दीपक गर्ग , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005 ( INCOME TAX)
( ii ) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above other wise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section ( 5 ) of Section 11;
( iii ) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;
S.O. 3458. In exercise of powers conferred by the sub - clause (v) of clause (23C) of Section10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) ; the Central Government hereby notifies the " Shri Jain Swetamber Nakoda Parsavanath Tirth , Mewanagar , District Barmer, Rajasthan" for the purpose of the said sub- clause 3 10572
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
for the assessment year 2002-2003 to 2004-2005 subject to the following conditions , namely :---
(i) the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate forapplication, wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;
(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its fund ( other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, furniture etc.) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub -section (5 ) of Section 11 ;
(iii) this notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;
(iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the Income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act , 1961;
(v) that in the event of dissolution, its surplus and the assets will be given to an organisation with similar objectives.
[Notification No. 206/2005 /F. No. 197/79 / 2005 - ITA - 1 ] DEEPAK GARG, Under Secy.
(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )
(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )
(क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक अनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3459.- प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम, 1976 (1976 का 21 ) की धारा 3 की उप धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, एतद्वारा 28 मार्च , 1976 के भारत के राजपत्र, असाधारण, के भाग II , खंड 3 उप- खंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित 26 मार्च, 1976 के सं. का.आ. 247 (अ ) के तहत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय के बैंकिंग प्रभाग की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः : -
उक्त अधिनियम में " गुड़गांव जिला " शब्दों के स्थान पर " गुड़गांव, महेन्द्रगढ़ , फरीदाबाद, रेवाड़ी, सोनीपत और मेवात जिले " को प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा ।
[फा. सं. 1 (1 )/2004- आर आर बी ]
एम. के. मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव टिप्पणी: मुख्य अधिसूचना भारत के राजपत्र में दिनांक 26-3-1976 केका.आ. 247( अ ) के तहत प्रकाशित की गई थी और तदनन्तर 14 जुलाई, 1979 को प्रकाशित का.आ. 2369 तथा 8 जनवरी , 2005 को प्रकाशित का.आ. 71 के तहत संशोधित की गई थी ।
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
(Department of Economic Affairs ) (Banking Division) (REGIONAL RURAL BANKS SECTION) New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3459. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act , 1976 (21 of 1976 ) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Finance , Department of Banking vide S.O. number 247 (E) dated the 26th March, 1976 published in the Gazette of India , Extraordinary, Part II section 3 Sub - section ( ii ) dated the 28th March , 1976, namely : -
In the said notification, for the words "district of Gurgaon" the words " districts of Gurgaon, Mahandragarh, Faridabad , Rewari , Sonepat and Mewat shall be substituted.
[F. No. 1 ( 1 )/2004 - RRB ] M.K. MALHOTRA, Under Secy.
Note : The principal Notification was published in the Gazette of India vide S.O. 247 (E) dated 26-3-1976 and subsequently amended vide S.O. 2369 published on 14th July, 1979 and S.O. 71 published on 8th January 2005 .
सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2005
1 का. आ. 3460.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 20-6-2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में तथा चलचित्रकी ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, सुश्री विद्या ए. देबू, वाल गांव (पोस्ट) , अमरावती ( तह. और जिला. ) , महाराष्ट्र को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुंबई सलाहाकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं . 809/1/2004- एफ ( सी) ] पी.पी. नायर, डेस्कअधिकारी
:
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
New Delhi , the 13th September , 2005
!
S.O. 3460. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number dated 20-6-2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Ms. Vidya A. Debu, Walgaon (Post) , Amravati (Tq & Dist. ) , Maharashtra as member of the Mumbai Advisory Panel with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier.
[F. No. 809/1/2004 - F ( C ) ] P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer 10573 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 13 सितम्बर, 2005
National service Scheme, Programme Advisor Cell , Jamnagar House, New Delhi a subordinate office of Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports , whereof more than 80% Staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi.
[F. No. E- 11011/6/2005-H.U. ] S. KRISHNAN, Jt. Secy.
भारतीय डाक विभाग
( कार्यालय मुख्य पोस्टमास्टर जनरल दिल्ली परिमंडल )
नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर, 2005 का. आ. 3461.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 30 अगस्त , 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुसरण में और चलचित्रकी ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली, 1983 के नियम 7 और 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्रकी अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री स्वामी दिव्यानंद डब्ल्यू. जेड. -4 , पालम गांव, मेन बस स्टाप केसामने नई दिल्ली -110045 को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के दिल्ली सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।
[फा. सं 809/7/2004- एफ ( सी ) ] पी. पी. नायर, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 13th September, 2005
का. आ. 3463. जबकि केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह मत है किं केन्द्रीय सिविल सेवा ( सीसीएस ) नियमावली 1965 के नियम 14 के अन्तर्गत कु. / श्रीमती मीना, स्टेम्प वेंडर, सरस्वती विहारें, डाक घर के विरुद्ध विभागीय जांच के प्रयोजन के लिए जांच प्राधिकारी के समक्ष सूचीबद्ध साक्षियों को साक्षी के रूप में समन करना आवश्यक है ।
अतः विभागीय जांच ( साक्षियों की उपस्थिति एवं दस्तावेजों की प्रस्तुति का प्रवर्तन ) अधिनियम, 1972 ( 1972 का 18 ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए श्री एच. सी. गर्ग सहायक प्रबंधक, (मेल मोटर सर्विस ) , मेल अनुभाग, दिल्ली परिमंडल, नई दिल्ली-110001 को कु. / श्रीमती मीना के विरुद्ध विभागीय जांच के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 5 में निर्दिष्ट शक्तियों को जांच प्राधिकारी के रूप में उपयोग करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती हूँ।
[सं.सतर्कता/4-6/II/ 2003 ] S.O. 3461. In continuation of this Ministry's Notifications of even number dated 30th August, 2005 and in exercise of the powers confered by sub-seciton ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules , 1983 the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Swami Divyanand, WZ-4, Palam Village , Opposite Main Bus Stop , New Delhi - 110 045 as member of the Delhi advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is ealrier.
मीरा हाण्डा, पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल [F. No. 809/7/2004-F (C) ] P. P. NAIR, Desk Officer
DEPARTMENT OF POSTS
(Office ofChiefPostmaster General, Delhi Circle) युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्रालय
New Delhi , the 19th September, 2005 नई दिल्ली, 17 सितम्बर, 2005
S.O. 3463. Whereas the Central Government is of opinion that for the purpose of the departmental enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules , 1965 against Ms. Meena (under suspension) Stamp Vendor Saraswati Vihar PO Delhi - 110034, it is necessary to summon the listed witnesses as witness before the enquring authority.
का. आ. 3462.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में, युवा कार्यक्रम और खेल मंत्रालय के अधीनस्थ कार्यालय राष्ट्रीय सेवा योजना , कार्यक्रम सलाहकार प्रकोष्ठ, जामनगर हाऊस, नई दिल्ली , जिसके 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।
[फा. सं. ई-11011/6/2005- हि.ए. ]
एस. कृष्णन, संयुक्त सचिव
MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORT
NewDelhi, the 17th September, 2005
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -section (1) ofSection 4 ofthe Departmental Inquires (Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Production of Documents Act, 1972 ( 180 of 1972 ) the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri H.C. Garg, Asstt . Manager MMS (Mail Section) O/O Chief Postmaster General, Delhi Circle , New Delhi as inquiring authority to exercise thepower specified in Section 5 of the said Act in respect to Departmental Inquiry against Ms. Meena
[No.Vig/4-6/II/2003 ]
MEERA HANDA, Postmaster General S.O. 3462. - In pursuance ofsub- rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for Official Purpose of the Union) Rule , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies (PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 10574
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय
(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )
भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3464.- 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 दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
क्रम संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
मई2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
1. आई एस: 4839: ( भाग 1 ) : 1992 नहरों के रख - रखाव की रीति संहिता भाग 1 अनास्तरित लगी नहरें ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
2. आई एस: 5690-1982 बिना अस्तर की नहरों में संयुक्त अस्तर लगाने की मार्गदर्शिका
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
3. आई एस: 7113-2003 नहरों के मिटट्टी- सीमेंट अस्तर- रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
जुलाई 2005
4. आई एस: 7784 ( भाग 2/अनुभाग 2): 1992 आरं पार जल निकास कार्य के डिजाइन रीति संहिता भाग 2 विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएं अनुभाग 2 सुपरमैसेज ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
5. आई एस: 7784 ( भाग 2/अनुभाग 5) : 2000 आर पार जल निकास कार्य के डिजाइन रीति संहिता भाग 2 विशिष्ट अपेक्षाएं अनुभाग 5 साइफन एक्वोडक्ट ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 2 , 2005
6. आई एस: 7873-1975 नहरों में चूना कंक्रीट- अस्तर की रीतिसंहिता
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
7. आई एस : 9913-2000 आर पार जल निकास कार्य के निर्माण की रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
8. आई एस: 10430-2000 अस्तर लगी नहरों की डिजाइन के माप दण्ड तथा अस्तर प्रकार के चुनाव के मार्गदर्शी सिद्धांत ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
अगस्त 2005
:
संशोधन की संख्या 2, 2005
9. आई एस: 11809-1994 नहरों के लिए सिंचाई का अस्तर रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
10. आई एस: 12331-1988 नहरों के निकास मार्गों की सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ
अगस्त 2005
संशोधन की संख्या 1 , 2005
11. आई एस: 12379-1988 फील्ड नालियों के लिए पानी के नालों में अस्तर लगाने की रीति संहिता ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन , १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं.: डब्ल्यूआर डी/जी-117 ]
ए. एम. डेविड, निदेशक ( जल संसाधन ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10575 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
(Department of Consumer Affairs)
BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS
NewDelhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3464. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendaments to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the Indian Standards
No. and year ofthe amendment
Sl . No.
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(1)
(3)
(4)
Amendment No. 1 2005
May2005 1 IS 4839 (Part 1) : 1992 Code ofpractice for maintenance of canals , part 1 unlined canals (second revision)
Amendment No. 1 2005
August 2005 2 IS 5690-1982 Guide for laying combination lining for existing unlined canals (firstrevision)
Amendment No. 1 2005
August 2005 3 IS 7113 : 2003 Code of practice for soil -cement lining for canals (first revision)
Amendment No. 1 2005
July2005
4 IS 7784 (Pt . 2/Sec 2) : 1992 Code ofpractice for design of cross drainage works part 2 specific requirements section 2 Superpassages.
Amendment No. 1 2005
August 2005 5 IS 7784 (Pt. 2/Sec 5 ): 1992 Code ofpractice for design of cross drainage works part 2 specific requirements section 5 Syphon aqueducts (first revision)
AmendmentNo. 2 2005
August 2005 6 IS 7873 : 1975 Code of practice for laying cement concrete/stones slab lining on canals
Amendment No. 1 2005
August 2005 7 IS 9913 : 2000 Code of practice for construction of cross drainage works ( first revision)
Amendment No. 1 2005
August 2005 8 IS 10430: 2000 Criteria for design of lined canals and guidance for selection of type of lining (first revision)
August 2005
Amendment No. 2 2005
9 IS 11809: 1994 Code ofpractice for lining for canals by stone masonary
Amendment No. 1 2005
August2005.
10 IS 12331 : 1988 ' General requirements for canals outlets
August2005
Amendment No. 1 2005.
11 IS 12379 : 1988 Code ofpractice for lining of water- courses and field channels '
Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, 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. WRD/Gen. 117]
A. M. DAVID , Director (WaterResources) 2800 G1/05-2 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ) 10576
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3465.- 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 दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
क्रम संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30सितम्बर, 2003
संशोधन संख्या नं. 1 ,
1 आई एस 13209 : 1991 न मिटने वाली स्याही-विशिष्टि
जून 2005
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन , १ 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, नागपुर पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।..
[सं. सी एच डी 14/आई एस -13209 ]
डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव , वैज्ञानिक - ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )
New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3465. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the amendment
SI. No. and year of the Indian Standards
No.
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(4)
(3)
(1) (2)
30 September, 2005 1 IS 13209 : 1991 Indelible Ink
Amendment No. 1 , June 2005
Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, 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. CHD 14 /IS- 13209 ]
DR. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist - E, Director & Head (Chemical ) नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3466.- 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 दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं: -
अनुसूची
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष संख्या
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
31अगस्त, 2005 1974 बुश , हारनेस हार्ड की विशिष्टि
1 आई एस 7477:
संशोधन संख्या नं. 3, अगस्त 2005
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन , १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 24/आई एस-7477 ]
डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक- ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन ) 10577
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3466. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
No. and year of the Indian Standards SL. No.
(2)
(I)
SCHEDULE
No. and year of the amendment Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(4)
(3)
31August, 2005 Amendment No. 3, August2005
1 IS 7477 : 1974 Specification for Brushes, Harness Hard
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kolkatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.
[No. CHD 24/IS 7477] DR. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist -E, Director & Head (Chemical )
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3467.- 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 दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं :
संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष क्रम संख्या
(2)
(1)
1आई एस 1222: 1992- स्याही, दोहराने वाली , जुड़वा बेलन घूर्णी मशीनों के लिए विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)
अनुसूची
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
(4)
(3)
30 सितम्बर, 2005 संशोधन संख्या नं . 1 ,
जून2005
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 14/आई एस -1222 ] डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक- ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)
NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3467. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:
No. and year of the Indian Standards SI. No.
(2)
(1)
1 IS 1222 : 1992 Ink, Duplicating for Twin Cylinder Rotary Machines- Specification (ThirdRevision)
SCHEDULE
No. and year ofamendment
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(4)
(3)
30September, 2005 Amendment No. 1, June2005 10578
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, NewDelhi - 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. CHD 14/IS - 1222 ]
DR. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist-E , Director & Head (Chemical)
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3468.-भारतीय मामक 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 दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गए हैं :-
अनुसूची
क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष
संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि
संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संख्या
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
31मई , 2005
संशोधन संख्या नं. 2 ,
मई2005
1 आई एस 393 1985- स्याही , स्टैम्प पैड विशिष्टि (तृतीय पुनरीक्षण)
इन संशोधनों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 14/ आई एस-393 ]
डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक - ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)
NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3468. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :
SCHEDULE
SI . No. and year of the Indian Standards
No. and year of the amendment
No.
Date from which the amendment shall have effect
(1)
(3)
(4) (2)
31May, 2005
Amendment No. 2, May2005
1 IS 393 : 1985 Specification for Ink, Stamp-pad(Third Revision)
Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, 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. CHD 14/IS - 393 )
DR. U. C. SRIVASTAVA , Scientist-E, Director & Head ( Chemical ) 10579 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3469.- 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 दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-
अनुसूची
स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक
संख्या
नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि. कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30जून2005 1. आई एस 1388 ( भाग 1 ) : 2005/आई एस ओ 4796- 1: 2000 प्रयोगशाला में प्रयुक्त कांच का सामान-बोतलें भाग 1 स्क्रू नैक बोतलें ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)
30जून 2005 2. आई एस 1388 ( भाग 2 ) : 2005/आई एस ओ 4796- 2: 2000 प्रयोगशाला में प्रयुक्त कांच का सामान बोतलें भाग 2 शंक्वाकार नैक बोतलें ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )
30जून 2005 3. आई एस 1388 ( भाग 3 ) : 2005/ आई एस ओ 4796-
3 : 2000 प्रयोगशाला में प्रयुक्त कांच का सामान-बोतलें
भाग 3 चूषित्र बोतलें ( 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 , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।
[सं. सी एच डी 10/ आई एस-1388 ]
डॉ. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञानिक- ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)
NewDelhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3469. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.
SCHEDULE
Date ofEstablished SI . No. No. and title of the Indian Standards Established
No. andyear of Indian Standards, if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standards
(4)
(3)
(2)
(1)
30June 2005 1. IS 1388 (Part 1): 2005/ISO 4796-1 : 2000 Laboratory glassware-Bottles Part 1 Screw- neck bottles (Second Revision)
30 June 2005 2. IS 1388 (Part 2): 2005/ISO 4796-2:2000 Laboratory glassware---Bottles Part 2 Conical -neck bottles (Second Revision)
30June 2005 3. IS 1388 (Part 3 ): 2005/ISO4796-3:2000 Laboratory glassware-Bottles Part 3 Aspirator bottles (Second Revision)
Copyto these Standard are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and alsoBranch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram..
[No. CHD 10/IS - 1388 ]
DR. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist -E, Director & Head (Chemical ) [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
10580
नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2005
का. आ. 3470.-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 आर के इंटरप्राइजेज , 32-33, उद्योग कुंज , इस्माइलाबाद ( कुरुक्षेत्र ) , हरियाणा-136129 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " आर के टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ओरस्टेक " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/ 24 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;
उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 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 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 सील बंद 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 किउक्त 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 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन माप मान 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:* 2 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है । के ,
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 4 )/2002 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10581 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi, the , 15th September, 2005
S.O. 3470.-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 the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Tablet op type) with digital indication of "RKT " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II) and with brand name "ORASTECH" (herein after referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . R. KEnterprises , 32-33, Udyog Kunj , Ismailabad Kurukshetra, Haryana- 136 129 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/24;
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 20kg and miniumum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2 g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Doide (LED) 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 instrument of similar make , and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in range of 100 to 5000 for ' e'value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with number of verifcation scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10%, 2 × 10%, 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 (4)/2002]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10582
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3471.-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 यथार्थत्त 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 आर के इंटरप्राइजेज, 32-33 , उद्योग कुंज, इस्माइलाबाद ( कुरुक्षेत्र ) , हरियाणा-136129 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " आर के पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ओरास्टेक" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/ 2005 /25 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 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 सील बंद 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 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. अधिक और 300 कि. ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के, के हैं , के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (4 ) /2002 ]
पी. ए . कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10583 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
New Delhi , the, 15th September, 2005
S.O. 3471.- 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 " RKP" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name "ORASTECH" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s. R. KEnterprises , 32-33 , Udyog Kunj Ismailabad Kurukshetra Haryana - 136, 129 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/25;
The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 60 kg and miniumum capacity of 200g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 10g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Doide (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 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 300 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 × 10k, 2 × 10k, or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 (4 )/2002 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 G1/05-3 [PART II-SEC . 3( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
10584
नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर , 2005
का. आ. 3472.- 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 आर के इंटरप्राइजेज , 32-33, उद्योग कुंज, इस्माइलाबाद ( कुरुक्षेत्र ) , हरियाणा-136129 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " आर के पी " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म के संपरिवर्तन के लिए क्नवर्शन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ओरास्टेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/ 2005/26 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा. और न्यनूतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श 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 सील बंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के इस अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत, उसीविनिर्मित द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के उसी मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन वाले ऐसे तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 1,00,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक कीअधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 के, के है , जिसमें के धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (4 )/2002 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10585 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
New Delhi , the , 15th September, 2005
S.O. 3472. 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 ( Conversion kit for Platform) with " RKP " series belonging to Medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name "ORASTECH " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s. R. K Enterprises , 32-33 , Udyog Kunj Ismailabad Kurukshetra , Haryana - 136 and 129 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/26;
The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 300kg . and minimum capacity of 1 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent Subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting Doide (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50Hertz alternate current power supply:
i In addition to sealing the stamping plate sealing is 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 50 kg . and up to 1000 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in, the range of 100 to 1,00,000 for ' e'value of 1 mg to 50mg and with nuimber ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 1,00,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 , 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 (4)/2002]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology.
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
10586
नई दिल्ली, 15 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3473.- 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 ऑनेस्ट ट्रेडिंग कम्पनी , 1 मनुपंचाल इस्टेट, अमराईवाडी रोड़, ए ई सी के निकट, अहमदाबाद -380 026 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित स्टील यार्ड और प्रो - वेट सहित तोलन उपकरण ( यांत्रिक प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ऑनेस्ट" है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/ 2003 /223 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल ( आकृति देखें ) यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग 3 ) का एक यांत्रिक लीवर आधारित स्टील यार्ड और प्रो- वेट सहित तोलन उपकरण (यांत्रिक प्लेटफार्म प्रकार )है इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्ग्र . है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा .है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त धारा 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 श्रृंखला के उसी मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन वाले ऐसे तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जिनकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक है और जिनका विनिर्माण उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन और उसी सामग्री से किया जाता है जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, और जिनके सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( एन ) की संख्या 5 ग्रा. या अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10000 की रेंज में है तथा जिनका " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जिसमें के धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 52 )/2002 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10587
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the, 15th September, 2005
S.O. 3473. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (7) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Mechanical platform type) with steel yard and pro- weight (herein referred to as the Model ) belonging to medium accuracy class (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " HONEST " manufactured by M/s Honest Trading Company, 1 , Manupanchal Estate, Amraiwadi Road , Near AEC, Ahmedabad - 380 026 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2003/223 ;
The said Model (See the figure given) is a mechanical lever based non - automatic weighing instrument (Mechanical Platform type ) with steel yard and pro -weight maximum capacity 300kg , minimum capacity 2kg and belonging to medium accuracy class (accuracy class - III ). The value of verification scale interval (e) is 100g.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of the said Section , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and upto 1000kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range or 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 nuraber or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM -21 ( 52 )/2002 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10588
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3474.-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 पदमालय सिस्टम्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " ई" हाल , पहली मंजिल , बी जे मार्केट, जलगांव 425001 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बेट" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " बेसटेक " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2004/ 551 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 12 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 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 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, जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के है, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 169) /2003 ]
पी. ए . कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10589
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 19th September, 2005
S.O. 3474. 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 " BET " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " BESTEK " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Padmalaya Systems Private Limited, E' Hall , Ist Floor , B.J. Market , Jalgaon- 425 001 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/551 ;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 12kg and minimum capacity of 50g. The verification scafe interval (e) is 1g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent substractive retained tare effect. 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 conferredby 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 upto 50kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg 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 ( 169)/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10590
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली , 19 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3475.-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 पदमालय सिस्टम्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, " ई " हाल, पहली मंजिल , बी जे मार्केट, जलगांव-425001 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बेप " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " बेसटेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2004/ 552 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि. ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित 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 ।
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 उपधारा ( 12 ) 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, जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण 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 मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 10 , 210 या 5 10 , के हैं , के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 169 )/2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10591 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 19th September , 2005
S.O. 3475. 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 (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "BEP" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "BESTEK" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Padmalaya Systems Private Limited, 'E' Hall, 1st Floor, B.J. Market , Jalgaon -425 001 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2004/ 552;
1
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 substractive retained tare effect . 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 instruments 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 with ' e ' value of 1 ×10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10% , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 169 )/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 G1/05-4 10592
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3476. 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 मौप 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 शिंदे स्केल्स कं ० , सं ० 740, शुकेरवार पेठ, नेहरु चौक के पास , पुणे -411002 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस एस- पीबी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सीको " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई .एन डी/09/2005/ 80 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि०ग्रा० और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि०ग्रा० है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा . 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 ।
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 तौलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा० या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि० ग्रा० से अधिक और 200 कि०ग्रा ० तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं , के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं
[फा० सं ० डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 332 ) /2003 ]
पी० ए ० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10593 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
New Delhi , the 20th September , 2005
S.O. 3476. 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 with digital indication (Person weighing machine) of medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) belonging to ' SS -PB ' series with brand name " SECO " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Shinde Scale Co. , No. 740, Shukerwar Peth, Near Nehru Chouk, Pune- 411002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/80;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 150kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . The display is of Light Emitting Diode (LED) type . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 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 said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 100 kg. to 200 kg . 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 × 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 (332)/2003]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 10594
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3477.- 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 शिंदे स्केल्सकं० , सं. 740, शुकेरवार पेठ, नेहरु चौक के पास , पुणे-411002 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस एस - एच एस " श्रृंखला केअंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लटकने वाले प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सीको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात्उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/ 81 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सैल सिद्धांत आधारित अस्वचालित ( लटकने वाला ) तोलन उपकरण मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) का है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधियतुलन 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 ।
स्टांम्पिंग 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 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 , 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 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक याशून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 332)/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10595
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 20th September, 2005
S.O. 3477. 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 (Hanging type ) with digital indication ' SS -HS ' series of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " SECO" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Shinde Scale Co. , No. 740, Shukerwar Peth, Near Nehru Chouk , Pune - 411002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/81;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Hanging type) ofmedium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g . It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . 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 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 50 kg . and up to 5000 kg. 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 , Kis 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. 1
[F. No. WM-21 (332 )/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10596
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3478.- 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 ईईएल इण्डिया लिमिटेड, 401,402, उद्योग विहार, फेज- III , गुड़गांव 122016 द्वारा के निर्मित " एफ-800 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, स्वचालित भरात्मक भरण मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ईईएल यूनीपल्सर वे नियंत्रक' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2005/ 509 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित भरात्मक भरण उपकरण प्रकार का जो अंकक सूचन सहित लोड सैल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा . अधिकतम आउटपुट 40 भरत प्रति मिनट है और यह 16 संख्या का टोंटी वाला है । निर्वात पुष्पित प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के सीलबन्द 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 ) 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, जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के भरण उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 से 16 टोंटी का 100 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।
[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 26 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [भाग- II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
10597
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 20th September, 2005
S.O. 3478. 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 Automatic Gravimetric Filling instrument with digital indication of " F - 800" series with brand name " EEL Unipulser Weigh Controller " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s EEL India Ltd. , 401-402 , Udyog Vihar, Phase - III , Gurgaon - 122 016 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /2005/509;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic (gravimetric filling instrument type) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity of 50 kg . Its maximum output is 40 fills per minute and consisting 16 number of spouts . The vacuum fluorescent display (VFD ) 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 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 filling instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity of 100 kg . of spouts 1 to 16 manufactured by 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 (26)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 10598
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 20 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3479.- 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 ईईएल इण्डिया लिमिटेड, 401 , 402 , उद्योग विहार, फेज- III , गुड़गांव -122016 द्वारा निर्मित " एफ -850 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, स्वतः सूचक स्वचालित भरात्मक भरण उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ईईएल यूनीपल्सर वे नियंत्रक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 510 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित भरात्मक भरण उपकरण प्रकार का जो अंकक सूचन सहित लोड सैल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. अधिकतम आउटपुट 40 भरत प्रति घंटा है । निर्वात पुष्पित प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के सीलबन्द 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 ) 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 जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के भरण उपकरण भी होंगे जो 50 कि.ग्रा. से 2500 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 26) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10599 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 20th September, 2005
S.O. 3479. 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 the model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling instrument with digital indication of " F - 850" series with brand name " EEL Unipulser Weigh Controller" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s EEL India Ltd. , 401 402 , Udyog Vihar, Phase - III , Gurgaon - 122 016 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/510;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic (gravimetric filling instrument type) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity of 1000 kg and maximum output of 40 fills per hour. The vacuum fluorescent display ( VFD) 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 done to prevent the opening machine for fraudu- lent 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 filling instrument of similar make and performance , of same series with maximum capacity range from 50kg . to 2500 kg. manufactured by sante 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 ( 26)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 GI/055 10600
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर , 2005
का.आ. 3480.-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 के.बी. इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट सं. 158 , सैक्शन 25 , फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " ए आर एल डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के सदृश सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वे ब्रिज स्टील यार्ड प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अक्युवे " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/96 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल एक यांत्रिक लिवर आधारित ( वे ब्रिज स्टील यार्ड प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 250 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि.ग्रा. है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण- पत्र 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 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 * या 5 × 10 के, के हैं , के जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 86) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10601 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
New Delhi , the 21st September, 2005
S.O. 3480. - 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 model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge- Steel Yard type ) with analogue indication of " ALRW " series belonging to high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) with brand name " ACUWEIGH " , (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s.K. B. Industries , Plot No. 158 , Section 25, Faridabad , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/96;
The said model is a mechanical lever based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge- Steelyard type) with a maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 250 kg. The value of verification scale interval 'e' is 5kg.
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 above 5 tonne and up to 100 tonne and. with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 5 kg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10% , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 86)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10602
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर , 2005
का.आ. 3481.-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 सेनसोटेक वेइंग सिस्टम्स, सं. 513 , रजनी भवन, 569 , एम जी रोड, इंदोर, मध्य प्रदेश द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसडब्ल्यूएस -999 " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सेनसोटेक" है ( जिसे. इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/ 242 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा बिद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण - पत्र 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 उसमे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2× 10 या 5× 10 , के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 151 ) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10603
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 21st September, 2005
S.O. 3481. 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 ( Weighbridge type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SWS - 999 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " SENSOTECH " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Sensotech Weighing Systems , No. 513, Rajani Bhawan , 569 , M.G. Road, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/242;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge type) with a maximum capacity of 40 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5. kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 100 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 kg . 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 ( 151 )/2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10604
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 21 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3482.-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 उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स आकूरी उद्योग, गौशाला रोड, बुडानी कुटीर के सामने , साबरकुण्डला-364 515 , गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले वाले अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जोरबा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 263 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) 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 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 ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे उक्त 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 मान 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 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं, के जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।
[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 228 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10605
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927.
New Delhi , the 21st September, 2005
S.O. 3482. 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 medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "ZORBA" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Akuri Udyog, Gaushala Road, Opposite to Budani Kutir, Savarkundla -364 515 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2005/ 263 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) 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 a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.
Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and up to 5000 kg . 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 × 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 ( 228)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
10606
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर , 2005
का.आ. 3483.-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 मैक्स एंटरप्राइज , जी/2 , चंडीधाम बिल्डिंग , डेडकास पोल के पास , एम जी हवेली रोड, मानके चौक, अहमदाबाद-380 001 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " मैक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम 'मैक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/307 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण- पत्र 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 5,000 तक की 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 सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1×10 , 2× 10* या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 56 ) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
10607
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 23rd September , 2005
S.O. 3483. 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 "MAX" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II) and with brand name "MAX" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufacturedby M/s . Max Enterprise, G/2, Chandidham Building, Near Dedka's Pole , M.G. Haveli Road, Manekchouk, Ahmedabad-380 001 , Gujarat and which isassigned the approval imark IND/09 /2005/307;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 300g . and minimum capacity of 200mg . The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 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 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 50,000 for ' e' value of 1mg, to 50nig..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 (56)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 GI/05-6 10608
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली , 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3484. 484. 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 मैक्स एंटरप्राइज, जी/ 2 , चंडीधाम बिल्डिंग, डेडकास पोल के पास, एम जी हवेली रोड, मानके चौक, अहमदाबाद -380001 , गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " मैक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' मैक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/308 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 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 सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण - पत्र 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 की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान (एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2×10* या 5 × 10 , के हैं , के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
1
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 56) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
10609
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3484. 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 " MAX " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- 1II ) and with brand name " MAX" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Max Enterprise, G/2 . Chandidham Building . Near Dedka's Pole . M.G. Haveli Road, Manekchouk, Ahmedabad -380 001 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 2005/308 :
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 10kg. and minimum capacity of 20g . The verification scale interval (e ) is Ig. 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 , 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 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 × 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 (56)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
10610
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर , 2005
का.आ. 3485.- 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 बिको स्केल कम्पनी, करनाल रोड, किशनपुरा, पीपली के पास , जिला कुरुक्षेत्र, हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बी एम सी" श्रृंखला के तुल्य रूप सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन प्रोवेट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम "बी एम सी " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 194 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
Special
उक्त मॉडल एक यांत्रिक लीवर आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन प्रोवेट प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण - पत्र 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 . से 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 1000 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 (208 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
10611
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3485. 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 (Platform machine-Proweight type) weighing instrument with analogue indication of " B.M.C. " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III) and with brand name " B.M.C. " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Beco Scale Company, Karnal Road, Kishanpura , Near Pipli , District -Kurukshetra, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/ 194 ;
The said model is a mechanical liver based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform Machine- Proweight type) with a maximum capacity of 300kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g .
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 above 50kg . and upto 1000kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5mg. 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 ( 208) /2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 10612
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3486.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट 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 एक्सकान इन्स्ट्रूमेंटस, प्लाट सं. 87 , अनुपुरम , कम्यूनिटी हाल के निकट, राधिका थिएटर के पास , ई आई सी एल पोस्ट, हैदराबाद-500062 , आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ई एक्स आई पी डब्ल्यू एस " श्रृंखला अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन-सिक्का प्रचालित प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्सकान " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्तमॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/193 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 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 । इसका प्रर्दशन प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रकार का प्रदर्श तोलन 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 सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण - पत्र 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. से या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 कि.ग्रा. से 200 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वादी 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 ( 193 ) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
10613
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3486. 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 ofthe said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non - automatic weighing instrument with digital indication (Person weighing machine-coin operated) of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) belonging to ' EXI - PWS ' series with brand name "EXCON " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) . manufactured by M/s Excon Instruments , Plot No. 87, Adj . Anupuram Community Hall , Near Radhika Theatre, EICL Post, Hydrabad-500 062. Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /05/ 193;
The said model ( see the figure given ) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with the maximum capacity of 150 kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The vertification scale interval (e) is 100g . The Display is of Light Emiting Diode (LED) Type . It operates on 230 V and 50 Hz alternate 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 instruments of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range 100 kg and 200 kg 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 , 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 ( 193 )/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
10614
नई दिल्ली. 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3487.-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 टी ए टेक्नालाजी, 16 कलातूर लेआउट , गामा सर्किल, बंगलौर 560013 द्वारा विनिर्मित स्वचालित भारमितीय भरण उपकरण के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बैगफिल " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005 / 257 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का लोड सैल आधारित स्वचालित भारमितीय 'भरण उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. है । इसकी अधिकतम भरण दर 8 भरत प्रति मिनट है । मशीन को मुक्त बहाव वाले पदार्थ जैसे चाय, चीनी, चावल , बीजें, मिठाई, बिस्कुट, आलू चिप्स, दालें, अनाज इत्यादि को भरने के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है ।
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण - पत्र 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 स्वचालित भरात्मक मशीन भी होंगे जो 6 कि.ग्रा. से 100 कि.ग्रा. तक के रेंज में हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 50 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
10615
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3487. 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 automatic gravimetric filling instrument of " BFM " 505 series with brand name " BAGFIL " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . TA Technology, 16, Kalathur Layout, Gangamma Circle, Bangalore-560013 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /05/257;
The said model model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic gravimetric filling instrument . Its maximum capacity is 50 kg . It has a output of maximum 8 fills per minute . The machine is designed for filling free flowing products like tea, sugar, rice, seeds , confectionery, biscuits , potato chips, pulses , grains etc:
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 automatic filling machine of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 6 kg to 100 kg manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design, accuracy and with the same materials with which the said approvel Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 ( 50 )/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 G1/05-7 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
10616
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3488.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट परं 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 बी पीएल हिन्द वेइंग कं ए 74, विकास नगर, फेज III , नई दिल्ली द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बी पी एल पी " श्रृंखला केअंकक सूचन सहित) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बी पी एल हिन्द" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/413 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. के अंकक सूचन के साथ लोड सेल सिद्धान्त पर कार्य करने वाला ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 20 ग्रा. है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रकार की है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है;
स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सीलबंद करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए उसे खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द की जाएगी । 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 जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जी 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 500 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से उपर और 1000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5 × 10% , के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 104)/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
19617
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन १,1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2005
S.O. 3488.-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 figuregiven below), istif collfolfflity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (606 )Sundarstofughts and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain με αφορά - ovcoperiods 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 3636 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with "BPLP " series belonging to High accuracy (Accitaty class Ily and with brand name " BPL HIND" (herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured ByMES FILIPIDITE AV BH Vikas Nagar, Phase - III , New Delhi and which is assigned the approval mark ( कॉम कन्ट्रास 74 , The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity 300 kg . a minimum capacity of 1 kg. The value of vertification scale interval ' e ' is 20g. The Display is of Light Emiting Diode (LED ) type . The instrument operates on 230V and 50Hz alternate power supply .
practices. In addition to sealing the stamping plate, sealing done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sdation (12 ofscriba ofte s Act the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall so cover the weighing instrument of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maхітит сарасitу авока plo 1000kg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 50,000 for 'e' value of 100mg. or more and with 'e' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10%, k being a positive or negative whole numbernumber ofof equal to Zero, manufactured by thethe same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and With the sante materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 ( 104 )/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10618
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3489.-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 बी पीएल हिन्द वेईंग कं , ए-74, विकास नगर, फेज III , नई दिल्ली द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " बी पी एल टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बीपीएल हिन्द" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्तमॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/414 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 व्यवकलानात्मक 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 सीलबन्द 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 प्रमाण -पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त 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 ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 ×10के , 2×10* या 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 104)/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10619 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3489. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below), is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non-automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " BPLT " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name "BPL HIND" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/ s BPL HIND WEIGHING Co. , A-74, Vikas Nagar, Phase- III , New Delhi and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/414;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacityof 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The ligh emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230V and 50Hz alternate 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 instruments of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above up to 50 kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for 'e' 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 1 × 10* , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10* , 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 ( 104)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10620
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3490.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वणित 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 पैरामाउन्ट वेइंग सिस्टम, सी-157, मायापुरी, फेज- II , नई दिल्ली -110064 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " पी टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पैरामाउन्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/ 05/ 206 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । !
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सैल आधारित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) अस्वचालित 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 व्यवकललात्मक 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 और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कितुक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 x 102 x 10 या 5 × 10 के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 305 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10621 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9,1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2005
S.O. 3490.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ; ...
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "PTT " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class -II) and with brand name "PARAMOUNT" (herein referred to as the said Model) , manufacturedby M/ s . Paramount Weighing System, C-157, Mayapuri , Phase - II, New Delhi - 110064 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/206;
The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply...
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent 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 mate, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50mg and with verification scale interval (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%, 2x10 or 5x10 , wherek 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 (305)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
10622
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3491.-केन्द्रीय सरकार क़ा, 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 पैरामाउन्ट वेइंग सिस्टम, सी-157 , मायापुरी, फेज- II , नई दिल्ली-110064 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी पी एफ " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पैरामाउन्ट" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/2005/ 205 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सैल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2000 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन माधमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 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 ।
जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त 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 किउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उर्सः 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 मान ( एन ) अंतराल 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 ( 305 )/2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10623 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September , 2005
S.O. 3491.-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 (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "PPF " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III) and with brand name "PARAMOUNT" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s. Paramount Weighing System, C- 157 , Mayapuri , Phase - II, New Delhi - 110064 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/2006;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 2000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval (e ) is 200g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230V and 50Hertz 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 instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 5000kg 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 × 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 principles , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 (305 )/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 G1 /05-8 10624
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3492.-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 किलबने आफिस, आटोमेशन लिमिटिड, 161 / बी-4 , गुलमोहर हाउस चौथी मंजिल , गौतम नगर, युंसफ सराय, नई दिल्ली-110049 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एन " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पिटनी बाव्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/172 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान । 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 ।
जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया 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 तोल उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मानमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 317 ) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
10625 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3492.-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 "N " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " PITNEY BOWES" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Killburn Office Automation Limited. 161/B -4, Gulmohar House, 4th Floor, Gautam Nagar, Yusuf Sarai , New Delhi - 110 049 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/ 172;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instruinent ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 2kg and minimum capacity of 20g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 1g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230V and 50Hz 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 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 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10*, 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 (317)/2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Me trology 10626
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 22 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3493.-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 प्रिसिश्जन इलैक्ट्रानिक इन्स्ट्रूमेंट कम्पनी , 77 , स्वर्ण पार्क , मुंडका, नई दिल्ली -110 041 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी टी एम " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " गोल्ड टेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/ 09/ 2004/ 525 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि. ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम 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 । प्रदर्श द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रकार का है । उपकरण 9-12 वोल्ट डी सी प्रत्यक्ष 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 उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी दिनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण 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 मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 150 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के ,के, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के, के हैं , के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 54 ) /2004 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10627 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 22nd September, 2005
S.O. 3493.- 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 model of non -automatic weighing instrument with digital indication (Person weighing machine) of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) belonging to "GTM " series with brand name " GOLDTECH " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Precision Electronic Instruments Company, 77 , Swaran Park, Mundaka, New Delhi - 110041 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2004/525;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with the maximum capacity of 150 kg and minimum capacity is 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. The display is of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) type . The instrument operates on 9-12 VDC direct current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent 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 in the range of 100 kg to 150 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 %, 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 ( 54 )/2004 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10628
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
नईदिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3494.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्वात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 197650 ) 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 डिलमर प्रोडेक्टस लिमिटेड, 101 , सेक्यूलर ब्लाक, अलकापुरी शापिंग सेंटर विश्वास कालोनी , बड़ोदा, गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " आई डी 200 एम " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डिलमर " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/05/ 143 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 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 । द्रव्य क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श 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 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मानमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 200 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 x 10 के या 5 × 10 के, के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21( 300)/2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
10629
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 23rd September , 2005
S.O. 3494.-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 (Person Weighing Machine) weighing instrument with digital indication of " ID 200M " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DELMER" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Delmer Products Limited, 101 , Circular Block, Alkapuri Shopping Centre , Vishvas Colony, Baroda, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/ 143 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Person Weighing Machine ) with a maximum capacity of 200 kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100 g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display ( LCD) indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent from 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 in the range of 100 kg to 200 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k , 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 (300)/2003 ]
P.A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology.
10630
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3495.-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 एडवांस माइक्रोनिक डिवाइसिज लिमिटेड, 16, 1 ए क्रास, इलैक्ट्रानिक सिटी, बंगलौर द्वारा के निर्मित अंकक सूचन सहित , क्लिनीकल थर्मामीटर " मीडी + एड " श्रृंखला के ( नम्य टिप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मीडी एड " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) औरजिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/ 2005/114 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
DIGITAL THERMOMETER
:
उक्त मॉडल 32 ° सेंटीग्रेड से 43 ° सेंटीग्रेड तापमान रेंज का नम्य टिप प्रकार का क्लिनीकल थर्मामीटर है । मापमान अंतराल या अंकक वृद्धि 0.1° सेंटीग्रेड है । द्रव क्रिस्टल संप्रदर्श ( एल सी डी) से परिणाम उपदर्शित किया जाता है । यह 1.5 वोल्ट बटन सैल बैटरी पर कार्य करता है ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 31 ) /2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10631 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi, the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3495. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of Model of Clinical Thermometer with digital indication of series ' Medi -Aid ' flexible tip type (herein refferred to as the said model ) , and with brand name ' Medi +Aid ' manufactured by M/s . Advance Micronic Devices Limited, 16 , 1A Cross, Electronic City, Bangalore and which is assigned the approval mark IND/9/2005/ 114 ;
The said model is a flexible tip type Clinical thermometer with temperature range of 32 ° C to 43.0 ° C . The scale interval or digital increment is 0.1 . °C. The result is indicated with Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) . It operates on 1.5V button cell battery.
[F. No. WM-21 (31 )/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 G1/05-9 [PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
10632
नई दिल्ली, 5 सितम्बर , 2005
का. आ. 3496.- 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 नवया इंजीनियरिंग इंडस्ट्रीज , प्लाट सं. 13-172 , एस आई एफ को के पीछे, फतेह नगर इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया, बाला नगर हैदराबाद-500018 द्वारा निर्मित " एन ई-100" श्रृंखला के स्वचालित भरण मशीन ( कप फिलर ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नवया पैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/ 09/2005/57 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्तमॉडल अनुमापी यांत्रिक स्वचालित भरण मशीन ( कप फिली प्रकार ) की है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । इसकी आउटपुट 40 थैली प्रति मिनट है । यह 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । यह अनाज, चाय, चीनी, चावल, डिटर्जेंट, औषधियां, कृषि उत्पादन इत्यादि जैसे मुक्त बहाव वाले उत्पादों को भरने में प्रयोग किया जाता 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 की भरण मशीन भी होंगी जो 10 ग्रा . से 1000 ग्रा. तक की रेंज क्षमता वाले हैं ।
[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 112 )/2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10633 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 5th September, 2005
S.O. 3496. 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 model of automatic filling machine (Cup Filler) ( herein referred to as the said model ) of series ' NEP - 100 ' and brand name " Navyapack " , manufactured by M/s. Navya Engineering Industries , Plot No. 13-172 , behind SIFCO , Fatehnagar Industrial Area, Balanagar, Hyderabad- 500018 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/57;
The said model is a volumetric mechanical automatic filling machine (Cup Filler type ) of maximum capacity 1000g. Its output is 40 poluches per minute. It operates on 230 -Volts and 50 -Hertz alternate current power supply. It is used for filling the free flowing products such as salts , spices , pulses , chips , grains , tea , sugar, rice , detergent , pharmaceuticals , agricultural products , etc.
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 and performance of same series with capacity in the range 10g to 1000g manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design, accuracy and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM- 21 ( 112)/2004]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] 10634
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9, 1927
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3497.- 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 ऐडिटसन टेक्नॉलाजिकल प्राडेक्टस , 102 , साउथ एक्सटेंशन प्लाज़ा- II मस्जिद मोठ, नई दिल्ली -110044 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " टेक्ससैल " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ऐजाइल " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/2005/ 133 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदनं प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अंकक सूचन सहित भार सैल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करने वाले ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड (एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को प८ पूर्ण 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 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 मानमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 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 के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं, के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 61 )/2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10635 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3497.-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 "Texcell " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name "AGILE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Aditsan Technological Products , 102, South Extension , Plaza - II , Masjid Moth , New Delhi - 110 049 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/ 133 ;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity 600g and minimum capacity of 200mg. The valume of verification scale interval (e) is 10mg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V and 50Hz. 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 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 50,000 for ' e ' 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 × 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 principles , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 ( 61 )/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10636
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
नई दिल्ली, 23 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3498.- 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 प्रयास 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 एल खोटा नाथ , शिवाजी नगर, फल टंकी के पास, सावरकुण्डला -364515 , गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एल. खोटा नाथ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2003 / 207 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक काउंटर मशीन 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के काउंटर मशीन भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की रेंज में हैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 86 )/2003]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10637 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खाण्ड 3 (ii) ]
New Delhi , the 23rd September, 2005
S.O. 3498. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and 8 of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Counter Machine with brand name " L. Khoda Natha" (herein referred to as the Model ) , manufactured by M/s . L. Khoda Natha, Shivaji Nagar, Near Water Tank, Savarkundla- 364515 (Gujarat ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 2003/207;
The said model (see the figure given) is a Counter Machine. The maximum capacity is 10kg.
i Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of the said Section the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the Counter Machine of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity ranging from 500g . to 50kg. , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.
[F. No. WM-21 (86)/2003]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 10638
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 26 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3499.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट 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 केलट्रान स्केल्स, 3 नारायणन सेंटर, अप्रोच के पास , निकोल रोड, जगदीश इस्टेट, बक्कर बापानगर, अहमदाबाद -382350 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सीई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " केलवान स्केल्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/2004/174 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।
उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार का ) 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 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 सीलबंद 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 ) 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज के मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं , के जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।
[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (78 )/2003 ]
पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 10639 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
New Delhi , the 26th September, 2005
S.O. 3499. 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 "CE " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II) and with brand name " CALTRON SCALEX" ( herein referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Caltron Scalex, 3 , Narayanan Centre , Near Approch , Nikol Road , Jagdish Estate , Thakkarbapanagar, Ahmedabad - 382 350 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/174;
The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 22kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230V and 50Hz alternative current power supply.
In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent 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 with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' 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 principles , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .
[F. No. WM-21 (78 )/2003 ]
P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 2800 G1 /05-10.
10640
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 26 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3500.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरुच्चि, मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;
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 शतिक्यों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस तारीख से, जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रुप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वजवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , चेन्नई- तिरुच्चि मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 12/30 , एफ ब्लाक , मार्क रेसिडेन्सी , वी.ओ.सी. रोड , कन्टोन्मेन्ट , तिरुच्चिराप्पल्ली -620 001 (तमिलनाडु) को कर सकेगा । 10641 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अंक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
अनुसूची
राज्य : तमिलनाडु
जिला : विल्लुपुरम
तालूका : कल्लकुरिच्चि
क्षेत्रफल
सर्वे नंबर
गाँव का नाम
हिस्सा नंबर
वर्ग मीटर
आर
हेक्टर
6
3
4.
5
2
1
60
12
174
8
नं . 129 कटुंगुली
0
00
.88
215
1ब
नं. 117 नायिनारपालेयम
04
03
0
2
215
30
02
141
3
00
66
731
0
191
नं . 106 पेत्तसमुद्रम
01
63
191
74
0
02
1.
86
32
0
20
13
376
नं . 99 रायप्पनूर
फा.सं . आर-25011/ 14/2004- ओ.आर.- I ]
एस. के . विटकारा , अवर सचिव Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas
New Delhi , the 26th September, 2005
S. O. 3500.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary, in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy, Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And, whereas , it appears 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 conferredby sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act . 1962 ( 50 cf 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 twer: ty 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 and to Shri . R.Vajra elu, 10642
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai -Trichy -Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 12/30 , F Block, Mark Residency, VOC Road , Contonment , Tiruchirappalli - 620 001 , Tamilnadu .
SCHEDULE
Taluk : KALLAKURICHCHI
District : VILLUPURAM
State : TAMILNADU
Area
Nameof the Village
Survey No. Sub- Division No.
Hectare
Are Sq.mtr .
1
2
3
4
5
6 NO.129 KARUNGULI
174
8
0
12
60
215
NO.1.17 NAYINNARPALAYAM
1B
0
00
88
215
2
0
03
04
141
3
0
02
30 NO.106 PETTASAMUDRAM
191
7A
0
00
66
191
8B
0
01
63
86
1
0
02
74 NO.99 RAYAPPANUR
376
13
0
20
32
[F. No. R-25011/14/ 2004-O.R. - 11
S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.
'नई दिल्ली, 26 सितम्बर, 2005
:
का. आ. 3501.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरुच्चि , मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ; और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ; 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 शतिक्यों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस तारीख से, जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रुप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वज्रवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , चेन्नई-तिरुच्चि भदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 12/30 , एफ ब्लाक, मार्क रेसिडेन्सी, वी.ओ.सी. रोड, कन्टोन्मेन्ट ,तिरुच्विराप्पल्ली -620 001 ( तमिलनाडु ) को कर सकेगा । [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]
10643
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
अनुसूची
जिला : नामक्कल
तालूका: रासिपुरम
राज्य : तमिलनाडु
क्षेत्रफल गाँव्र का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
हिस्सा नंबर
आर
हेक्टर
वर्ग मीटर 1
2
3
4
5
6
5
0
186
00
84 नं .60 ईश्वरर्मूतिपालैयम
186
1ब
0
00
68
183
0
5
01
09
183
6
02
13
237
0
4
01
00
237
3
0
02
30
237
2
0
01
84
237
0
5ब
04
45
0
238
11
01
47
1
233
0
04
41
197
0
03
23
1 इ
197
0
00
1जि
51
1
0
11
198
06
0
198
231
01
20
2
0
00
199
88
205
0
01
1ब
94
0
177
01
नं . 57 आयलपटिट
55
1अ ३
92
143
07
11
नं . 45 मुलैपल्लिपटिट
1
157
0
72
00
0
223
12
7
10
118
2
0
02
00
264
0
33
04
237
नं .47 नामगिरिपेट्टै
52
0
3अ
19
59 नं . 48 अरियगबुन्डनपटिट
52
0
02
70
3ब
9
2
0
00
93 नं . 91 ओ.पच्चुदैयनपालयम
9
3
0
01
35
52
0
11
81
3अ 10644
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1
3
2
4
5
6
0
52
02
66
3ब
0
80
01
2ब 1
96 नं . 37 वोडुवन्कुरिचि
2
0
06
2311
75 नं .49 ओ.जेदारपालैयम
4
4
0
02
28
0
01
2
35
56 नं . 34 सिंगलंदपुरम
0
35
06
431
94
81
0
05
70
5
नं . 27 कुरुकापुरम
7
0
81
00
01
0
01
2क
11
61 नं . 83 एल्लपालयम
0
104
1
11
89 नं . 29 पिल्लानल्लूर
102
6एफ
03
72
4
0
07
98
40
03
98
0
5
40
जिला : नामक्कल
तालूका : तित्रुचेंगोडु
राज्य : तमिलनाडु 1
2
3
4
5
6
1 क
90
0
05
55 नं. 84 मोरंगाम
83
96
0
03
0
85
2
89
00
0
78
2
01
56
0
78
2
00
89 नं 93 पत्रुटिपल्लि
79
0
02
15हेच
00
79
15ปี
00
0
40
1
47
0
03
31 नं . 51 तिरुमंगलम
2ब
05
53
45
0
:
14
0
04
1 ब
19 नं . 52 करुप्पगवुंदमपाल्यम
[ फ्त. सं. आर-25011/14/2004- ओ.आर. - 1 ].
एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव 10645
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
New Delhi , the 26th September, 2005
S. O. 3501.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy, Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ; .
And, whereas , it appears 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 . R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai - Trichy-Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 12/30 , F Block, Mark Residency, VOC Road , Contonment , Tiruchirappalli - 620 001 , Tamilnadu .
SCHEDULE
State: Tamil Nadu
District: Namakkal
Taluk: Rasipuram
Area
Sub-Division no .
Survey no.
Name of the Village
Sq.mtr.
Are
Hectare
6
5
4
3
2
1
84
00
0
5
186
No.60 ESWARAMURTHIPALAYAM
68
00
0
1B
186
09
01
0
5
183
13
02
0
6
183
00
01
0
4
237
30
02.
0
3
237 10646
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
1
2
3
237
2
237
5B
238
1A
233
1
197
1E
197
1G
198
1
198
2A
199
2
205
1B NO . 57 AYILPATTI
177
1A3
143
NO45 . MULAIPALLIPATTI
1A
157
1
223
7
118
2 NO . 47 ΝΑΜAGIRIPETTAΙ
264
2A7
52
NO. 48 ARIYAGOUNDANPATTI
3A
52
3B NO.91.0 . PACHUDAYAMPALAYAM
9
2
9
3
52
3A
52
3B NO.37 ODUVANKURICHI
80
2B1 NO.49 O.JEDARPALAYAM
2
2A1
4
4 NO.34 SINGALANDAPURAM
35
2
35
4A NO.27 KURUKKAPURAM
81
5
81
7 NO.83 ELLAPPALAYAM
11
2C NO.29 PILLANALLUR
104
1
102
6F
4
98
98
5 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
4
5
6
0
01
84
0
04
45
0
01
47
0
04
41
0
03
23
0
00
51
0
11
06
01
20
0
0
00
88
0
01
94
0
01
55
0
07
92
0
72
00
0
12
10
0
02
00
0
04
33
0
19
59
0
02
70
0
00
93
0
01
35
0
11
81
0
02
66
0
01
96
0
06
75
0
02
28
0
56
01
0
06
94
0
05
70
:
0
01
00
0
01
61
0
11
89
0
03
72
0
07
40
0
03
40 10647 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
State : Tamil Nadu
District : Namakkal
Taluk : Tiruchengode
6
4
5
3
1
2
55
05
1C
0
90
NO.84 MORANGAM
96
03
0
83
00
89
85
2
0
56
01
0
78
2
89
0
00
2
NO.93 PARUTHIPALLI
78.
00
02
0
79
15H
40
0
00
79
151
0
31
1
03
47
NO.51 THIRUMANGALAM
0
05
53
2B
45
04
19
0
1B
14
NO.52 KARUPPAGOUNDAMPALAYAM
[F. No. R-25011/14/2004- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 26 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3502.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरुच्चि, मदुराई और शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;
और ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करना आवश्यक है ;
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 शतिक्यों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;
भारत के उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध कोई व्यक्ति उस तारीख से, जिसको राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन या भूमि 2800 G1/05-11 10648
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii)] के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रति लिखित रुप में आक्षेप श्री आर. वजवेलू, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, चेन्नई- तिरुचि मदुराई उत्पाद पाइपलाइन परियोजना और आसनूर से शंकरी तक ब्रांच पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 12/30 , एफ ब्लाक, मार्क रेसिडेन्सी , वी.ओ.सी. रोड , कन्टोन्मेन्ट ,तिरुच्चिराप्पल्ली -620 001 ( तमिलनाडु) को कर सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
जिला : सेलम
राज्य : तमिलनाडु तालूका : आत्तूर
क्षेत्रफल
गाँव का माम
सर्वे नंबर
हिस्सा नंबर
वर्ग मीटर
हेक्टर
आर
1
2
3
4
5
6 नं 97 नत्तक्करै
4ब
0
01
00
108
141
0
07
231
86 नं . 86 देवियाकुरिच्चि
5
0
नं. 72 वलैयमादेवि
48
00
40
0
48
6
00
04
48
7
0
03
22
48
90
0
12
0
00
8के
48
93
48
8जे
0
00
60
48
0
50
8एम
02
वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं . 12
नं . 70 आत्तूर टाउन
9
2
0
06
31
नं . 16
वार्ड एफ ब्लाक
1
0
14
01
40
2
0
14
02
28
वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं 19
2
2
0
72
00
वार्ड एफ ब्लाक नं . 17
2
5
0
00
62
1
3
0
01
25
3
2
0
05
57
326
0
4
05
90 नं. $ 2 नरसिंगपुरम
326
3
0
01
75
341
0
253
05
00
342
0
01
41
1 इ
342
00
1 1जि
0
96
325
2
0
03
36
317
1
0
01
31 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
1
2
3
403
1 ड
403
2 नं 45 सिलियमपटिट
138
4
5
138
5
184
6
184
10
183
187
10
125
3 संकरि
10649 4
6
5
05 0
02
17 0
01
0
04
22
01
0
08 0
50
18
0
62
13
0
66
13
02
0
88 0
02
74
जिला : सेलम
तालूका :
1
2
3
623
21 नं . 21 मोटूर
617
23
632
236
2 नं . 22 कस्तूरिपटिट
48
237
237
49
237
50
237
51 राज्य : तमिलनाडु
4
5
6
08
26
44 0
03
0
38
37
10
0
74 0
46
03
00
82 0
06
00 0
01
86 [फा. सं. आर-25011/14/2004-ओ.आर. -1 ].
एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 26th September, 2005
S. O. 3502.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public Interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Trichy , Madurai and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And , whereas , it appears 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;
10650
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART JI-S , 3 ( ii)| 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 . R.Vajravelu , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai-Trichy - Madurai Product Pipeline Project with a branch pipeline from Asanur to Sankari , 12/30 , F Block, Mark Residency , VOC Road , Contonment , Tiruchirappalli - 620 001 , Tamilnadu .
SCHEDULE
Taluk : Attur
District : Salem
State : Tamil Nadu
Area
Sub-Division no.
Nameof the Village
Surveyno.
Hectare
Are Sq.mtr .
1
2
3
4
5
6 NO . 97 NATHAKARAI
108
4B
0
01
00 NO . 86 DEVIYAKURICHI
141
2A
0
07
86 NO.72 VALAIYAMADEVI
48
5
0
00
40
48
6
0
04
00
48
7
0
03
22
48
81
0
12
90
48
8K
0
00
93
48
8J
0
00
60
:
48
8M
0
02
50 NO.70 ATTUR TOWN
Ward F Block No. 12
こ
9
0
06
31
Ward F Block No. 16
14
1
0
40
01
14
2
0
02
28
Ward F Block No. 19
2
2
0
00
72
Ward F Block No. 17
2
5
0
00
62 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
3
2
1
3
1
2
3
4
326
NO.52 NARASINGAPURAM
3
326
2D3
341
342
1E
342
1G
2
325
1
317
1D
403
2
403
4 NO 45 SEELIYAMPATTI
138
5
138
5
184
6
184
183
10
187
10
3
125
Taluk : Sankari
District : Salem
2
3 1
623
2A NO . 21 MORUR
617
2A
632
NO . 22 KASTHURIPATTI
2
236
237
48
237
49
237
50
237
51
10651
5
4
6
01
25 0
57
05
0
90
05
0
01
75 0
00 0
05
41 0
01
00
96 0
36 0
03
31 0
01
0
05
02
0
01
17 0
04
22 0
01
08
18
50 0
13
0
62
13
0
66 0
02
88
74 0
02
State : Tamil Nadu 4
5
6
08
0
26 0
44
03
37
38
0
10
74
46 0
03
82 0
00
0
06
00 0
01
86 [F. No. R-25011/14/2004- O.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
10652
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 26 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3503.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. 1204 तारीख 19-4-1999 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए सिवाय उन बातों के जो ऐसे अधिक्रमण से पूर्व की गई हैं या करने का लोप किया गया है, श्री वाई , के. देसाई, मामलातदार, रजूला, ज़िला अमरेली, गुजरात सरकार को, उनको अपने कार्यभार के साथ- साथ , भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज़ लिमिटेड की सेन्ट्रल इंडिया रिफाईनरी परियोजना से सम्बन्धित वाडीनार ( गुजरात) से बीना ( मध्य प्रदेश) तक की देशव्यापी क्रूड पाइपलाइन के लिए सक्षम प्राधिकारी के. कृत्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए , उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन, गुजरात राज्य के राज्यक्षेत्र के भीतर, प्राधिकृत करती है ।
[फा. सं . आर-31015/9/98- ओ.आर- II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 26th September, 2005
S. O. 3503. In pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 1204 dated 19.4.1999 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby authorises Shri Y.K. Desai , Mamlatdar, Rajula, Amreli district , Government of Gujarat , to perform the functions of competent authority for cross - country crude pipeline from Vadinar ( Gujarat ) to Bina (Madhya Pradesh ) relating to Bharat Oman Refineries Limited's Central India Refinery Project, in addition to his own duties , under the said Act, within the territory of State of Gujarat .
[No. R-31015/9/98 -O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 सितम्बर , 2005
का. आ. 3504.- केंद्रीय 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 उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गयी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का० आ० 2142 , तारीख 10 , जून , 2005 द्वारा , तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई से तिरुच्चिराप्पल्ली होकर मदुराई तक और आसनूर से शंकरी तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनूसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी । 10653 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 25.07.2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केंद्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ।
और केंद्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना चाहिए ।
अतः अब, केंद्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुये यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।
यह और कि केंद्रीय सरकार ,उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केंद्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी बिल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।
अनुसूची
राज्य : तमिलनाडु
जिला : पेरम्बलूर
तालूका : कुन्नम
क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
हिस्सा नंबर
आर
हेक्टर
वर्ग मीटर
6
5
3
4
2
0
17
42
1
171
नं . 52/1 . सित्तलि (वेस्ट)
56
0
01
171
5अ
07
48
0
4ब
193
0
06
19
193
5
52
0
03
6
193
0
74
13
7
193
15
0
06
1अ
199
0
02
34
199
2अ
03
0
84
2
201
00
0
69
6
201
0
64
04
206
2अ 10654
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]
2
11
31
4
5 6
206
2ड
0
64
02
207
2
0
28
02
222
3
0
06
00
222
4ड
00
40
[फा. सं . आर -25011/29/2004- ओ.आर.- I]
एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 27th September, 2005
S. O. 3504.- Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2142 dated the 10th June 2005 issued under sub section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act ) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Madurai via Tiruchirapalli and Sankari in the State of Tamilnadu , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;
And, whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public from 25.07.2005 ;
And whereas , the Competent Authority in pursuance of sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government;
And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user inthe said land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;
And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .
10655
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( il) ]
SCHEDULE
State : Tamil Nadu
District : Perambalur
Taluk : Kunnam
Area
Sub-Division no .
Surveyno.
Name of the Village
Are
Hectare
Sq.mtr.
6
5
4
3
2
1
17
42
0
1
171
NO.52 / 1 CHITTALI (WEST)
56
01
0
5A
171
48
07
0
4B
193
19
06
0
5
193
52
0
03
6
193
74
13
0
7
193
15
06
0
1A
199
34
02
0
2A
199
84
0
03
2
201
69
0
00
6
201
64
04
0
2A
206
64
02
0
2D
206
28
02
0
2
207
00
06
0
3
222
40
00
0
4D
222
[ F. No. R- 25011 /29/2004-0.R. - I ] S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy.
नई दिल्ली, 27 सितम्बर, 2005
का. ऑ. 3505.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार 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 का अर्जन किया जाए ; अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 (1962 का 50) , की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;
2800 GI/05-12 10656
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 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 नन्दी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड , बी -105 , इन्द्र विहार , तलवण्डी , कोटा-324005 ( राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।
अनुसूची
तहसील: झालरापाटन
जिला: झालावाड
राज्य: राजस्थान
क्र० ग्राम का नाम
सर्वे नंबर
क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1
2
3
4
1
59
0.0360
बक्शपुरा
60
0.0216
61
0.0216
81
0.0864
82
0.1368
83
0.2088
84
0.0288
2
124
0.1944
मूण्डला खेड़ा
125
0.1152
123
0.2299
122
0.1656
120
0.1180
107
0.1152
105
0.1296
102
0.0694
100
0.2587
99
0.0144
94
0.2151
91
0.1912
90
0.0693
86
0.0792
106
0.1008
68
0.1368
29
0.0288
0.0360
56
[फा. स. आर-31015/77/204-ओ.आर- II ]
हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 27th September , 2005
S. Q. 3505.- 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 should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;
सक्षम प्राधिकारी 10657
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
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 land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;
Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser 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 copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi , Competent Authority , Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, B- 105 , Indravihar , Talwandi , Kota - 324005 (Rajasthan) .
SCHEDULE
STATE : RAJASTHAN
DISTRICT : JHALAWAR
TEHSIL : JHALARAPATAN
AREA IN HECTARE
SURVEY NO .
NAME OF VILLAGE
S.No.
4
3
2
1
0.0360
59
1 BAKSHPURA
0.0216
60
0.0216
61
0.0864
81
0.1368
82
0.2088
83
0.0288
84
0.1944
124
2 MUNDLA KHERA
0.1152
125
0.2299
123
0.1656
122
0.1180
120
0.1152
107
0.1296
105
0.0694
102
0.2587
100
0.0144
99
0.2151
94
0.1912
91
0.0693
90
0.0792
86
0.1008
106
0.1368
68
0.0288
29
0.0360
56
[No. R-31015/77/2004- O.R. -II ]
HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.
10658
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9, 1927
श्रम मंत्रालय
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3906-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 306/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-40012/ 194/2000- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi , the 6th September, 2005 S.O. 3506.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 306/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05.
[No. L-40012/194/2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHIRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 306/2000
Shri Khyali Ram Jurel Son of Ram Khilawan , H. N. 99/15 , Phase- 9 , SAS Nagar , Mohali (Punjab) Applicant
Versus
The General Manager , Telecom , Sector - 18 , Chandigarh - 160001 Respondent APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Shri O. P. Singh
Forthe management Shri G. C. Babbar.
AWARD
Passed on 29-7-2005
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L- 40012/194/ 2000 /IR (DU) dated 31-07-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .
"Whether the action of management of General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] services of Shri Khyali Ram Jurel Son of Ram Khilawan is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat. The authorised representative of the workman Shri Q. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat, vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in LokAdalat. Central Govt . be informed .
Chandigarh 29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 6 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3507-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण. नं. - 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं . एल-40012/393/2000 - आई आर ( डीयू ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th September , 2005
S.O. 3507.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No: 18/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05.
[No. L -40012/393/2000- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 18/2001
Shri Sanjiv Kumar, C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, H. N. 372 , Sector-20 A, Chandigarh .
Applicant
Versus
(1 ) The Chief General Manager , Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector 34 , Chandigarh - 160001 .
10659
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्वित 9 , 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-9-05.
[No. L-42012/224/2000-IR(DU) ]
Respondent
(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Sector- 18, Chandigarh.
[No. L-42012/223/2000- IR (DU) ] APPEARANCES :
[No. L-42012/225/2000- IR (DU) ] Fortheworkman : Shri O. P. Singh
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
For the management : Shri G. C. Babbar.
AWARD
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL Passed on 29-7-2005
TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
1. Case No. CGIT-30/2004
Reference No. L-42013/224 /2000- IR (DU) CentralGovt. videNotification No. L-40012/393/2000/ IR (DU) dated 27-12-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
Applicant
Sh. Manoharlal, S/o Sh. Ghasi Ram, R/oPlot No. 27 , SanjayColony, Tehsil: Alwar, Alwar(Raj .).
Versus
"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh district in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Sanjiv Kumar, a workman engaged through contractor M/ s . R. K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-1999 isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"
TheDirector,
All IndiaRadio, Akashwani Bhawan, SchemeNo. 5,
Non -applicant
Alwar (Rajasthan)-301001 .
2. Case No. CGIT- 33/2004 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat. The authorised representative ofthe workman Shri O. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat, vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect . In view ofthe same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed.
Reference No. L-42012/223/2000- IR (DU) Chandigarh
Sh. Panpu Ram Saini,
29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
S/o Sh. Kharati Ram Saini, R/o Mohalla HeeraBas, NearBabri ,
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
Applicant
Alwar (Raj.) .
Versus
TheDirector,
All IndiaRadio, Akashwani Bhawan, Scheme No. 5,
... Non-applicant
Alwar (Rajasthan)-301001.
3. Case No. CGIT- 37/2004 का.आ. 3508- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-30, 33, 37 ऑफ 2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Reference No. L-42012/225/2000 - IR (DU) [संः एल-42012/224/ 2000- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ]
Sh . Ganesh Ram Saini ,
[सं.एल-42012/223/2000- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ]
[सं. एल-42012/225/2000- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 6th September, 2005
.. Applicant
S/ Sh . Dhisa Ram Saini, R/o Scheme No. 5 , Near Water Tank, Nichla Sonava, Alwar, Alwar(Raj .) .
Versus
The Director,
All IndiaRadio,
Akashwani Bhawan, Scheme No. 5 ,
Non - applicant
Alwar (Rajasthan)-301001 .
S.O. 3508. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 30, 33, 37 of2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of All India Radio and their 10660
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
PRESENT :
Sh . R. C. Sharma, Presiding Officer Forthe applicants : Sh . Munesh Gupta.
For the non - applicant: Sh . Tej Prakash Sharma.
Date of award
:11-08-2005
AWARD
1. All these references involve the common questions of facts and law and are being disposed of by this common award.
2. The Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub- Sections 1 & 2( A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ' ) has referred these industrial disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal which respectively run as below:-
Case No. CGIT 30/2004
"Whether the claim of Sh . Manoharlal S /o Sh. Ghasi Ram for reinstatement/ absorption in Class IV Post with consequential benefits from the management ofAll India Radio , Alwar is just and fair ? If so , what relief the workman is entitled ? "
Case No. CGIT 33/2004
"Whether the claim of Sh . Pappu Ram Saini S/o Sh. Kherati Lal Saini for reinstatement/ absorption in Class IV Post with consequential benefits from the management of All India Radio , Alwar is just and fair ? If so , what relief the workman is entitled ? " Case No. CGIT 37/2004
"Whether the claim of Sh . Ganesh Ram Saini for reinstatement/absorption in Class IV Post with consequential benefits from the management of All India Radio, Alwar isjust and fair ? If so, what relief the workman is entitled ? "
3. The case of the workman is that they were employed as 4th class by the management of All India Radio Station , Alwar, who served under the employment of the management of various years and the particulars of their employment are exhibited in the table below: - Name
[PART II-SE . 3 ( ii) ] added that they had completed more than 240 days of actual work in the calendar year preceding to the date of their termination , but the management without following the requirements under Section 25 - F of the Act has terminated their services respectively. It is further stated that the work performed by them was of perennial nature and exists even today. It is also their plea that subsequent to their termination , the fresh hands were recruited by the management in violation of Section 25 -H of the Act . They have urged that they be reinstated and absorbed in the service of the All India Radio .
5. Resisting the claim , the non - applicant in his written counter has averred that the claimants are not the workmen under the Act, that the non - applicant establishment is not an industry and the case of the workmen is covered by the provision under Section 2(00 ) (bb ) of the Act , who were engaged on contractual basis for a specified period for contingent work and their employntent came to an end on the expiry of the contractual period. It has also been pleaded that the services of employees can be regularized only after following the prescribed procedure under the rules.
6. In the rejoinder, the workmen have reiterated the facts as emumcrated in their claim statements respectively.
7. On the pleadings of both the parties , the following points for determination were framed:
CGIT-30/ 2004
I. Whether the workman had joined the non- applicant established on 20-8-93 as a casual workman, who continuously worked up to 25-9-94 and whose service was terminated in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act ? BOA II. Whether the workmanis eligible for his absorption into the service ? BOA III. Whether after the termination of the service of the workinan , the management has recruited the fresh hands in violation of Section 25 - H of the Act ? BOA IV. Whether the disputant is a workman as defined under Section 2 -S of the Act ? BOA
Period of employment
1. Manoharlal
V Whether the non - applicant management is an industry within the meaning of Section 2 - J of the Act ? BOA
20-8-1993 to 25-9-1994
2. Pappu Ram Saini
8. Similar points for determination were framed in case number CGIT -33 /2004 and CGIT- 37/ 2004.
24-12-1989 to 15-1-1999
3. Ganesh Ram Saini 20-1-1990 to 1-1-1999 4.They have further pleaded in their claim statement that they possess all the qualifications for treating them as the employees of semi - temporary status and to regularize their services under the scheme prepared by the Central Government for the casual workers . They have 9. In the evidence , the workmen have subnutted their affidavits respectively and in the rebuttal the counter affidavit of MW - 1 Rajesh Babu , the Station Engineer was placed on the record. All the witnesses were cross- examined by the respective opposite representative .None of the parties has chosen to lead the documentary evidence .
10661 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
appointment letter was issued in his favour and has also pleaded ignorance as to whether his name was sponsored by the employment exchange.
10. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record. The point- wise discussion follows as under:-
Point Nos. I, II and IV
11. All these points being identical are discussed together hereunder: --
17. Thus, all these workmen have admitted that they were engaged to work by the management without following the prescribed procedure for appointment , that no appointment letter was issued in their favour and even their names were not sponsored by the employment exchange. On these facts , it appears that they were engaged as casual workers on contractual basis and their services were hired by the management on payment of wages . Thus , though they can be safely termed as the workmen as defined under Section 2 - S of the Act , yet it indicates that they were not regularly appointed by the management.
12. The Id. representative for the workmen contends that the workmen had continuously worked in the disputed period, but were removed without showing any reason and their dates of termination have not been denied by the management . His submission is that the requirements under Section 25 -F of the Act were not complied with by the management prior to their termination. He has further contended that as per the averment of the non - applicant the workmen were called at times by the management for carrying out the work which means that they were eligible for the post and they are entitled for their reinstatement as well as absorption in the service. His submission is that they are also workmen .
18. The management has set forth the plea that the disputants were appointed for a specified period on contractual basis and their case is attracted under clause 2(oo) (bb) of the Act. But no contract/agreement couldbe placed on record on behalf of the management to substantiate this plea , nor the specific period of employment could be disclosed in the pleadings . Therefore, the plea of the management is neither supported by any agreement nor by its pleading which cannot be maintained.
13. Countering these submissions , the ld. representative for the non - applicant submits that on behalf of the workmen no document has been filed to show that they had completed 240 days of actual work in a calendar year and as such this fact could not be proved by them. The next contention advanced by the 1d. representative is that no date of termination has been mentioned in the reference , that no post is vacant with the management and that the workmen were engaged only for time being for specific work and the provision under Section 2( oo) (bb ) is attracted in the present case .
14. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through the judicial pronouncements cited before me .
19. Obviously, the references do not contain the date of termination of the workmen and there is no documentary evidence on the record to suggest the dates of their termination . In the absence of the date of termination in the references the question of reinstatement cannot be adjudicated . In 2002 (2 ) WLN Raj . 671 , the Hon'ble Court has followed the observation made by Their Lordships of the Apex Court in AIR 1964 SC 1746 which says that the Industrial Tribunal is a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction and it is not open to it to travel materially beyond the terms of reference , fot it is well -settled that the term of reference determines the scope of its power and jurisdiction.
15. Apparently, none of the parties has led the documentary evidence on the record and to substantiate theplea that the workmen had completed 240 days ofacutal work in a calendar year preceding to the date of their termination, they have adduced their oral testimony. WW- 1 Manohar Lal ( Case No. 30/04) in his cross- examination has stated that no written appointment order was issued in his favour and he had not appeared in the tests prior to his employment . He has also admitted that without following the prescribed procedure for appointment he was engaged to work and that his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange. WW- 1 , Pappu Ram Saini (Case No. 33/04) has admitted in his cross -examination that he had not appeared in the test, that his name was not invited from the employment exchange and that he affixed his signatures on the muster- roll on getting the payment ofwages .
20.Now, I am faced with the question whether the workmen are entitled for their absorption in the services . Admittedly, these workmen werc not recruited by the management after following the prescribed procedure under the connected rules and there is no documentary evidence in support of their submission that they had continuously worked during the period in question . The Id. representative for the non -applicant has placed his reliance upon 2002 SCC ( L& S ) 367 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the onus of proving the completion of length of continuous service lies upon the workmen and merely his affidavit was not sufficient evidence for that purpose. The submission advanced on behalf of the non -applicants is fortified by this decision and in the absence of any documentary and credible evidence, the factum of completion of 240 days of actual 16. WW- 1 Ganesh Ram Saini (Case No. 37/04) has admitted in his cross - examination that prior to his engagement he had not appeared in the test , that no 10662
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
their termination. Accordingly, this point is decided against theworkmen and in favour of the management .
Point No. V
service in a calendar year preceding to their termination cannot be presumed in their favour. The Id. representative for the workmen has also drawn my attention towards 2002(2) WLC (Raj ) 575; 1995(3 ) WLC Raj . 719 and AIR 1986 SC 132. But the facts of these referred to decisions do not bear resemblance with the controversy on hand and the ld. representative for the workmen does not derive any assistance from them.
21. To conclude , it stands established that the claimants fall under the category of workmen as defined under Section 2-5 of the Act . But they have failed to establish that they had completed over 240 days of actual service in a calendar year preceding to the date of their termination and are not entitled for their reinstatement/ absorption in the service. Accordingly, points No. I and II are decided against the workmen and point No. IV is decided in their favour.
Point No. III
25. MW- 1 , Rajesh Babu in his cross -examination has admitted that the advertisements are being relayed from the radio station, for which the fees are charged and the payment is also made by the management to those who render the programmes on the radio station . It shows the profit motive of the non - applicant establishment . The ld. representative for the workman has placed his reliance on AIR 1993 SC 94 which says that All India Radio and Doordarshan are industries which carry on commercial activity for profit by getting commercial advertisement telecast/broadcast and the functions carried out by them cannot be said to be purely sovereign nature . The submission of the ld. representative is fully supported by the referred to decision. Accordingly, it is held that the non - applicant establishment is an industry as defined under Section 2- J of the Aet and this point is decided against the non - applicant and in favour of the workmen .
Relief
26. For the foregoing reasons , the workmen are entitled to no relief.
22. The Id . representative for the workmen contends that the non - applicant has admitted that new employees were recruited after the termination of the workmen and the work in question exists till today. Contrary to it. the Id. representative for the management contends that no fresh hands were recruited by the management and on account of appointment of Ramesh Chandra Sharma by the management , the plea of the workmen cannot be accepted because he was appointed in furtherance of the order passed by this CGIT.
27. In consequence , all the three references are answered in the negative against the workmen and in favour of the management and it is held that the claims of the workmen for their reinstatement/ absorption in class IV post with consequential benefits from the management ofAll India Radio is not just and fair and their claims are rejected . An award is passed in these terms accordingly.
28. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act and a copy thereof be annexed in each connected file.
R. C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 6 सितम्बर, 2005
23. The workmen in their claim statements have not named any person who was appointed subsequent to their termination . WW- 1, Manohar Lal ( Case No. 30/04 ) in his cross - examination has stated that subsequent to his termination Ramesh Chandra Sharma was appointed in his place. The Id. representative for the non - applicant has elarified this factual positionby contending that Ramesh Chandra Sharnia was appointed by the management in furtherance of the Award ofthis CGIT passed in his favour. which could not be denied on behalf of the workmen . Besides it, no person could be named by the workman who was employed subsequent to his termination .
का. आ. 3509- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 270/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/230/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 6th September, 2005 24. Pappu Ram Saini ( Case No. 33/04) has disclosed in his cross - examination that Phoolchand and Bhajanłal were working with him and has further pleaded unawareness whether they are still continuing with the management . Ganesh Ram Saini (37/04 ) has also stated that subsequent to his termination Phoolchand and Ramesh Chandra Sharma were recruited by the management and likewise Pappu Ram Saini has pieaded unawareness to this fact whether they are still continuing under the employment of the non - applicant establishment . Thus , no definite evidence on this point could be adduced on behalf of the workmen to substantiate their plea that the management has recruited new hands subsequent to
S.O. 3509. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governntent hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 270 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in 10663 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05.
[No. L-40012/230/2000- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
का. आ. 3510- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 424/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-40012/377/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ]
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL- TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH
New Delhi , the 6th September , 2005 Case No. I. D. 270/2000
Shri Sukhbir Singh,
Applicant
C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, H. N. 372 , Sector-20A, Chandigarh.
Versus
S.O. 3510.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 424/ 2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05.
(1 ) The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh-160001 .
[No. L-40012/377/2000- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer (2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Sector- 18,
ANNEXURE
Respondent
Chandigarh.
APPEARANCES :
For the workman :Shri O. P. Singh
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
For the management Shri G. C. Babbar
AWARD
Case No. L. D. 424/2000 Passed on 29-7-2005
Applicant
Shri Amarjit Singh , C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, H. N. 372, Sector -20 A, Chandigarh.
Central Govt. vide noufication No. L -40012/230/2000/ IR ( D. U. ) dated 31-07-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
Versus
(1 ) The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle , Sector 34 , Chandigarh- 160001.
Respondent
(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Sector - 18 , Chandigarh.
"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager, Telecom, Chandigarh district in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Sukhbir Singh a workman engaged through contractor M/ s . R. K. Mittal w.e. f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "
APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Shri O. P. Singh
Forthe management Shri G. C. Babbar .
AWARD
2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat. The authorised representative of the workman Shri O, P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat , vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed .
Passed on 29-7-2005
Chandigarh 29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Central Govt. vide notification No. L-40012/377/2000/ IR (D. U. ) dated 31-10-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :
2800 GI/05-13 10664
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager, Telecom , Chandigarh district in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Amarjit Singh , a workman engaged through contractor Def. Vig. w.e.f. 27-2-1999 isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "
2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shri O. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat Central Govt. be informed.
Chandigarh
29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 6 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 11- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाद ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]
Versus
The Principal General Manager ,
Telecom, Telephone Deptt . ,
Sector-18,
Chandigarh-160001 .
Respondent APPEARANCES :
For the workman :Shri O. P. Singh
For the management Shri G. C. Babbar.
AWARD
Passed on 29-7-2005
Central Govt. vide notification No. L -40012/226/2002/ IR (DU) dated 21-03-2003 has referred the following disputc to this Tribunal for adjudication :
"Whether the action of management of Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Gurwinder Singh w.e.f. 27-2-1999 without complyingwith the provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act 1947 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"
2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat. The authorised representative of the workman Shri O. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat, vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed .
Chandigarh
[सं. एल-40012/226/2002- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 6th September, 2005 S.O. 3511. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 70/ 2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on6-9-05.
[No. L -40012/ 226/2002 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 70/2003
Shri Gurwinder Singh,
Son of Shri Schan Singh,
VPO Mauli Baidwan,
TehsilMohali, Distt . Ropar.
Applicant 29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3512- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 154/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40012/120/2003- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 6th September, 2005
S.O. 3512. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 154/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh nows shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-9-05.
[No. L -40012/ 120/2003 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer 10665 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
ANNEXURE
New Delhi , the 6th September, 2005 BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. I. D. 154/2004
i Shri Dharmender,
S.O. 3513. In pursuancence of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-9-05.
Son of Shri Devchan Ram, House No. 233 , Ram Darbar, Phase- II , Chandigarh,
[No. L-40012/31/2002- IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
Applicant
Versus
ANNEXURE
The Chief General Manager,
4 Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector-34A,
Chandigarh - 160001 .
Respondent
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
APPEARANCES :
Case No. I. D. 136/2002 For the workman : Shri O. P. Singh
Smt. Sapna Bhandari ,
Forthe management Shri G. C. Babbar,
AWARD
Passed on 29-7-2005
wife ofShri Bharat Bhandari , C/o Shri Tika Ram, H.No. 391 , Industrial Area , Phase- II , RamDarbar, Chandigarh.
Applicant Central Govt. vide notification No. L -40012/ 120/2003/ IR ( D. U. ) dated 09-03-2004 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication ,
Versus
The Principai General Manager ,
Telecom, Telephone Deptt .
Sector 18 A,
Respondent
Chandigarh -160001 .
"Whether the action of management of Chief General Manager , BSNL , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Dharmender, Ex- Asstt. Jointer w.e.f. 27-2-1999 without complying with the provisions of ID Act is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "
APPEARANCES :
For the workman : Shri O. P. Singh
For the management Shri G. C. Babbar.
AWARD
2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shri O. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat, vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect . In view ofthe same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed .
Passed on 29-7-2005
Chandigarh
29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
Central Govt . vide notification No. L-40012/31/2002/ IR (D. U. ) dated 24-07-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
"Whether the action of management of Department ofTelecom, Chandigarh in terminating the services ofSmt . Sapna Bhandari , Peon w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If so , what relief the workman is entitled ?"
का. आ. 3513-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग केप्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- I, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shri O. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat, vide his statement recorded on 27-7-05 to this effect . In view of the sarme , the [सं. एल-40012/31 / 2002- आई. आर. ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी 10666
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
AWARD
present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt . be informed.
Passed on 29-7-2005
Chandigarh 29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012 / 13 /2001 / IR (D. U. ) dated 24-04-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom , Chandigarh district in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Khawaja Khan a workman engaged through contractor M/ s . Gupta w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"
का. आ. 3514-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 206/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -40012/13/2001-आई. आर. (डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi, the 6th September, 2005
2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shri O. P. Singh withdrew the present reference in Lok Adalat, vide his statement recorded on 25-7-05 to this effect . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed .
Chandigarh 29-7-2005
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली , 6 सितम्बर, 2005
S.O. 3514. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 206/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on6-9-05.
[No. L-40012/13 /2001 - IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH
का. आ. 3515- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल डेयरी रिसर्च इंस्टिट्यूट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- I, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/93 ) को प्रत्याशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Case No. I. D. 206/2001
[सं. एल -42012/93/92- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
Applicant
Shri Khawaja Khan, C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, H.No. 372 Sector -20-A, Chandigarh.
New Delhi , the 6th September, 2005 Versus
(1) The Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector 34 Chandigarh-160001.
Respondent
(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Sector- 18 , Chandigarh.
1
APPEARANCES :
S.O. 3515.-In pursuanceance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 92/93 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No: I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Dairy Research Institute and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05 .
Forthe workman : ShriO. P. Singh
Forthe management Shri G. C. Babbar
[No. L -42012/93/92 - IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer 10667 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH
Case No. L. D. 92/93
Yash Pal
Son of Shri Mangal Singh , Village Balhri , B.Q. Uchana Lake, Karnal.
Applicant
4. It is also denied that management made worker a worker of the contractor. It is also submitted that there was no need to issue any notice or serve with a charge sheet upon the workman as he was not a regular employee of the institute and was only working as casual labour. There was no violation of provisions of Section 25 of the I.D. Act because the petitioner was not appointed as beldar on regular basis and no other person was engaged after him. He was engaged on daily wages basis purely for casual work for short duration.
Versus
Director, National Dairy Research Institute , Karnal
Respondent
APPEARANCES :
5. In support of his case workman filed his own affidavit Ex . W1 and management filed affidavit of one Capt. Ishwar Dass Asstt. Admn . Officer NDRI Karnal as Ex. M1 . Both the witnesses were cross - examined by rival advocates /authorized representatives at length .
For the workman
:Workman with Darshan
Singh
: Shri J. S. Virk , Advocate
For the management
AWARD
Passed on 12-7-2005
6. In arguments learned counsel Shri J.S. Virk for the management submitted that workman has not completed 240 days and that claim is time -barred and this court has no jurisdiction as the institution is not an industry and therefore , the claim of the workman may be dismissed and reference may be answered accordingly.
Central Govt . vide Notification No. L-42012/93/92- IR- (D.U. ) dated 26th of August 1993 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
"Whether the action of the management of National Dairy Research Institute , Karnal in terminating the services of Shri Yash Pal , ex -daily paid labour w.e.f. October 1981 is justified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from what date ?"
2. Workman filed the claim statement claiming that he was appointed as beldar in the year 1979 by the management and he worked upto March 1982, the work was of regular nature but the management to spoil his service, got the work done by a contractor after March 1982 and in connivance with the contractor , he was made the worker of the contractor instead of the department. His services were terminated without any notice and chargesheet violating the provisions of Section 25 F and H of the I.D. Act , 1947 .
7. On the other hand learned authorized representative of the workman in arguments submitted that warkman has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of his termination. The workman was terminated in October 1981 and learned court has to adjudicate upon this whether termination in October 1981 was just and legal . In support of his contention he firstly submitted that as regard the institution is an industry, lie referred to the statement of MW1 Ishwar Dass Administrative Officer NDRI who was cross -examined on 8-05-02 in the Court . He on oath deposed that first he has no personal knowledge of the case and deposing on the basis of the record . He further deposed that applicant worked upto October 1981 from November 1980 to October 1981 and workman worked for 278 days . He also submitted that in a case on similar facts in the case of Som Nath Vs. NDRI the management witness Shri Ishwar Dass who was examined as MW1 deposed on oath in cross -examination that the milk of cattles are used in research work. The surplus milk is sold by our institute by making various food products so that milk may not go waste . That products are sold for price .
3. The management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that Tribunal has no jurisdiction as the management is not an ' industry ' and is a research institute and that the petition is time -barred as the workman has filed the same after a gap of 10 years and this petition is liable to be dismissed on this score only. On merits the management submitted that the petitioner was engaged as casual worker for the period from 1979 to 1981 as under:
( 1) 63 days from March to May 1979
(2) 79 days from March to May 1980
(3) 75 days from Sept. to Dec. 1980
8. He submitted that this witness in another case like the case based on similar facts , the same witness deposed that this institute is selling various food products , so in the circumstances it can not be said that the management's institute is not an industry and a sovereign institute and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are attracted . And the functions of selling milk is not sovereign and the institute is an industry. He also submitted that management witness Shri Ishwar Dass (4) 217 days from Feb. to October 1981 .
10668
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]
reinstatement and notice or retrenchment compensation was not required to be paid to the workman and he is not entitled to any relief.
in Som Nath's case has deposed in cross -examination that institute is preparing and selling the food products and also selling it to the public for money. As regard objection and plea of the management regarding limitation and claim is barred as filed after 10 years , the workman has relied 1999 L.L.R. page 529 Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Cooperative Society and 2001 (2 ) RSJ Balbir Singh Vs. Punjab Roadways, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Limitation Act is not applicable in this case where notice of demand for justice was made after seven years-relief can not be deniedto the workman merely on the ground of delay- referenceto Labour Courts can not be generally questioned on ground of delay alone . It is further held in the above two authorities that in the given facts and circunistances of the case discretion is to be exercised judicially and relief should be appropriately molded .
10. In view of the above arguments of both the parties and my perusal of documents and oral evidence of both the parties , I first take up the objection of the management that management is not an " industry " . In this regard, the management has not referred any law, rather workman relied on Bangalore Water Supply ' case referred above, ajudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it is held that in the circumstances of the present case , it can not be held that the management is not an industry who is making profit from the surplus milk by preparing food products and selling the same in the market so that the milk should not go waste and so in view of the admission of the witness of the management , I hold that management is an industry as activities of the management is fully covered by the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply case . As regard delay and that claim is time barred, in view of the law referred by the workman , I hold that as Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2002(2) RSJ 147 ( supra) has held that delay in raising dispute against the order of dismissal is challenged belatedly, the dispute shall continue for adjudication and ifon merits it is so succeed, the only question would be to deprive back wages for the period of delay in raising the dispute. In view of the above referred judgment , the workman can not be denied relief only on the ground that he filed claim belatedly. In view of the above I hold that the reference can not be dismissed on the ground that it is belated as it was raised after 10 years and the reference is maintainable .
9. It is further held in 2002(2 ) RSJ page 147 that if the order of dismissal is challenged belatedly the dispute would still continue for adjudication. The only question would be to deprive back wages for the period of delay in raising dispute if on merits it is to succeed . The Tribunal canaward relief from the date of the demand of raising to the dispute if it found that such a demand is justified and warranted . Learned AR of the workman further submitted that now the only dispute remains that whether the workman completed 240 days or not , Learned AR pointed out to the evidence of MW1 Ishwar Dass AO the only witness examined in this case as well as in the case of Som Nath Vs. NDRI . He in his cross -examination in this case deposed that workman worked up to October 1981 from November 1980 and he worked for 278 days . On perusing the reference, the reference sent for adjudication is that the termination of the services of Yash Pal daily paid Labour in October 1981 is justified or not. From the deposition ofMW the only witness of the management anAdministrative Officer , he has deposed that workman hasworked up to October 1981 for 278 days which also prove that workman has completed 240 days and workman worked for more than 240 days preceding one year from the date of termination. In this regard he has also referred to a judgment of our own High Court RSJ 1989 ( 1 ) RSJ page 76 Sudeep Singh Man Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and another, it is held by the Hon'ble High Court that Saturdays , Sundays and paid holidays are to be counted in a year while calculating 240 working days preceding to the date of termination . Learned authorized representative further submitted that as regard relief it is upon the judicial discretion of the Labour Court to grant full wages for the period he did not file/serve demand notice molded the relief from the date when the workman served the demand notice. It is the case of the workman that at the time of termination no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman at thetime of this termination from service and the case of the management is that workman was not entitled to
11. As regard, whether the workman has put in more than 240 days of service in one calendar year preceding to the date of termination as submitted by the authorized representative of the workman and evidence of the both parties witnesses , workman has stated that he worked with the management from 1979 to October 1981 and has completed 240 days . The witness of the management also admitted that the worknian worked for 278 days from November 1980 to October 1981 , therefore , I am of the considered view that in view of the evidence of the workman and the management and law referred the workmanhas completed 240 days service in one calendar year preceding to the date of termination. It is also proved by the workman from his evidence as well as from the evidence of the MW1 that management has not complied with the provisions of Section 25 F as no notice or pay in lien and retrenchment compensation was given to the workman at the time of retrenchment/termination . Therefore , the termination of the workman is bad void ab initio and not justified and is liable to be set aside and the same is set aside . As regard second part of the reference towhich relief the workman concerned is entitled and from what date, I further hold and order that workman is entitled 10669 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
AWARD
Passed on this 26th day ofAugust, 2005
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 16012/3/89 -IR(DU) dated 13-8-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-
to full back wages from the date of demand notice. The management is directed to reinstate the workman as a daily wager as he was in October 1981 the day of termination with continuity of service and other consequential benefits but will get the wages from the date of demand notice till reinstatement . However as directed earlier the workman is entitled to fullback wages from the date of demand notice . The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed.
Chandigarh Dated: 12-7-2005
"Whether the action of the management of the General Manager, Security Paper Mill , Hoshangabad in terminating services of Shri Hariprasad Lutare, Ex-Safaiwala is justified ? if not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3516-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिक्यूरिटी पेपर मिल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/एल सी/ आर/176/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-16012/3/89- आई. आर ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 6th September , 2005
S.O. 3516. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 176 / 90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Security Paper Mill and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05 .
[No. L - 16012/3 /89 -IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR
NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 176/90
Shri C.M. Singh , Presiding Officer
2. The case of applicant Shri Hariprasad Lutare in brief is as follows :-That he was appointed as sweeper in the year 1976 by the management of Security Paper Mill , Hoshangabad. A chargesheet dated 18-8-83 was issued to him on the ground that he had produced a false certificate showing his Educational Qualification . The applicant denied the charges and an enquiry was conducted against him by the management . On the basis ofenquiry, punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 20-6-84 was inflicted upon the workman . It has been averred by the applicant that the enquiry conducted against him and the action taken against him is totally unjustified and liable to be set aside on the ground that the enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry properly, the applicant was not given opportunity to defend himself either through a Legal practitioner or a co-worker, along with the chargesheet or during the enquiry details and list ofwitnesses by whom charges were to be proved was not given to the applicant and in the enquiry, documents in original were not produced. Under the above circumstances, it cannot be said that the charges levelled against the applicant were proved. Therefore the findings ofEnquiry Officer are perverse and the evidence on record does not establish the fact that the applicant has committed any misconduct . The appeal preferred by the applicant has not been properly considered and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal mechanically without application of mind and without giving any reason . The punishment imposed is excessive and it is requested that the lesser punishment be given to him. It is also prayed by the applicant to hold that the action ofthe management of Security Paper Mill , Hoshangabad in terminating the services of the applicant is unjustified, illegal, arbitrary and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and all other consequntial benefits including compensatory cost.
Shri Hariprasad Lutare, Kothi Bazar, Harijan Mohalla,
Workman
Hoshangabad.
Versus
3. The management contested the reference and filed their Written Statement. The case of the management in brief is as follows: ---
The General Manager, SecurityPaper Mill ,
.Management
Hoshangabad.
That Shri Hariprasad Luiare was appointed in the Security Paper Mill , Hoshangabad as safaiwala through employment exchange w.e.f. 11-2-76 in temporary capacity.
10670
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
Authority who after careful consideration of the case . upheld the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide its Order No. F -5 ( 12 )/ 84 - SPM (BNP) dated 8-4-85. The action taken by the management meets the ends of justice hence the case does not deserve any relief whatsoever and the reference may be dismissed accordingly.
4. Applicant Shri Hari Prasad Lutare in support of his case examined himself as WW- I and the management indefending the reference examined Shri P.K. Sharma (MW- I ) Dy. Manager ( Finance) (Retd. ).
5. Both the parties filed certain documents in support of their respective contentions which shall be referred in the body of this award at appropriate places where the need be .
6. My learned predecessor in office after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through evidence on record , recorded finding on the following preliminary issue on 16-4-2001 .
Preliminary Issue -Whether the DE is proper , valid and legal ?
My learned predecessor in office vide finding dated 16-4-01 , held that the DE conducted against the workman was perfectly just and proper and decided the preliminary issue accordingly. The findings of this issue shall form the part of award.
7. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for workman and Shri R.C. Shrivastava , Advocate for management . I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record .
8. The learned counsel for workman submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case , it is requested to exercise the jurisdiction of Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to award lesser punishment than the dismissal from service to the workman. The learned counsel for the management vehemently opposed the request made by the learned counsel for workman. He submitted that under the facts and circumstances of this case , the tribunal is requested not to exercise its jurisdiction under Sec - 11 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to award lesser punishment than the dismissal from service . In this respect, he placed reliance on 1998 ( I ) LLJ - 431 in the case of Union of India and Ors . Vs. Srivastava B.K. I have very carefully gone through the law cited above . It has been held therein that if the DE conducted is fair and legal and there has been exercise of power by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority, the tribunal should stay away its hand. That it is no part of function of the tribunal to substitute its own decision when enquiry is held in accordance with rules and the punishment is imposed by the authorities considering all the relevant circumstances and which it is entitled to impose . The learned counsel for the management also placed reliance on 1995- I - LLJ- 1065 in As per particulars and the documents furnished by him for his appointment, he studied only up to 6th standard, He submitted letter dated 19-3-83 along with copy of a marksheet bearing Roll No. 660 dated 30-4-74 purported to have been issued to him by a Local School called SNG Higher Secondary School , Hoshangabad according to which the applicant had passed 10th standard. In the month ofMarch 1983 , he has also applied for transfer from Class- IV (Now Group - D) to Industrial Cadre as Paper Boy vide his application dated 9-3-83 in response to Notice No. 67 dated 26-2-83 . As the department noticed some inconsistency in his statement and documents produced at the time of joining , the department sought his clarification as to why he did not disclose his qualification up to 10th standard (1974 ) while joining service in the PaperMill in the year 1976. The applicant submitted his explanation vide letter dated 9-5-83 which was found to be far from satisfactory. As the department suspected foul play, a reference was made to the educational authority for investigation. The District Superintendent of Education after due verification , informed the office of the management that the marksheet bearing Roll No. 660 dated 30-4-74 which was submitted by Shiri Hariprasad Lutare was issued in favour of Shri Mohanlal S /o Jetharam and not in favour of Shr Hari Prasad Lutare S/o Shri Munnulal . Thus it was evidently proved that Shri Hariprasad Lutare indulged in forgery of certificate and cheating Government for his individual gains . He was therefore immediately placed under suspension and a chargesheet was served on him. As he denied the charges levelled against him , an enquiry was ordered. During the course of enquiry, he applied for permission to engage a legal practitioner. His request for engaging a legal practitioner to defend himself during the enquiry was not agreed to since rule 14 (8) ( a ) of C.S.S. (C.C.A ) Rules 1965 which stipulates that the delinquent Government servant can take the assistance ofany Government servant to defend the case on his behalf but cannot engage a legal practitioner for the purpose unless the Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority is a legal practitioner. The Presenting Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority was only a Group- " C" employee and as such the Applicant was told vide memo dated 2-12-33 that he can take the assistance of any Government servant to defend his case as per rules . But the delinquent defended the case himself. The original documents were also produced for inspection during the course of enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted a free and fair enquiry giving ample opportunity to Shri Lutare todefendhimself and submitted report according to which the applicant was found guilty of the alleged charges . The averment of the applicant that he was not given full opportunity to defend his case is absolutely false and baseless . Considering the gravity of misconduct committedby Shri Lutare , he was removed from service as amajor penalty vide Order No. EO0877 dated 20-6-84 . The applicant appealed against the punishment of the Appellate 10671 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
And
Shri H. D. Bhondave ,
Taluka: Haveli,
Second Party
R/o.: At Post : Ravet, District: Pune.
Inthe matter of Termination of service.
case of Shri A.M. İshwarchar Vs. Executive Engineer, Electrical wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that under the guise of sympathy, there can be no compromise incase of gross indiscipline. That sympathy will be shown in appropriate cases and the courts in this country have frequently observed that sympathy results in miscarriage ofjustice.
Appearances : Shri . S. D. Kulkarni, Asstt .Govt. Pleader for the First Party. Shri . J. B. Attar, Advocate for the Secondparty.
9. Having considering the facts and circumstances ofthis ease, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case in which lesser punishment than dismissal from service be awarded.
AWARD
10. In view of the above, it is concluded that the action of the management of General Manager, Security Paper Mills , Hoshangabad in terminating the services of Shri Hari Prasad Lutare, Ex. Safaiwala is justified and as a result thereof the workman concerned is not entitled to arty relief.
I. Inexercise ofthe power conferred by Clause (d) of Sub - section (1) and Sub - sec . 2 (a) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central Government has referred the dispute to the undersigned for its disposal according to the law.
11. The reference is accordingly answered in favour ofthe management and against the workman. The parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
12. The copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .
2. After the receipt of the reference , the notices have been issuedto First Party and Second Party. Second Party has submitted its Statement of Claim at Exhibit U - 1 . Whereas First Party has resisted the claim by filing its Written Statement at Exhibit C-6.
C. M. SINCH, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3517- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 की 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑर्डमैन्स फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्यौगिक अधिकरण पुणे के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -14012/4/2001- आई आर (डी चू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 6th September, 2005
S.O. 3517. 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 , Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-05.
[No. L- 14012/4/2001 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE SHRI S. S. VYAVAHARE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT PUNE
Reference (IT) No. 26/2001
BETWEEN
The General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
DehuRoad,
3. It is the cortention of the Second Party that, he was the employee of the First Party and he was serving with First Party as Wireman at Ordnance Factory, Dehu Road, Pune. It is the contention of the Second Party that, he has completed 20 years unblemished service . One Mr. Subramaniam, superior officer ofSecond Party was asking SecondPartyto do his unofficial personal work. This being un-official illegal work, Second Party has refused to do the said work and refused to obey the directions ofMr. Subramaniam. According to Second Party, because of the said reason, his relations with Mr. Subramaniam were strain. Moreover, for the said reason, Mr. Subramaniam used to insult Second Party in presence of other employees . 2 to 3 departmental enquiries were initiated against the Second Party and all the time in the enquiry, the work of enquiry was carried out in English. According to Second Party, he cannot read and write English and therefore , he requested the First Partyto carry out enquiry in Marathi . The request made by Second Party was never accepted by the First Party.According to Second Party he was not only refused to conduct enquiry proceeding in Marathi but, also he was illegally punished by stopping of his increment. In the year 1995 also the Second Party was denied wages by applying the principle of ' no work no pay' by Shri Subramaniam. Thus , Shri Shubramaniam had all the while acted high handedly with Second Party. According to Second Party, Shri Subramaniam wanted to expel Second Party on medical ground by declaring him unfit and therefore, he had asked Second Party to produce medical certificate.Accordingly Second Party attended the hospital ofOrdnance Factory at Kirkee and at J.J. Hospital where he had undergone number of tests . The Second Party was
First Party
Pune.
2800 G1/05-14 10672
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
declared mentally fit by the Medical Authority and medical certificate was issued to that effect . According to Second Party, he has submitted those certificates to Shri Subramanium. It is the further case of Second Party that , Shri Subramanium who was not successful in expelling the Second Party on medical ground, filed a false complaint atDehu Road Police Station for allegedly assaulting him by Second Party and his associates . Dehu Road Police authority too found that, Second Party was not involved in such incident .
4. On 6-8-1998 upon the above referred incident , Shri Subramanium made complaint to his superior against Second Party and therefore , Second Party was served with a chargesheet . The enquiry conducted against the Second Party was in English and inspite of request to conduct the enquiry in Marathi , the Enquiry Officer not only proceeded with the enquiry in English but, also obtained the signature of Second Party on blank paper by assuring him that , it will not affect to his service and merits of the enquiry. According to Second Party, the enquiry conducted against him was not as per the principles of natural justice , there are discrepancies in the statement of witnesses and therefore , the finding of Enquiry Officer to hold Second Party guilty for the misconduct , is not legal and proper. By holding Second Party guilty, a punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on him , which he challenges the same as arbitrary and illegal .
5. First Party has resisted the claim by filing its Written Statement at Exhibit C - 6 and contended that , the claim of Second Party is false , frivolous and not based on true facts . The First Party denies all adverse allegations made by Second Party, in respect of enquiry. While admitting the status of the Second Party as an employee , the First Party justifies the chargesheet dt . 10-9-98 and submits that , Second Party had man -handled and assaulted his superior . Besides that , he is also habitual offender and he is in habit of acting subversive of discipline with superiors . According to First Party, the full opportunity was given to Second Party to participate in the enquiry. The enquiry was conducted in Hindi . However , the recording was carried out in English . The depositions were read out and explained to Second Party in Hindi . The Enquiry Officer after considering the misconduct ofSecond Party and the evidence on record , has held Second Party guilty. It is also submitted by First Party that, Second Party has also moved to Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) claiming the same relief and therefore; the relief claimedby Second Party cannot be granted to him. First Party denies all allegations made by Second Party against Shri Subramanium and prays to reject the claim .
6. On respective contentions of the parties , my learned predecessor framed following issues at Exhibit 0-3 . I adopt the same . My findings are recorded against the same.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] ISSUES
FINDINGS
No
(1) Whether Second Party proves that, enquiry conducted against him in English was not understood by him and it is not legal ?
(2) Whether findings of Enquiry Officer are not supportedby evidence in enquiry proceeding ? No
(3) Whether order dt. 28-12-99 for compulsory retirement of Second Party is illegal and he is entitled to wages ?
Entitled for wages from Aug. 95 to Sept. 96.
(4) If so , what order as to reference ? As per final order.
7. REASONS :
Before going through the evidence on record , it will not be out of place to go through some facts which are not seriously disputed . The employment of Second Party with the First Party is not disputed. It is also not disputed position that the Second Party was served with a chargesheet on 10-9-98 and misconduct of manhandling tothe superior officer is alleged against the Second Party. It is also not disputed position that , the Enqiry Officer has held the Second Party guilty and awarded the punishment ofcompulsory retirement , to the Second Party. It is also admitted position that, the Second Party filed an appeal against the order of compulsory retirement to Appellate Authority. It is admitted position that , vide order dated 4-4-2001 , said appeal came to be dismissed .
8. ISSUE NOS. 1 to 3 :
Inview ofabove referred undisputed facts , in order to show that , the punishment of compulsory retirement is not legal and proper, Second Party has deposed at Exhibit UW- 1 and has deposed that , he has completed 19 years service with First Party. One Mr. Subramaniam , Foreman was not behaving properly with him . According to him, Shri Subramaniam used to ask him to carry out repairy works of electric tube and bulb which he has refused . His evidence further shows that , Mr. Subramaniam was insisting him to do private work which he had refused and therefore, by applying the principle ' no work no wages he was not paid the wages for 4 to 5 months . His evidence further shows that , he was asked by Mr. Subramaniam to appear before Medical Authority for getting fitness certificate . Inspite of getting fitness certificate , from Sassoon Hospital as well as Army Hospital , in order to take revenge, enquiry was initiated against him and favourable witnesses were examined before Enquiry Officer. Therefore , accordingto Second Party, the enquiry conducted against him as well as the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to him is not legal and proper. While cross - examining the Second Party, Sou . S.D.
10673 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Kulkarni , learned Asstt . Govt . Pleader for the First Party has tried to bring on record that, the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to Second Party is an outcome ofdomestic enquiry which was carried out by following the principles of natural justice . It is also tried to bring on record that, the Second Party had filed an appeal before CAT which is similar in the nature . It is suggested to the Second Party that, the domestic enquiry was initiated against the Second Party for assaulting his senior officer- Mr. Subramaniam.
Service Regulations , Civilian in Defence Service (Classification, Control andAppeal) Rules . According to her the disciplinary action held against Second Party was as per Clause 20 of Civil Service and Central Civil Post which includes a civilian service or civilian post , as the case maybe of the corresponding class in defence service. It is further submitted by her that, the Second Partybeing Central Govt. employee , his service conditions are protected as per Article 309 of the constitution and the rule framed thereunder . For this reason , the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable in the present case.
13. Sou. Kulkarni also submitted before me that , for the period of October, 1996 to May, 1997 the Second Party was placed under suspension in connection of misconduct committed by him. It is also submitted by her that, the Second Fattywas also given chargesheet for his absentee from 25-3-97 to 14-12-97 .
14. In respect of departmental enquiry against the Second Party, it is submitted that, the Second Party has committed seriou misconduct by assaulting his superior officer--Shri Subramaniam. The Second Partydid not appear before Enquiry Officer and therefore , there is no force inhis contention for challenging the enquiry.
9. The First Party did not step into the box . During the course of arguments , Shri Attar, Learned Counsel for Second Party has mainly submitted before me that, the Second Party has challenged the action of compulsory retirement as illegal as well as claim that, the First Partydid not pay wages to the Second Party, for the period August, 1995 to November, 1997. While taking me to the Written Statement filed by First Party, it is submittedby Shri . Attar , Learned Counsel for the Second Party that, at para 5 ofthe Written Statement , the First Party has admitted for non- payment ofwages from August , 1995 to September, 1996 by coming with a case that, for the said period the Second Partydid not work . It is submitted by Shri Attar that , there is no document filed on record to justify that, the First Party can deduct wages by applying the principle of ' no work no pay' . At the most , it can be called as misconduct for which no disciplinary action has been initiated against the Second Party. Therefore, the deduction of wages from August , 1995 to September , 1996 is unjustifiable.
15. To substantiate the submissions that, the Second Party being holding civil post and therefore, he does not come wi hin the definition of ' workman' so , the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the 'reference. The reliance is placed on the copy ofjudgement in L.P.A. No. 90/98 in writ petition No. 6337/96 , L.P.A. No. 94/98 in writ petition No. 2781/96 , and L.P.A. No. 95/98 in writpetitionNo. 2055/97 .
10. At the same time the submissions advanced by Sou. S. D. Kulkarni , Learned Asstt . Govt . Pleader for the First Party that , the Applicant was placed under suspension for the period 3-10-96 to 27-5-97 for absence for the said period. Shri Attar, Learned Counsel for the Second Party has accepted this position and has restricted his claim for wages from August, 1995 to September, 1996.
16. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of TRIPURA GRAMIN BANK &ORS . VS. TARIT BARAN ROY & ORS. (reported in 2001 (10 ) S.C. Cases Pg . 70 ) ; wherein , it has been observed that, the principle engrafted in Sec . 11 A of 1.D. Act cannot be engrafted to the disciplinary proceeding either in relation to the Govt, servant or other employees , whose service conditions are governed by sake of rules and not the provisions of I.D. Act . Therefore , she prays to reject the reference .
11. While commenting upon the enquiry conducted against Second Party, Shri Attar submitted before me that , since the beginning it was the contention of the Second Party that , he does not know English . Therefore , the. Second Party was insisting to record the proceeding of enquiry in Marathi . Inspite ofthis , the enquiry report which is written in English that itself goes to show that , what ever carried out by Enquiry Officer was without the knowledge of the Second Party. He therefore , prays to set aside the order of compulsory retirement of the Second Party.
17. After giving conscious thought to the respective submissions , one thing is clear that, in the enquiry conducted against the Second Party, he did not appear before Enquiry Officer. The enquiry proceeding unequivocally goto show that , the Second Party remained absent . Therefore , I do not find any substance in the contention raised by Second Party that , the enquiry proceeding are conducted in English and therefore , the Enquiry Officer has committed breach. On the contrary, Shri Attar has admitted that , the Second Party has replied the chargesheet. It goes unsaying that , the Second Party 12. Sou . S. D. Kulkarni , learned Asstt . Govt . Pleader for the First Party, who has submitted her submission in writing at Exhibit C- 17 ; has submitted before me that the service condition of the Second Party are governed by fundamental and supplemental rules Civil Services (Classification , Control & Appeal ) Rules , Civil Services (Temporary Service ) Rules , Revised Leave Rules , Civil 10674
THE CAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] waswell aware about the disciplinary enquiry conducted against him . There is no document filed on record to show that , the charges levelled against the deliquent being in English, the Second Party could not reply the same . On the contrary, the enquiry proceeding shows that , the Second Party remained absent before Enquiry Officer and therefore, it is not open for him to say that , he did not understand the enquiry proceeding . It is significant to note that, it was specific charge against the Second Party that, he is habitual offender and inspite of imposing three penalty, he repeated the misconduct . This charge against him is also not rebutted by him and therefore , there is no reason to discard the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer.On the contrary, the record shows that, considering the long standing service of the Second Party, instead of passing order of dismissal, he was compulsorily retired because ofwhich the relief of pension and gratuity of the Second Party had kept intact . Therefore , the submissions advanced by Shri Attar in respect of enquiry proceeding cannot be accepted.
said ruling ofthe Apex Court , the First Party has challenged the jurisdiction of Industrial Court . This being the reference , on the basis of dispute referred by the ConciliationOfficer, the First Party ought to have raised a objection before Conciliation Officer . The record shows that, the First Party not only kept mum before Conciliation Officerbut also even did not state even remotely by filing the Written Statement that , reference is not maintainable and Industrial Court has no jurisdiction; because of the status of the Second Party being Govt . servant holding civil post whose service conditions are governed by statutory rules. On the contrary, the First Party as well as the Second Party by conducting the reference have submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court . Therefore , I do not want to go into the controversy at this stage , especially when the settled position of law is that , the point ofjurisdiction being mixed question of law and fact, it has to be raised at an earlier stage. As the First Party has kept silent about the jurisdiction of the Court , and submitted itself to the jurisdiction of this Court, to my mind it is not desirable to go into the controversy. I therefore , conclude that , in these circumstances , the ruling relied onby the First Party will not assist the First Party.
20. Therefore , from the above discussions , while recording negative finding on Issue Nos . 1 and 2. I give partial relief to Second Party for getting wages from August, 1995 to September, 1996 and decide Issue No. 4 accordingly and allow the reference partly. Hence , award.
AWARD
( 1) Reference is partly allowed .
(2) The prayer of Second Party for setting aside compulsory retirement is turned down .
(3) First Party do pay wages to the Second Party from August , 1995 to September, 1996 .
(4) Parties to bear their cost .
PUNE.
Puted: 2nd Aug. , 2005
S. S. VYAVAHARE , Industrial Tribunal
नई दिल्ली, 6 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3518- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 172/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 18. In respect of claim for wages , I found some substance in the submissions of Shri Attar pertainingto the period August, 1995 to September, 1996 because for the period 3-10-96 to 27-5-97 the Second Party was placed under suspension and enquiry was initiated against him. Secondly from 28-5-97 to 14-12-97 the chargesheet was issuedto Second Party for absentism. In respect ofperiod commencing from August, 1995 to September, 1996 the First Party has withheld the wages by applying the principle ' no work no pay' Along with the statement of claim the Second Party has filed Annexure 'B ' showing the position from August, 1995 to September, 1996 which shows that , during the above period out of the figure of working days , some days have been shown as work not done by Second Party and therefore , wages were not paid to him. For e.g. in the month ofAugust, 1995 out of 25 working days , for 19 days the Second Party have claimed not to work. For 3 days he was shown present, for 3 days he was shown absent. Like this entry, there are other entries showing the days on which the Second Party did not work though he remained present. Now, for the said period, the First Party ought to have issued chargesheet to the Second Party and ought to have conducted disciplinary enquiry. Some carbon papers have been filed on record to show for the explanation sought of the Second Party for not doing the work. However, for justifying those documents , the First Party did not examine any witness nor prove the papers. It is significant to note that, there is no document filed on record to show that, even as per the service rules of the Second Party, the First Party is authorised to deduct the wages by applying ' no work no pay ' rule and therefore, the deduction ofwages from August , 1995 to September, 1996 c unjustified
19. Before parting, in respect of the case law relied onby the First Party, needless to say that, with the help of
[सं. एल-42012/180/96- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी 10675 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
New Delhi , the 6th September, 2005
S.O. 3518. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 172/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure ini the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-2005.
[No. L-42012/ 180/96- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, RAJENDRA BHAWAN , GROUND FLOOR, RAJENDERA PLACE , NEW DELHI
I. D. No. 172/1997
Shri R.K. Aggarwal , J.E. , D.K. Sharma and A.E., Shri A.K. Jain. He is being treated as daily rated/casual/muster- rall worker and is being paid wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act by the appropriate Government . He is being paid wages monthly and not daily. No leave record is being maintained by the CPWD although the workman is entitled to 15 days carned leave and 12 casual leave as provided in the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act , 1954 which are applicable to him. No leave is being given to him . He has to report for dutyat proper time and after performing eight hours normal duties he is relieved every day. While his counterparts doing the identical work and the work of the same value but being treated as regular employees are being paid their salary in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 with usual allowances admissible under the rules . The said pay scale has been revised to the pay scale ofRs . 2550-3200 w.e.f. 01-01-1996 with usual allowances admissible under the rules . They are also enjoying other benefits like uniform, EL, CL , Gazetted/Festival/Restricted Holidays and Medical Leave etc.whichare completely denied to the workman aforesaid. He has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit.
R.N. Rai, PresidingOfficer
Inthe matter of:
Shri Mohender Singh,
S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, Khalasi , I.B. Complex Service Station, 35, Sardar Patel Marg, NewDelhi
Versus
That the non - regularization of services of the aforesaid workman on the post of Khalasi in proper pay scale and allowances with retrospective effect from the initial date of his joining into the employment i . e. 11-12-1991 and payment of lesser remuneration in violation ofthe principle ofequal pay for equal work is wholly illegal ,bad, unjust and mala fide for the following amongst other reasons :
1. That the job against which the workman aforesaid has been working since 11-12-1991 is of a permanent and regular nature ofjob .
M/ s . CPWD through , The Engineer - in -Chief, NirmanBhawan, NewDelhi
AWARD
The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/ 180/96 IR(DU) Central Government dt . 14-10-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.
2. That employing persons on regular nature ofjobs and treating them as daily rated/casual/ muster -roll workers and paying them lesser remuneration than those doing the identical work and the work of same value amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in section 2 (ra) read with item No. 10 ofVth Schedule and read with Section 25 T punishable under section 25 U of the ID Act, 1947.
The point runs as hereunder:
3. That it is violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India.
4. That it amounts to sheer exploitation of labour.
"Whether the action of the management of CPWD by not regularizing the services of Shri Mohender Singh, Casual Khalasi working on work order and by denying wages on the principle of Equal Pay for EqualWork , w.e.f. 11-12-1991 is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date ? "
5. That the management of the CPWD has not framed any rules or regulations nor get it passed by the UPSC and nor notified in the Official Gazette for governing. the service conditions of the daily rated/casual/muster- roll/part -time/seasonal workers nor it has any Certified Standing Orders , governing service conditions of such workers and, therefore , the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workman and the management ofthe CPWD.
The workman applicant has filed statement ofclaim. Inhis statement of claim he has stated that Shri Mohender Singh joined into the employment of the Central Public Works Department as a Khalasi w.e.f. 11-12-1991. He is working inElectrical Department, Divn. No. 9 and is posted atI. B. Complex Service Station under Executive Engineer, 10676
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
allowances and be held entitled to be paid difference of salary w.e.f. 11-12-1992 on the principles of equal pay for equal work. The cost of litigation as provided in Section 11 (7) of the ID Act, 19 may also be awarded to the workman.
The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been respectfully submitted that there is absolutely no substance of inerit in the purported claim statement filed against the management. The claim statement as filed against is patently fictitious , frivolous and untenable and as such liable to be dismissed .
6. That the workman aforesaid has acquired the status of a permanent employee from the initial date of his joining into the employment after completing 90 days of continuous employment as providing in the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Even otherwise the workman has acquired the status of a permanent employee from the initial date of his joining into the employment after completing 240 days of continuous employment and is deemed tohave been taken into the employment on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court ofDelhi incase ofHarish Kumar vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court.
At no point of time was the petitioner ever employed by the management . The relationship of employer and employee never existed between the parties . The purported claim statement filed against the management is therefore liable to be dismissed .
7. That the action of the management in employing the aforesaid workman as casual or temporary and to continue him as such for years with the object of depriving him of the status and privileges of permanent workmen amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (ra) read with item No .. 10 of the Vth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .
8. That it is against the intention of the legislation as contained in Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act , 1976.
Interms of work order M/ s . Mohinder Singh , were providing "Maintenance , services " to the management . For providing the maintenance service to the management M/s . Mohinder Singh had employed its own employee at the premises of the management. Such employees which also included Khalasi were the employees of M/ s . Mohinder Singh . Apparently petitioner was also engaged byM/ s . Mohinder Singh for the maintenance services of management awarded through the work order.
9. That it is also against the spirit and intention of legislation as contained in Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act , 1970 and Rule 25 (v) (a) of the CLRA( C) Rules, 1971 .
10. That the workman aforesaid has been meted out with hostile discrimination as his colleagues and juniors to him, namely S/ Shri Hari Chand, Mange Ram and Jai Ram, have been regularized in service and while the workman aforesaid has been completely neglected in the matter of regularization.
The petitioner was thus never employed by the management ; he cannot, therefore , under law institute any proceedings against the CPWD management . The petitioner was an employee of M/ s. Mohinder Singh which company was engaged in the business of providing services io other . The coniract between the CPWD management and M/ s . Moninder Singh was that of principal to principal . M/s . Mohinder Singh alone had the powerto hire and fire the petitioner . It was M/ s . Mohinder Singh who paid the salaries to such employees including the petitioner and exercised supervision and control over them.
That a demand notice was served upon the Engineer- in- Chief of the CPWD department by registered A/D post vide communication dated February 1 , 1996 duly received inhis office, but no reply was received arid it was presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter , the dispute was raised by filing a statement of claim before the ConciliationOfficer (Central ), New Delhi . The Conciliation proceedings were initiated by the conciliation officer but resulted in failure because of the adamant and non - co- operative attitude of the management . Hence this reference.
Inview of the factual position thus stated above it becomes evident that the petitioner can have no cause of action whatever against the management . The petitioner having never been employed by the management , the petitioner cannot file any claim statement against the management . There cannot be deemed existing dispute much less any industrial dispute between the parties . The purported claim statement filed against the management of CPWD is absolutely false , bogus and devoid of any substances or merit whatever and as such , liable to be dismissed.
The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and he has stated that he was working in Electrical Department and he was treated as Daily rated/ Casual /Muster Roll worker and was paid fixed wages which was revised from time to time .
It is, therefore, prayed that an Award be made in favour of the workman holding thereby that the action of the management in not regularizing the services of Shri Mahender Singh on the post ofKhalasi w.e.f. 11-12-1991 in proper pay scale and allowances and with all consequentialbenefits thereof and denying difference of salary on the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" w.e.f. 11-12-1991 onward is not justified . The workman Shri Mahender Singh be held entitled to be regularized on the post ofKhalasi w.e.f. 11-12-1991 in proper pay scale and 10677 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that notice to the management was sent on 14-07-2004 but the management did not turn up. The workınan applicant was directed to file affidavit . The management did not turn up for cross -examination of the workman . His cross examination was closed and the case was heard ex parte.
Heard argument from the side of the workman.
It was submitted that the workman was engaged as Khalasi w.e.f. 11-12-1991 and he worked in Electrical Department , Div. No. 9 and he has been paid monthly wages but the other benefits have not been given to him. He has not been regularized.
instructions of the Government of India, Directorate General ofWorks , CPWD dated 18-08-1993 . The authorities have violated the direction of the Government of India and have continued him from 1991 to 1994 and further the workman on work order basis . The Government of India has issued letters dated 19-11-1985, 30-07-1991 and 18-08-1993 directing the Chief Engincers not to appoint anyperson on work order basis but all the ChiefEngineers have flouted order of the Government of India and have appointed the workman on work order basis . The workman applicant has worked from 11-12-1991 and probably he is working at present as is disclosed in his affidavit so he has worked for six years on the same post of Khalasi in Electrical Department . The authorities have violated the instructions of the Government of India and have continued him on work order basis so the workman applicant is entitled to "Equal Pay for Equal Work" . In 1990 I LLJ 320 SCC it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that equalpayment should be made for equal work. The workman applicant has been discharging duty of Casual Khalasi so he is entitled to get the pay of a Class D Employee from 11-12-1991 to up -to-date .
It transpires from perusal of the record that the authorities have taken the services of the workman in violation of several directions of the Government of India. The respondent will make payment of arrears of the workman and they are at liberty to recover the same from the erring officials.
The reference is replied thus:
It has been stated in the written statement of the management , that the petitioner was never employed by the management . Employer -Employee relationship never existed. The workman discharged maintenance service as perwork order to M/ s . Mohinder Singh. M/s . Mohinder Singh has employed his own men for the service . The applicant was never employed by the management . The workman applicant has filed order of Government of India, Directorate General ofWorks , CPWD dated 18-08-1993. In this letter all the Chief Engineers have been directed that they should not engage on hand receipt or work order or any other basis defined in the existing Government instructions ensuring inter alia termination of the services of all such workers who have not completed 240 days of service in two consecutive years . It is the case of the management that the workman applicant was employed on work order basis . He was employed prior to the direction of the Central Government .
The action of the management of CPWD by not regularizing the scvices of Shri Mohinder Singh , Casual Khalasi working on work order and by denying wages on the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work " w.e.f. 11-12-1991 is not justified. The workman deserves to get pay and other benefits of Class -D employees w.e.f. 11-12-1991 . The management/ respondents are directed to make payment to the workman of all his arrears within one month from the publication of the award.
The Award is given accordingly.
Dated: 23-08-2005
R.N. RAI, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर, 2005 The applicant has filed certificate of Assistant Engineer, Division No. 4 , Electrical Division . In this certificate the Assistant Engineer has certified that the workman has been working on work order basis as Electrical Khalasi w.e.f. April , 1994 to up-to-date. This certificate has been issued by the management . It is D- 34 . This certificateproves that the workman was engaged on work order basis . The workman has filed D- 35 certificate . The photocopy of the certificate which indicates that he worked on work order from January, 1993 to December , 1994. He has filed photocopy of certificate which proves thathe worked on work order basis from December, 1991 to December , 1992. These letters prove that the workman applicant has continuously worked from 1991 to 1994 on work order basis . This fact has been admitted by the management in the certificate issued by the management to the workman applicant .
का. आ. 3519- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ मालाबार ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, कोझीकोड़े, केरल स्टेट के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या आई डी ( सी )4/03 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/180/2002- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी Ithas been stated in the written statement that work order was given to M/s. Mohinder Singh . Mohinder Singh is a single workman . He is not a Registered Company so work order has been given to an individual and payments to him admittedly have been made by the management so it was the duty of the management to follow the 10678
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9, 1927
New Delhi , the 7th September, 2005 S.O. 3519. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ ID (C) No. 4/03 ] ofthe Labour Court, Kozhikode, Kerala state now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of NorthMalabar GraminBank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-2005 .
[No. L- 12012/180/2002- IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE , KERALA STATE
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2005 Present :
Shri K.Balasubramanian, B.Com. LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
L. D. (C) No. 4/03
Between:
The Chairman
North Malabar GraminBank,
Head Office, BankRoad,
Kannur -670001 .
Management
And
K. Gireeshan,
Gopal Nivas, Padannakara (P.0. ) , Pinarayi, Kannur, Kerala.
Workman Representations :
Sri M. Asokan, Advocate , Calicut.
ForManagement SriE.K. Santhosh Kumar,
ForWorkman Advocate, Calicut.
AWARD
This reference was made by Government of India, Ministry ofLabour as per Order No. L- 12012/ 180/2002 [ IR (B-1) dated 13-05-2003 ] .
2. In pursuance of notice both parties appeared and filed their written statements . When the case came up for evidence , the worker remained absent and was set ex parte .There are also no materials to show that the worker involved in the dispute is a workman of the management as defined u/s . 2(S) of the Act . From the consecutive non- appearance I am also constrained to hold that the worker is not interested in prosecuting the reference.
[PART II-SBC . 3( ii) ] 3. In the result, an award is passed holding that the dispute under reference is ceased to exist .
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, revised, corrected and passed by me on the 18th day of August 2005.
K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 7 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3520-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ मालाबार ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, कोझीकोड़े, केरल स्टेट के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या आई डी ( सी) 5/03] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/181/2002- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]
अंजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 7th September, 2005
S.O. 3520. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award [ ID (C) No. 5/03 ] ofthe Labour Court, Kozhikode, Kerala state now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of North Malabar GraminBank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-9-2005 .
[No. L- 12012/ 181 /2002- IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE
IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE
Dated this the 18th day of August , 2005
Present :
Shri K. Balasubramanian, B.Com . LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
I. D. ( C) No. 5/03
Between:
The Chairman,
North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Head Office , Bank Road ,
Kannur-670001
Management
And
C. Sajeeshan ,
S/o Raman, Chelari House,
Chakkikulam (P.Ο.) ,
Kerala
... Workman 10679 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
ANNEXURE
Representations :
Sri M. Asokan, Advocate , Calicut
ForManagement
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW
Present:
For Workmati
Sri E.K. Santhosh Kumar, Advocate, Calicut
Shrikant Shukla, PresidingOfficer AWARD
L. D. 89/2001
Ref. No. L- 14011/51/2000- IR(DU) dated 4-5-2001 This reference was made by Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per Örder No. L - 12012/ 181/2002 [ IR (B-1) dated 13-05-2003 ] .
Between:
1. Shri Jai Chand S/o Pyare Lal, R/ o House No. 302, Nainagarh Taliya, Mohalla Nagra, Jhansi.
2. PremNarain Kushwaha S/o Nandoo Kushwaha, R/o 150, Ritu Bihar Colony, Gwalior Road, Jhansi.
2. In pursuance of notice both parties appeared and filed their written statements . But when the case came up for evidence, the worker remained absent and was set ex parte. There are no primafacie materials to show that the worker involved in the dispute is a workman of the management. as defined u/ s . 2 (S) of the Act . From the consecutive non - appearance I am also constrained tohold that the worker is not interested in prosecuting the reference.
3. Toran Singh S/o Aparval Singh, R/o Village Thakurpura, Post Manpur, Jhansi.
3. In the result, an award is passed holding that the dispute under reference is ceased to exist.
4. Suresh S/o Bhagwan Das Srivas , R/ o Behind CentralSchoolNo. 1, Shastri Line, M. H. Colony, Jhansi Cant . , Jhansi .
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , transcribed by her, revised , corrected and passed by me on the 18th day ofAugust , 2005.
5. Edgar S/o D. Suas, R/o Sita Rajak, CO, Room No. 1252 , Khatri Baha Nagar, Jhansi .
K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, Presiding Officer
मंई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर, 2005
6. Rajendra Kumar S /o Chunni Lal, R/o Cantt. Buchari, Cantt . Quarter, Jhansi .
7. Hukam Chand S/o Kashi Ram, R/o House No. 575 , Kalimai Talpura, Jhansi .
8. Kunwar Pal S/o Sri Narain Das , R/o Kalimai Talpura, Jhansi .
का. आ. 3521- औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पैट्रोलियम प्लाटूम, ए. एस. सी. , झाँसी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचार ( संदर्भ संख्या 89, 90/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 8-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
9. Phool Chand S/o Lalta Prasad, R/o 520 , Kalimai Talpura, Jhansi .
[सं. एल-14011/51 /2000- आई आर ( डी बू) ]
[ सं . एल-14011 /52/ 2000- आई आर ( डी धू) ]
10. Ganesh S/o Kishwan Lal, R/ o Infront of Central Bank, Moh. Toria, Katerea Campus , Hasari, Jhansi.
कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi, the 8th September, 2005
11. Roop Singh S / o Asha Ram Parihar R/ o Thakurpura, Post Manpur, Jhansi .
12. Sri Kishan S/o Jagdish Prasad Srivas , R/ o Village & Post Baragaon. Mohalla Pancham Para , Jhansi .
13. Santosh Kumar S/ o Munna Lal, R/ o 645, Nai Basti, Jhansi .
S.O. 3521. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89, 90/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Petroleum Platoon, ASC, Jhansi and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-05 .
14. Kewal Ram S /o Kishan Lal Kateria, In front of CentralBank Toria Mohalla, Kateria Campus , Hasari , Jhansi.
[No. L- 14011/51/2000- IR (DU) ]
[No. L- 14011/52/2000- IR(DU)]
15. Ravi Kumar S/o Ganpat , R/o 448, Chik Mohalla SadarBazar, Jhansi .
KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
2800 G1/05-15 10680
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
16. Raj Kumar S/ o Hari Prasad R/o 232, Saiyar Gate KePicchey, Jhansi .
17. Shankar Lal S/ o Anokhe Lal C/ o Rajendra Kumar Diwakar, 605/1 G, Nagaria Colony, Kushi Pura, Jhansi .
AND
1. Officer Commanding , 192, Petroleum Platoon , ASC Jhansi Cantt. , Jhansi .
I. D. No. 90/2001
Ref. No. L- 14011 /52/2000 - IR(DU) dated 4-5-2001 BETWEEN :
1. Shri Puran Lal Kushwaha S/ o Sri Bhagwan Das R/ oH. No. 312, Daria Pura , Dilwari Bagh Near Jaihind Carriage , Shivaji Nagar, Jhansi .
2. Munna Lal S/o Shri Kashi Ram Parihar R/ o Village Meri , Near Medical College , Jhansi .
3. Shaukat Khan S/ o Sri Sandeep Khan , R/ o Bunglow No. 75 , Kewlari Road, Jhansi Cantt . , Jhansi .
4. Shanker S/ o Sh. Pitha Ram, R/ o Babina Block, Behind Hospital , Babina , Jhansi .
5. Sunil Kumar S/ o Sh. Panna Lal Kumharwale alias Lalla R/o Bari Matan Ka Purwa, Bye PassMarg, Niwari , Teekamgarh, M. P.
6. Mahesh S/o Radhey Shyam Vanshkar R/ o Parasari , Datia , M. P.
7. Nathu Ram S/ o Bhaggi Ram R/ o Tahakurpura, PostManpur, Jhansi .
8. Shakti Lal S/o Vidya Nath R/o Village Meri , Near Medical College , Jhansi .
AND
1. Officer Commanding , 192, Petroleum Platoon, ASC Jhansi Cantt . , Jhansi .
AWARD
Government of India , Ministry of Labour , Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg , New Delhi has referred 2 disputes vide orders as follows :
1. L - 14011 / 51/2000 - IR (DU) dated 4-5-2001 & Corrigendum No. L- 14011/ 51 / 2000 - IR (DU) dated 6-11-2001:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Petroleum Platoon , ASC , Jhansi , in non - regularising the services of S/Sri Prem Narain, Jaichand, Toran Singh, Suresh Edgar, Rajendra Kumar, Hukum Chand ,
[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii)] Kunwar Pal , Phool Chand , Ganesh , Roop Singh , Sri Kishan , Santosh Kumar , Kewal Ram, Ravi Kumar. Raj Kumar, Sankar Lal in their establishment since 1990 onward is justified ? If not , to what reliefthey are entitled ? "
2.OrderNo. L- 14011 / 52/ 2000 - IR(DU) dated 4-5-200 & Corrigendum No. L - 14011/ 52/ 2000- IR(DU ) dated 9-11-2001 .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management in non- regularising the services of Shri Munna Lal . Sh. Saukat Khan , Sh . Sankar, Sh . Sunil Kumar, Sh . Mahesh, Sh. Nathu Ram , Sh . Shakti Lal, Sh. Puran Lal Kushwaha in their establishment since 1990 onward is justified ? If not , to what relief they are entitled ? "
The former reference order is registered as I. D. case No. 89/2001 and later is registered as I. D. case No. 90/ 2001. In both the cases the opposite party, common question of law, facts ard issue is the same, therefore both the cases are disposed by the common award.
Worker's case is that all the workers named above were registered in Employment Exchange , Jhansi and they were appointed in the establishment of opposite party, 192, Petroleum Platoon, ASC , Jhansi between October, 1989 to December, 1995, in various months against perinanent post and were still working and getting Rs . 47 to Rs . 74 per day and were also getting bonus annually during the year 1999, 2000 and 2001. The establishment of opposite party is conducted and managed by the Central Government and hence Central Government is adequate and proper government for regularisation under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . All workers are industrial workers and are covered under section 2 ( s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and they come under the purview and definition of the industrial workers and are not covered under the provisions of Army Act . Workers have continuously worked for years. Work is of regular and continuous nature, hence it is essential that all the workers may be made permanent in their services for enabling them to get all the due benefits which are being given to regular and permanent workers . Workers have alleged that proper funds and posts are available for the work performed by them. It is also alleged that all the workers are physically and mentally fit for the job , which they have been performing for the last so many years . The management and the govt . agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labourers or temporary employees for unnecessary long period of times . Workers have requested verbally many times for their regularisation and be made permanent in service , but the opposite party did not heed to their request, hence they had given written applications to this effect on 17-4-99 . The opposite party Platoon being a permanent establishment cannot be 10681 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
and parcel of the sovereign functions of the state.
5. Workers are not industrial workers .
Workers have filed true copy of the statement of casual labours of 192 , Petroleum Platoon , ASC , Jhansi showing following details for period upto 31 December, 1996:
Period
Total present days
Rate per day
S. Employ Name No. ment Card No.
1702
Rs. 47
1-11-88-31-12-96
Prem Narayan
1 1498/89
1634
Rs. 47
23-10-89-31-12-96
Shaukat Khan
2. 2667/97
1795
Rs. 47
26-11-89-31-12-96
Jai Chand
3.894/96
1522
Rs. 47
2-7-90-31-12-96 .
Toan Singh
4.6170/95
1291
Rs. 47
11-2-91-31-12-96
5. 26707 migar
1360
Rs . 47
7-10-91-31-12-96
Suresh
6. 2139/91
1014
Rs. 47
1-10-92-31-12-96
Pooran
7. 3271/90
713
Rs. 47
1-10-93-31-12-96
Raj Kumar
8. 2358/93
713
Rs. 47
12-10-93--31-12-96
Kunwar Pal
9. 1956/96
799
Rs. 47
20-12-93-31-12-96
10. 1651/94 BijuT. E.
722
Ks . 47
5-5-94-31-12-96
Phool Chand
11 1338/95
542
Rs . 47
5-5-94-31-12-96
Munna Lal
12 2655/96
666
Rs. 47
23-5-94-31-12-96
Hukum Chand
13. 253/92
644
Rs. 47
2-10-94-31-12-96
Ganes
14. 1227/95
606
Rs. 47
12-10-94-31-12-96
Nathu am
15. 2670/96
535
Rs. 47
13-9-94-31-12-96
Roop Narain
16. 6170/95
551
Rs. 47
22-11-94-31-12-96
Shankar Lal
17. 203/94
545
Rs. 47
12-12-94-31-12-96
Ravi Kumar
18. 2682/96
361
Rs . 47
13-12-94-31-12-96
Ashok
19. 2654/96
shifted. It is located and has been functioning since last 4-5 decades and was never shifted to operational or filed areas even during war time. The Platoon establishment is engaged in the job of receiving , storage , distribution of petroleum products to different depot in the country. The workers are engaged in commercial activities which are permanent nature and by no stretch of imagination, it can be of casual nature. ASC units satisfy all ingredient of an industry and this unit is a commercial venture like any other corporation or industry. This is the mother depot for handling petroleum products . Huge quantity of petroleum material , diesel , kerosene oil and chemical etc. are received through wagons and trucks which are unloaded, stored and later on supplied to large number of small defence depot in UP, MP, Rajasthan area through rail / road transhipment and unloading the containers into railway wagons and trucks , washing repairing and painting of barrels is also done as and when needed, besides store handling . These are industrial activities and such workers are covered under industrial status . The workers are unable to get any other employment or job due to their being overage and they will be unable to meet their day to day family responsibilities by earning bread on daily wage basis . In view of their long services , it will be perfectly justified to regularise their services and be made permanent otherwise they shall suffer irreparabie loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any other manner whatsoever. Workers have therefore prayed that their services be regularised w.e.f. 17-4-99 and also their services be made permanent . Workers have also prayed for compensation for physical, mental and economic harassment caused to them by non -regularisation of their services together with cost .
461
Rs. 47
11-2-95-31-12-96
Shri Kishan
20 2900/93
484
Rs. 47
21. 474/93
1-3-95-31-12-96
Rajendra Kumar
209
Rs. 47
1-10-95-31-12-96
Shakti Lal
22. 2668/96
322
Rs. 47
1-10-95-31-12-96
Santosh Kumar
23.462/95
257
Rs. 47
2-10-95-31-12-96
Shanker Lal
24.04/97
288
Rs . 47.
14-10-95-31-12-96
Sunil Kumar
25. 2687/96
169
Rs. 47
1-496-31-12-96
Kewal Ram
26. 2674/96
164
Rs. 47
6-496-31-12-96
Mahesh
27. 2673/96
Rs. 47 19
9-12-96-31-12-96
28. 2677/96 Sada Ram
The opposite party had field point-wise replyto the statement of claim filed by the workers . There is no specific denial to the statement of the workers that the workers were not registered in the Employment Exchange prior to their engagement with the opposite party. There is also no denial to that the workers were appointed in the establishment of 192, Petroleum Platoon, ASC, Jhansi betweenOctober , 1989 to December 1995 and they are still working . Payment of wages , bonus etc. is also not denied. Plea taken by the opposite party is as follows:
Total wages per month is shown as 24 days 47 days .
1. Workers were not engaged against permanent post.
Workers have filed following photostat copies of documents :
2. Appointment of workers remain casual as Jhansi is not a permanent location.
1. Govt . of India office memorandum (Ministry of Defence) regarding non -production linked Bonus dated 28 Sept. 2000 for accounting year 1999-2000.
3. Platoon is subject to disbandment/closure and it can be moved on temporary duty to any operational/ field area. As on date the unit has been mobilised to operational area,
2 Govt. of India office memorandum (Ministry of Defence) regarding non -production linked Bonus d'ited 16-10-2001 accounting year 2000- 2001.
4. 192, Petroleum Platoon is engaged in the activities connected with defence and is part 10682
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
4. Affidavit ofworker, Suresh paper No. 9 .
3. Copy of the application of workers addressed toALC ( C) , Kanpur.
5. Affidavit ofworker, Edgar paper No. 10 .
4. Copy of objection of OP dated 26-3-2000.
6. Affidavit of worker, Rajendra Kumar paper No. 11 .
5. Copy of report of ALC ( C ) , Kanpur dated 24-11-2000.
7. Affidavit of worker , Hukum Chand paper No. 12 .
8. Affidavit of worker, Kunwar Pal paper No. 13 .
6. Copy of application of the workers addressed to OC , 192, Pet . Platoon, Jhansi received by the office ofOC on 8-6-2001.
9. Affidavit of worker , Phool Chand paper No. 14.
10. Affidavit of worker , Ganesh Prasad paper No. 15.
7. Copy of letter addressed to the employment exchange , Jhansi dtd. 28-12-96 regarding casual labours by OC, 192 , Petroleum Platoon, Jhansi .
11. Affidavit of worker, Roop Singh paper No. 16.
12. Affidavit of worker , Shri Kishan paper No. 17 .
8. Copy of Govt. of India , Ministry of Defence letter No. 2 ( 17)/ 10805 /D (Civ. ) dtd . 10-9-53 regarding condition of service of workman in casual capacity.
13. Affidavit of worker , Santosh Kumar paper No. 18 .
9. Temporary passes to the casual labourers .
14. Affidavit of worker, Kewal Nand paper No. 19 .
15. Affidavit of worker, Ravi Kumar paper No. 20 .
16. Affidavit of worker, Raj Kumar paper No. 21 .
10. Extract of The First Schedule [ See Sec . 2( n ) (vi ) ] of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , wherein Defence Establishment is shown in the list of Industries which may be declared to be public utility service.
17. Affidavit of worker, Shankar Lal paper No. 22.
18. Affidavit of worker , Pooran Lal paper No. 6 .
19. Affidavit ofworker, Munna Lal paper No. 7 .
11. Copy of letter DOPT, OM No. 49014/2/86- Est . dtd . 7-6-1988 regarding recruitment of casual workers and persons on daily wages ( review policy) .
20. Affidavit of worker, Shaukat Khan paper No. 8 .
21. Affidavit of worker , Shanker paper No. 9 .
22. Affidavit of worker , Sunil Kumar paper No. 10.
23. Affidavit of worker, Mahesh paper No. 11.
12. Govt . of India, Ministry of Personnel , PG & Pensions No. 51016/2/90 -Est . ( C) dtd. 10-9-1993 regarding grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual workers.
24. Affidavit of worker, Nathu Ram paper No. 12 .
25. Affidavit of worker, Shakti Lal paper No. 14 .
13. Copy of Adjutant General Sena Mukhyalaya . New Delhi CPRO 1/98 regarding employment of casual labour policy guidelines .
The opposite party has filed affidavits of following persons :
14. Copy of Adjutant General Sena Mukhyalaya . NewDelhi CPR02/98, Govt . of India , Ministry ofDefence addressed to 3 Chiefs of Army. Navy andAir Force .
1. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Jai Chand, paper No. 26 .
15. Copy of memorandum of settlement between the management of Military Form and their workman File No. D8 ( 1 ) 95 -ALC.
2. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Prem Narain Kushwaha, paper No. 27.
16. Extract of Swami's Hand Book for Central Govt . servant regarding casual labours who have completed two years continuous services.
3. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 . Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Turan Singh paper No. 28 .
Workers have filed following affidavits:
1. Affidavit of worker, Jai Chand paper No. 6 .
4. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 . Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Suresh , paper No. 29 .
2. Affidavit of worker, Prem Narain paper No. 7. waha
3. Affidavit of worker, Turan Singh paper No. 8 .
5. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 . Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Edgar, paper No. 30 .
:
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
6. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Rajendra Kumar, paper No. 31.
7. Affidavit of Sh. A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192, Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Hukum Chand, paper No. 32.
8. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192, Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Kunwar Pal , paper No. 33.
9. Affidavit of Sh. A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192, Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Phool Chand paper No. 34 .
10. Affidavit of Sh. A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Ganesh Prasad paper No. 35 .
11. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Roop Singh, paper No. 36 .
12. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Sri Kishan , paper No. 37.
13. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Ravi Kumar, paper No. 38 .
14. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Santosh Kumar , paper No. 39 .
15. Affidavit of Sh . A.. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Kewal Ram , paper No. 40 .
16. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Raj Kumar, paper No. 41.
17. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Kameshwar Prasad , paper No. 42 .
18. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of PooranLal, paper No. 17.
19. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Shaukat Khan , paper No. 18.
20. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Shankar, paper No. 19 .
21. Affidavit of Sh. A. Prasad , Sepoy of 192, Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Sunil Kumar, paper No. 20.
10683 22. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Mahesh, paper No. 21 .
23. Affidavit of Sh. A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Nathu Ram, paper No. 22.
24. Affidavit of Sh . A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Shakti Lal, paper No. 23 .
25. Affidavit of Sh. A. Prasad, Sepoy of 192 , Petroleum Platoon in reply to the affidavit of Munna Lal, paper No. 24.
26. Captain Avinash Acharya, Officer Commanding has also filed affidavits in reply to the affidavits of Jai Chand, Prem Narain Kushwaha , Turan Singh, Suresh, Edgar, Rajendra Kumar, Hukum Chand , Kunwar Pal , Ganesh Prasad , Phool Chand, Sri Kishan, Ram Kumar, SantoshKumar, Kewal Ram, Raj Kumar, Shankar Lal (Paper No. A2-80 to A2-96) in I. D. Case No. 89/2001 .
27. Captain Avinash Acharya has also filed affidavit in reply to affidavit of Puran Lal , Shaukat Khan, Munni Lal , Shakti Lal , Nathu Ram, Mahesh, Sunil Kumar, Shanker ( in I. D. çase No. 90/2001 paper No. A2-51 to A2-51/32 .
Workers , Jaichand, Prem Narain, Turan Singh , Suresh , Rajendra Kumar, Hukum Chand , Phool Chand, Roop Singh , Sri Kishan, Santosh Kumar, Kewal Rain, Ravi Kumar, Raj Kumar, Shankar Lal have been cross -examined. Similarly, workers Pooran Lal, Munna Lal , Sunil Kumar, Mahesh , Nathu Ram have been cross -examined.
Shakti Lal , Shaukat, Shanker , Kunwar Lal, Ganesh , Edger have also been cross -examined . Sepoy A. Prasad has not been cross - examined however, Sh . Avinash Acharya has been cross - examined .
Heard oral arguments of parties and also carefully gone through written submission of parties and also perused evidence and documents on records of both the files.
Capt. Avinash Acharya has stated that Platoon No. 192, Petroleum Platoon of FOL means Fuel , Oil, and Lubricants . It is also admitted fact that it transacts fuel, oil and lubricants . He has stated that the casual labours are deployed for intermittent seasonal work to meet the exigencies ofwork . It is also stated by him that the unit is subject to movement at any time . He has also stated in the cross -examination that there are no provision for having permanent lobours in war establishments , as wherever the establishment goes it deploys casual labour from the local area. Regarding payments to casual labours , he has stated that the same is disbursed from contingency account. Capt . Avinash Acharya has not denied the payment of 10684
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] bonus to the casual labours, instead he has replied that casual labours might have been paid bonus according to the Government and Unit's orders .
It is not disputed that 192, Platoon is under Ministry of Defence and casual labours are being deployed after character verification and for this reason the hiring of the casual labour is done through employment exchange only.
On the other hand the workers representative has argued that all functions of the workmen are defined under Section 2( a) of the Indrial Disputes Act. To further narrate the details and ex amation have been mentioned in the judgment passed by full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. A. Rajappa reported in AIR 1978 SC 548, in which it was held there are three ingredients of industries:
1. Systematic activity.
2. Organised by co -operation by employer and employee.
3. For the production and distribution of goods and services calculated to human wants and wishes.
The argument on behalf of the opposite parties that 192, Petroleum Platoon , ASC, Jhansi is engaged in totally defence activities and all such activities are part and parcel of sovereign functions of state and no activity of industrial nature is carried on . The workers are therefore not governed under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as the unit is not doing any activity of industrial nature , profit making of commercial activity. The Government orders filed by the workmen are not applicable to the instant matter because:
1. the 192, Petroleum Platoon , ASC, Jhansi is functioning as war establishment;
2. the said unit is not allowed any civilian post/ casual labour;
3. the said unit is subject to movement .
It is also argued that dispute is not covered under Industrial Disputes Act and hence reference is bad in law.
The first question to be decided is as to whether the workers are not covered under Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 and whether the reference is bad in law ?
The worker's representative has gone to argue that Army Supply Core (ASC ) is the mother depot for handling petroleum products . The quantity of petrol, mobil oil , diesel , kerosene oil , grease , Chemicals etc. are received through railway wagons and trucks which are unloaded and stored here and later on, supplied to a large number of small defence depots in various States through rail/road by transhipment and unloading the containers into railway wagons and trucks , washing , repairing and painting of barrels are done here , besides tore handling . These industrial activities are performed by the workman. The sovereign functions strictly be understood is alone entitled for exemption, not the welfare activity, economic activity undertaken by the government or statutory bodies even discharging sovereign function , if there are units which are industry and they are substantially severable then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947.
The argument of the representative of the worker finds support from the rejoinder of Puran Lal (Paper No. 4 para6 & 7) placed in file No. 1. D. No. 90/2001 and rejoinder affidavit of Jai Chand , paper Nos 4 , para 6 & 7 of the file I. D. case No. 89/2001 .
Capt. Avinash Acharya has not clearly explained the work of unit in detail . He has simply stated that casual labours are deployed in loading and unloading of the drums and cleaning ofdepot but it is clear that 192 , Platoon is a depot, which handles the store of petroleum products such as , fuel , oil and lubricants . It is admitted fact that it is engaged in the transaction of above materials . Its duty is not only to store the said material , but its duty is also make necessary provisions . From the evidence on the record following activities of the platoon are made out :
1. Provisioning.
2. Receipt of stores (FOL) (unloading) .
3. Despatch of stores (FOL ) ( loading ) .
The workers have also filed the photostat copy of Govt . of India, Ministry of Defence letter No. 2 ( 17 ) 51 / 10805 /D (Civ) dtd . 10 Sept. 53 regarding condition of servicc of workman employed in casual capacity, which reads as under.
4. Storage of FOL in depot .
5.. Cleaning of depot , drumsetc. (Maintenance of FOL stores .
Naturally for the above work the services of labours are a must . This cannot be said that 192 , Platoon can work without the services of labour . Such labours in the fauji language is known as lashkar who carry out the manual labour under the supervision of the skilled supervisors (in uniform or without uniform) .
"With reference to this Ministry's memorandum No. 2 (237)/D - 11 /8191 /49 dtd. the 15th July, 1949 , it has been represented that besides the casual employees paid from contingencies , referred to therein, it also becomes frequently necessary to recruit casual personnel to be paid on regular monthly scale of pay from regular pay or works head of account for specific jobs/ periods e.g. as substitutes of for a temporarily increased workload. It has , [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
10685
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
therefore, been decided that the employment of such casual personnel may be resorted to , where necessary , subject to following conditions :
(i) This category will be designated as ' casual industrial employees' .
age limit of casual employees at the time of their absorption in regular establishment , age, the period spent by them as casual employee immediately preceding their appointment to the regular establishment. I am further to add that if necessary, evenbroken periods of past casual service should be taken into account for their purpose provided that one of stretches of such service is of more than six months .
(ii) Menwillbe recruited in this category when it is clearly anticipated that they are likely to be required for more than six months.
2. This letter is issued with the concurrence of the Ministry of Finance (Defence) under their UO No. 3843/PB of 1971 .
( iii) It should be clearly stipulated in their terms of appointment that their services will be liable to termination at any time without notice during the first six months.
[Based on Ministry ofHome Affairs OM No. 4/9/61 Est ' D' dated 9-8-61 & OM No. 4/9/61 Estt. (D) dated 10-9-61 . " ]
( iv) During the period of their employment not exceeding six months these men will be governed by the following conditions :
Swamy's complete manual on Establishment & Administration dealing with casual labour (extract ) has been filed by the worker. Relevant extracts are reproduced below:
" 1. Guidelines for recruitment of casual labour :
(a) They will be paid the same monthly rates of pay as are prescribed for corresponding category regular industrial employee and their pay will be met from regular pay or works heads of accounts.
(b) Leave and holidays will be admissible as forother regular industrial employer.
(i) Not to be recruited for work of regular nature, but only for work of casual or seasonal or intermittent nature or not of full -time nature , for which regular posts cannot be created.
(ii) Review should be made to see whether the work presently done by casual labour could be entrusted to regular staff and action should be taken for revision of norms or for creation of additional posts .
(iii) Where work of more than one type is to be performed throughout the year, a multifunctional post may be created with the concurrence of Ministry of Finance ."
(v) If for any reason, the appointment is to continue beyond six months , the individual will not be discharged and re-employed from the same date. Instead, he will be allowed to continue in service without anybreak and will be treated as a regular industrial employee from the date of his original appointment as casual industrial employee . This change of category from casual to regular will be declared even before the expiry of six months as soon as it is definitely known that the individual will continue in service beyond six months. "
2.Daily Wages: Ifthe nature of the casual workers and regular employees is the same, casual workers should be paid at 1 /30th of pay at the minimum of pay scale ofthe regular post plus D. A. (No CCA/HRA will be taken into account) .
However, the seasonal worker i.e. employees engaged for hot weather services , such as Punkha Labourers , Khaskhas Water Labourers , rainy season grass cutters, snow clearing labourers in high altitude etc. will not be converted into regular employee as per Ministry of Defence Letter No. 3 (3)/65/ 1828 /D ( Civil ) dated 26-9-1966 .
Ifthe nature of work is different, minimum wage as notified by the State Government/UT as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, is payable .
3.Weekly off: One paid weekly off after six days of continuous work .
Workmen have filed copy of Ministry of Defence Letter No. 28 (43 ) 60 - D( Appts )/ 8820/D ( Civil) dated 21 August, 1971. The said letter is addressed to the Chief ofArmy Staff, the Chief of Naval Staff. This letter reads as under:
4.National Holiday: Daily wage is admissible for a National Holiday falling on a working day for them .
"Subject : Terms and conditions of the services of casual Industrial and Non - industrial Employees .
Sir,
5. No payment for other days of absence : Except on weekly off days and a National Holiday, no payment is admissible when duty is not performed.
6.Appointment in Group ' D' posts : Casual labourers not registered with Employment Exchange should not be I am directed to state that the President is pleased to decide that for purposes of determining the maximum 10686
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
appointed in regular posts . Those appointed through Employment Exchange and possessing minimum 2 years ' continuous service as casual labour in the office / establishment are eligible for appointment to regular post without further reference to Employment Exchange . Those recruited directly without reference to Employment Exchange should register and then put in 2 years ' service forbecoming eligible for regular appointment if nominated byEmployment Exchange.
7. Two years' continuous service.-- The benefit referred to in previous para will be available if the casual labourer has put in at least 240 days of service (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 -day week) including broken periods of service during each of the two years ' service.
8.Ban on engagement of casual workers for duties ofGroup C.-There is complete ban on engagement of casual workers for duties of Group ' C ' posts .
9. Scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers :-
(1) Applicability. The scheme brought into force from 1-9-1993 for grant of temporary status is applicable to casual labourers in employment on 1-9-1993 in Ministries/Department of the Government of India , but not applicable to casual workers in Railways , Departments of Telecommunication/Posts who already have their own Schemes .
(ii) Temporary Status . Temporary status is conferred on all casual labourers in employment on1-9-1993 and in continuous service of at least one year. This means that they must have been engaged continuously for at least 240 days (206 days in the case of offices observing 5 day- week) before 1-9-1993 . No change in duties .
(iii) Benefits under the Scheme :--
(1) Wages will be at daily rates with reference to the minimum of pay scale for regular Group 'D' plus DA, HRA and CCA . From 1-8-1997 Transport Allowance of Rs . 100 for A- I /A' cities and Rs . 75 for other places should also be taken into account . Expenditure is debitable to sub-head 'wages'.
(2) Benefit of increment after one year service subject to performance of duty for 240/ 206 days from 1-9-1993 onwards is available for calculation of daily wages. But there will be no arrears for the period prior to 1-9-1993 . There will be no change inpayment procedure since they continue to be casual labourers .
[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] (3) Leave entitlement will be at one day for every 10 days of work ( weekly off and other non -working days excluded) . Credit of leave may be carried forward on regularisation.
(4) Maternity leave to lady workers and paternity leave to male workers will be as admissible for regular Group 'D' staff.
(5) Leave encashment is not admissible .
(6) Service up to 50 % rendered under Temporary Status is reckonable for pensionary benefits .
(7) After three years ' continuous service under Temporary Status , the personnel willbe treated at par with temporary Group 'D' employees for contribution to GPF, grant of Festival Advance and Flood Advance.
(8) Productivity - linked Bonus/Ad-hoc Bonus is admissible only at the rates for casual labourers until regularization as of Temporary Status .
(9) Leave is credited on 1st January and 1st July cach year with reference to the duty performed in the previous half- year . (Matter regarding carry- over of credit is under consideration).
No benefit other than the above is admissible under this Scheme . Other benefits available to casual workers in industrial establishments will however, continue .
( iv) Termination.- Services ofa casual labourer with Temporary Status may be dispensed with by one month's notice. Similarly, a casual labourer can quit after a month's notice. Wages for the notice period will be only for the days worked .
(v) Procedure for filling up of Group ' D ' posts.- Two of every three vacancies in Group 'D' cadre in offices where casual labour is engaged will be filled from casual workers in temporary status , under the conditions prescribed in the Recruitment Rules as per instructions issued by PoP & T. However, Group ' D ' employees rendered surplus will have prior claim for absorption against existing/future vacancies . In case of illiterate casual labourers or those not fulfilling the minimum qualification prescribed for the post , regularization will be considered only against those posts for which literacy or minimum qualification will not be a requisite qualification. Age retaxation is permissible to the extent of the continuous service as casual labour .
10687
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
(vi) No substitute in place of a regularised casual worker. On regularization of casual workerwith temporary status , no substitute to be appointed as he was not holding any regular post. (In other words, the regularization does not create a vacancy in the casual labour quota) .
(vii) Service Book. Though not prescribed, Service Book may be maintained for a Temporary Status casual worker to facilitate recording particulars atone place .
Workman have also referred following letters ofthe ArmyHeadQuarters , NewDelhi .
(i) No. 15226/org 4(iv) (a) dated 24-4-98 .
Such a case as this was brought before the Hon'ble CalcuttaHigh Court by way of Writ Petition Union of India V. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal & Others which was decided on30-9-1985 and is reported in 1986 Lab IC 1269. The facts of the case was that the Engineers Depot , Panngarh was defence establishment under the Ministry of Defence . The functions of the aforesaid ESD related primarily to the holding and handling of stores required for defence purposes . The three DME concerned were rendered surplus in the establishment. By the special army order the concerned DME were rendered surplus . Subsequently concerned DMEs were given one month's notice, being temporarily employees for termination of their services by reason of non accepting of lower rank. The termination of services of the concerned DMEs were not accepted and hence the reference before the Central Industrial Tribunal, Calcutta.
In the above said case the counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that legal sovereign activity cannot be termed as industry. Paras 6 and 9 of the said judgment are reproduced as under:
"6. Section 2 (j ) defined ' industry ' and means any business, trade, undertaking , manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service , employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation ofworkmen. The definition itself suggests for an activity to be termed as an industry, the employer must be engaged in a business , trade, undertaking, or manufacture. The definition, thus is ofvery wide import and it is necessary to interpret the definition of ' industry ' in a manner so as not to whittle down but to advance the object of the Act . TheIndustrial Disputes Act is a legislation intended to bring peace and harmony between the management and labour in an industry so that production in any way does not suffer and at the same time labour is to be exploited. It is now however well settled that the question as to whether a particular concern is an industry the approach must be broad and liberal and not rigid and doctrinaire. The Industrial Disputes Act is a social welfare legislation and the Courts while interpreting should take recourse to such an interpretation as would . advance the object and purpose of the legislation and give full meaning and effect to it in the achievement of its social objective. The Court should adopt apragmatic and not pedantic approach . This view finds support from the decision ofthe Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Verma V. Mahesh Chandra reported in (1983 ) 4 SCC 214: ( 1983 Lab IC 1483).
9. The First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act lists some industries which may be declared to be. public utility service under sub-clause (vi ) of clause( n) of Sec. 2 and defence establishment has From the Government order referred above there is no doubt that even army establishment recruits industrial as well as non - industrial casual labours . Ministry of Defence letter dated 10 September, 1953 has categorically termed such casual labour as Industrial casual labours . The letter does not specify that the same is applicable to a particular establishment. From the evidence on record the 192 Petroleum Platoon is a stores , which makes provision for fuel oil lubricant procures from different suppliers , stores it and then supplies it to different defence establishment for the smooth safe handling and stores it employs casual labours . It may be taken notice if that the army has huge fleet of vehicles , machines , armoured cars , tanks etc. which needs fuel , lubricating oil , Mobil oil etc. All defence establishments may not procure these items and therefore for conveniences , economy etc. army has created such establishment to meet the needs ofall defence establishment. The such large POL stones is named as 192 Petroleum Platoon which is manned by army personnels as well as civilian casual labours . According toMinistry ofDefence letter of 10 Sept. , 53 they are called as industrial casual labour . This particular platoon is not a combat platoon which has participate in case of war. There is no document on reconto show that 192 Petroleum Platoon is a war establishment. It is also not same thing new that all the units of army are subject to movement from one place to other. It is also not new that the army personnel may be ordered to move front line whenever they are required or exigency-demands . Keeping all above facts in mind the 192 Petroleum Platoon remains a stores like any other POL stores of IOC, ONGC , Hindustan Petroleum , Hindustan Aeronauticsetc. The only distinguishing feature is that 192 Petroleum Platoon is headed by an Army Captain who is called the officer commanding where is the head of the stores of IOC , ONGC, HAL etc. could be called as stores/provisioning managers stores of Government Undertaking is supervised by civilian officers , clerk etc. , whereas the army stores are supervised by the NCOs , but in both cases the goods are to be handled by the Industrial Labours . Keeping the above facts in mind the present case is to be analysed.
2800 G1/05-16 10688
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
been included in the said lists of industry which maybe declared to be public utility service as in the aforesaid first schedule . The nature of the statement itself goes to show that the defence establishments are industries though of course the sovereign functions of the State have been expressly excluded. But in my view, such exclusion does not mean and imply that any and every function of the defence establishment would be beyond the pale of Industrial DisputesAct . The Tribunal as a matter of fact after examining the nature of the work done by the concerned employees and the functions of the ESD , Panagar came to the definite finding that the Industrial Disputes Act is attracted in the case of the concerned workmen. In my view, considering the evidence on record it cannot be termed to be a perverse finding nor there is any error of law capable ofbeing rectified by a writ petition . "
In landmark judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court BangaloreWater Supply v. A. Rajappa 1978 Supreme Court 548 it is held that even in departments discharging sovereign functions , if there are units which are industries and they are substantially severable, then they can come within Section 2(j ) .
Army/defence is no doubt has sovereign functions , but there are units which are substantially severable , then they can be considered to be an industry, even if the activity of sich unit is without any profit motive . Activity of192, Petroleum Platoon is therefore, makes it clear , that the unit is engaged in the activity of provisioning, storing, receiving stores for suppliers and transporting these by rail, roadetc. In an industry and the workman who handle the store , unload it , stock it and load it , lean the stores , barrels are nothing but industrial worker and as such government has rightly categorised these worker as industrial casual worker.
According to Cap. Avinash Acharya 192, Petroleum Platoon came into existence in the year 1993 and according to him it is a war unit; but this fact is not mentioned in point wise reply to the statement of claim . It is made out from the certificate issued by the Commanding Officer , 192, Platoon thatworker Prem Narain , Shaukat Khan, Jai Chand, Turan Singh , Edgar, Suresh, Pooran Lal have been working since prior to 93. It is therefore false to say that 192, Platoon came into existence in 1993. The said certificate was forwarded by the Officer Cominanding of 192 Petroleum Platoon to Employment Exchange vide letter No. 764 /Ind/ST -12 (Cir) dated 28-12-96. Forwarding letter together with certificate is on record.
Jai Chand has stated in para 2 of his affidavit that he has been working as casual labour under Officer Commanding, 192, Petroleum Platoon since November, 89 till date on daily wage basis . He has also stated that during the year 1999-2000-2001 he was paid Rs . 1164 to Rs . 2500
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] as bonus and true copies of experience certificate have beenfiled as annexure 3 , 3A, 3B have been filed with claim application . Jai Chand also stated that he worked on permanentpost .
Shri Avinash Chandra Acharya Officer Commanding of 192 , Petroleum Platoon has in reply to the said statement only this much has denied that Jai Chand worked on permanent post . Thus, admitted fact is that Jai Chand worked as casual labour since November, 1999 till date . Meaning thereby that he has been working for about 15 years as casual labour. According to certificate Annexure 3 to claim application the details show that since 26November, 89 to 31 December, 96 Jai Chand worked for 1755 days . This shows that Jai Chand did work more than 240 days in a calendar year.
The worker Prem Narain Kushwaha has stated in para 2 of his affidavit that he has been working since the year Nov. 88 till date under Officer Commanding , 192 , Petroleum Platoon on daily wages and he also got bonus Rs. 1184 to Rs. 2500 annually during 1999-2000, 2000-2001 . He has also stated in the same para that true copies of experience certificate have been filed as Annexure No. 3 , 3A& 3B to the claim application. He has also stated that he worked on permanent post . Sh. Avinash Acharya a Officer Commanding Officer of the 192, Petroleum Platoon in his reply has only denied in the affidavit that worker worked inpermanent post. Thus it is proved that the worker Prem Narain Kushwaha has been working since 1 Nov. , 88 till date as a casual worker. Certificate shows that the worker Prem Narain Kushwaha during the period 1-11-88 to 31 Dec. , 96 , one thousand seven hundred and two days .
Turan Singh the worker has stated in para 2 of his statement that he has been working as casual labour under Officer Commanding , 192 , Petroleum Platoon since July, 90 till date and has received bonus in the year 1999-2000 , 2000-2001 . Suresh has proved through his affidavit that he has been working since October, 90 till date as casual labour on daily wages and has also received bonus in the said years . Edgar to through his affidavit has proved that he worked since February, 91 till date as casual labour. Rajendra Kumar has proved that he worked as casual labour since March , 95 till date. Hukum Chand has stated in para 2ofhis affidavit that he has been working as casual labour sinceMay, 91 till date . Kunwar Pal similarly has stated that he too has worked since October 93 till date as casual labour. Phool Chand has stated that he has worked as casual labour since May, 92 till date . Ganesh, Roop Singh , Shrikishan, Santosh Kumar, Kewal Ram, Ravi Kumar, Raj Kumar, Shanker Lal have also stated in their respective affidavits that they have been working since October, 94 , Sept. 94, Feb 95 , October 95 , April 96 , December 94, October 93, Nov 94 , respectively till date. Commanding Officer of the 192 Petroleum Platoon has not denied that said facts . He has only stated that the workers did not work on permanent post .
10689
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
not of regular nature . No labour is required where there is no receipt/despatches. "
Workers have stated in para 6 & 7 of affidavits as under:
Pooran Lal , Shaukat Khan, Munna Lal, Shakti Lal, Nathu Ram, Mahesh, Sunil Kumar, Shanker in their respective affidavits in para 2 have stated that they have worked as casual labour under Officer Commanding since October 92, October 89, May 94, October 95, October 94, April 96, October 95 , October 95 , Commanding Officer, Sh . Avinash Chandra in reply to the affidavits have not denied the said facts . Only allegation is that they were not worked on the permanent post .
"6. That the deponent has worked for more than 240 days in a year and the work for which they have worked continuously is of regular nature . Hence it is essential that they may be regularised and they may be made permanent in their services for enabling them to get all due service benefits which are being given to regular and permanent workers .
7. That the deponent further assets that the nature ofwork, its necessity and continuity shows that the work done there is ofcontinuous nature and not of temporary or short timed nature and proper funds and jobs are available for the work performed by them."
Commanding Officer, Sh. Avinash Chandra has in reply to the above have stated as follows:
In paras 7 and 8 of the statement of claim the workmen have alleged that all workmen have continuously worked for more than 240 days in a year and the work for which they have worked continuously for years , is of regular and of continuous nature . Hence it is essential that the workmen may be regularised and they may be made permanent in their services for enabling them to get all due benefits which are given to permanent workers . It is also alleged that the nature of work, its necessity shown that the work done by them are ofcontinuous nature and not of temporary and short lived nature and proper funds posts were available for the work performed by them.
Inreply to the above the Commanding Officer of 192 Petroleum Platoon has stated as follows:
"7. That the work on which the applicant was engaged of a casual nature , because the work is fluctuating depending on the receipts and despatches of stores . There are periods during which no receipt despatches takes place resulting on hiring of these labours .
Para 8. That the averments in para 6 & 7 are denied that the work taken from the applicant is of continuous nature . It has not been specifically denied that the workers have not worked for more than 240 days . The dispute is whether the workman worked on the work, which is of contintious nature . Officer Commanding's mere statement is not true since if the workers have worked for 240 days a years and for many years cannot be said to be the work of casual nature .
8. That the work is of casual nature such as loading , unloading of products, barrels etc. received from private firms and Government department , whichis
The management has filed the statements of attendance since the year 1991 to 2000 which shows the workmenwise details under :
99-2000
97-98 98-99
94-95 95-96 96-97
91-92 92-93 93-94
90-91
241
281
283 274 278 282
257
235 093 024
1. Prem Narain
233 246 217
219
182
195
239
264 251
233
2. Shaukat Khan
255
282
275
283
284
267 093
279
255 284
3. Jai Chand
220 227
092
260 161
267
264
245
265
220
4. Turan Singh
242
259
250
127
249
244 143
261
282
039
5. Edgar
278 267
259 262 283
263 252
271
125
6. Suresh
067 164. 256
249 207
283
244
184
7. Pooran Lal
262 253
266
199
242 245
089
8. Raj Kumar
259
260
252
218
214 232
118
9. Kunwar Lal
075
156
159
169
116
076
090
10. Shankar
276
269
266 254 266
219
11. Hukum Chand
203
193
255
266
276
162
12. Phool Chand
265 267 271
274 258
172
13. Ganesh .
225 194
257
171 209
150
14. Nathu Ram
242 216
240
120 257
15. Roop Singh 10690
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9. 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94
96-97
94-95 95-96
97-98
99-2000
98-99 16. Shankar Lal
096 271
253
268 278 277
078
17. Ravi Kumar
263 261 273
263 273
243
18. Shri Kishan
033
236
226 262 256
258
242
141
231 269 272 19. Rajendra
20. Munna Lal
271
208
242 239 224 21. Santosh
250
135
263
268 265 22. Sunil Kumar
231
250
241 244 23. Shakti Lal
69
190 216
177
175 24. Kewal Ram
257
223
273 272 25. Mahesh
225
184 243 190
and date of the work performed from 1st Nov 88 to 31 Dec 96 is as under :
According to the statement of the 192 , Petroleum Platoon sent toEmployment Exchange, Jhansi . The period
1. Prem Narain
From 1 , Nov 88 to 31 Dec 96
1702 days 2. Shaukat Khan
23 Oct 89 to 31 Dec 96
1634 days 3. Jai Chand
26 Nov 89 to 31 Dec 96
1795 days 2-7-90 to 31 Dec 96
4. Turan Singh
1522 days 11-2-91 to 31 Dec 96
5. Edgar
1291 days 6. Suresh
7-10-91 to 31 Dec 96
1360 days 7. Pooran Lal
1-10-92 to31 Dec 96
1014days 11 Oct 93 to 31 Dec 96
8. Raj Kumar
713days 9. Kunwar Lal
12 Oct 93 to 31 Dec 96
713 days 10. Shankar
22-10-94 to 31 Dec 96
551 days 11. Hukum Chand
23 May 94 to 31 Dec 96
686 days 12. Phool Chand
5-5-94 to 31 Dec 96
722 days 13. Ganesh
2-10-94 to 31 Dec 96
644days 14. Nathu Ram
12-10-94 to 31 Dec 96
606 days 12-9-94 to 31 Dec 96
15. Roop Singh
535 days 16. Shankar Lal
2-10-95 to 31 Dec 96
257 days 17. Ravi Kumar
12-12-94 to 31 Dec 96
545 days 18. Shri Kishan
11-2-95 to 31 Dec 96
461 days 1-9-95 to 31 Dec 96
19. Rajendra
484 days 20. Munna Lal
5-5-94 to 31 Dec 96
542days 21. Santosh
1-10-95 to 31 Dec 96
209 days 22. Sunil Kumar
14-10-95 to 31 Dec 96
288 days 23. Shakti Lal
1-10-95 to 31 Dec 96
209 days 24. Kewal Ram
1-4-96 to 31 Dec 96
169 days 25. Mahesh
6-4-96 to 31 Dec 96
164days 10691 [भाग II- खंड-3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
From above table following facts are proved:
2. Employer is not obliged to pay any sum for Sundays and holidays.
1. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 1 casual worker in1988.
3. Casual worker is not entitled to any leave with pay on the ground of sickness .
2. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 3 casual workers in 1989 .
4. Employer has no liability to pay benefits to which a worker is entitled . Thus employer saves alot of money.
3. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 4 casual workers in 1990 .
On the other hand the casual labour has to loose:
4. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 6 casual workers in 1991 .
1. Regular pay.
2. Other allowances .
5. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 7 casual workers in 1992.
3. Deprivation of leave facility.
4. No sickness benefit .
6. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 9 casual workers in 1993 .
5. No retrial benefits .
7. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 16 casual workers in 1994.
8. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 23 casual workers in 1995 .
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in daily R. C. Labour P& T Vs. Union of India 1987 AIR SC 2342 has come very heavily on the keeping the persons as casual labours for years. Their lordships have also termed such practice as exploitationof labour.
9. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 25 casual workers in 1996 .
10. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 25 casual workers in 1997 .
11. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 25 casual workers in 1998 .
12. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 25 casual workers in 1999 .
13. 192 Petroleum Platoon engaged 25 casual workers in 2000 .
"It is again for this reason that management and the governmental agencies in particular should not allow workers to remain as casual labours or temporary employees for an unreasonably long period of time. Wherein any justification to keep persons as casual labourers or years as is done in Postal & Telegraph Department . Then it amounts to exploitation of labour. It is against this background that we say that non - regularisation of temporary employers or casual labourers for a long is not wise policy. We therefore direct the respondents to prepare a scheme on a rational basis for absorbing as far as possible to casual labours who have been continuously working for more than one year in the posts and telegraph department. 2. It is also apparent that workload is increasing which indicates that store handling, transaction has gone up which necessitated the engagement ofcasual workers .
3. Casual work has been converted in the routine work by now.
4. Long user of casual labour has resulted in continued work and they cannot be dispense with.
5. Wage expenses are incurred from contingency.
Although it is argued on behalf of the representative ofthe opposite party (employer ) that the work taken from theapplicant from time to time is a work of casual nature, I do not agree the facts show otherwise . There is continuity inthe work.
In such a case as this let as is what the relevant rules in this regards are . Admittedly, these casual labours are not army personnel , but they are only civilians . Government of India, Ministry of Defence vide its order No. 4( 1 ) 93 /D( Civil ) dated 14 Oct 1993 addressed to the Chief of Army Staff & Chiefs of Naval & Air Staff asked them to comply the revised instructions of DOP& T vide UO No. 51016/ 2/90- Estt . ( C) dtd. 10 Sept. 1993. The guidelines were regarding grant of temporary status and regularisation of casual worker. This pertained to all casual employees who rendered continuous one -year service DOP&T formulated the scheme known as grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme . Scheme is asfollows:
Thedetailment of casual labour benefits the employer in following ways:
"Subject :-Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation of casual workers-Formulation of a scheme in pursuance of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi , Judgement dated 16th Feb. , 1990 in the case of Shri Raj Kamal & Others Vs. UOI .
1. It is obligatory on the part of employer to pay full wages admissible to class IV employee, thus employer saves more than half salary.
10692
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
The guidelines in the matter of recruitment of persons on daily wage basis in Central Government Offices were issued vide this Department's O. M. No. 49014/2/86- Estt (C) dated 7-6-88. The policy has further been reviewed in the light ofjudgement of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi delivered on 16-2-90 in the writ petition filed by Shri Raj Kamal and Others Vs. Union of India and it has beendecided that while the existing guidelines contained in O. M. dated 7-6-88 may continue to be followed, the grant of temporary status to the casual employees , who are presently re- employed and have rendered one year of continuous service in Central Government offices other thanDepartment of Telecom, Posts and Railways may be regulated by the scheme as appended.
2. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the scheme to the notice of appointing authorities under their administrative control and ensure that recruitment of casual employees is done in accordance with the guidelines contained in O. M. dated 7-6-88 . Cases of negligence should be viewed seriously and brought to the notice of appropriate authorities for taking prompt and suitable action .
Sd/-
Y. G. PRANDE , Director
APPENDIX
Department of Personnel & Training , Casual Labour(Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme
1. This scheme shall be called " Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation ) Scheme ofGoveroment of India , 1993 " .
2. This scheme will come into force w.e.f. 1-9-1993.
3. This scheme is applicable to casual labourers in cmployment of the Ministries /Departments of Government of India and tlicir attached and subordinate offices , on the date of issue of these orders . But it shall not be Telecommunication and Department of Posts who already have their own schemes .
4.Temporary Status:
(i) Temporary status would be conferred on all casual labourers who are in employment on the date of issue of this O. M. and who have rendered a continuous service of at least one year, which means that they must have been engaged for a period of at least 240 days ( 206 days in the case of offices observing 5 days week).
(ii) Such conferment of temporary status would be without reference to the creation/ availability of regular Group ' D ' posts .
[PART II- SEC. 3(ii) ) (iii) Conferment of temporary status on a casual labourer would not involve any change in his duties and responsibilities. The engagement will be on daily rates of pay on need basis . He may be deployed anywhere within the recruitment unit/territorial circle on the basis of availability ofwork.
(iv) Such casual labourers who acquire temporary status will not however, be brought on to the permanent establishment unless they are selected through regular selection process for Group 'D ' posts .
5.Temporary status would entitle the casual labourer to the following benefits: ---
(i) Wages at daily rates with reference to the minimum wages on the pay scale for a corresponding regular Group ' D ' official including DA, HRA and CCA .
(ii) Benefits of increments at the same rate as applicable to a Group ' D ' employee would be taken into account for calculating pro - rata wages for every one year of services subject to performance of duty for at least 240 days (206 days in administrative offices observing 5 days week) in the year from the date of conferment of temporary status .
(iii) Leave entitlement will be on a pro - rata basis at the rate of one day for every 10 days of work, casual or any other kind of leave , except maternity leave , will not be admissible . They will also be allowed to carry forward the leave attheir credit on their regularisation. They will not be entitled to the benefits of encashment of leave on termination of service for any reason or on their quitting service .
(iv) Maternity leave to lady casual labourers as admissible to regular Group ' D ' employees will be allowed.
(v) 50% of the service rendered under temporary status would be counted for the purpose of retirement benefits after their regularisation .
(vi) After rendering three years continuous service after conferment of temporary status , the casual labourers would be treated on par with teniporaryGroup ' D ' employees for the purpose ofcontribution to the General Provident Fund , and would also further be eligible for the grant of Festival Advance / Flood Advance on the same conditions as are applicable to temporary Group D employees , provided they furnish two suretics from permanent Govt . servants of their Department .
10693 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
(vii) Until they are regularised, they would be entitled to Productivity Linked Bonus/Ad- hoc Bonus only at the rates as applicable to casual labourers.
Prior to the above Govt . of India, Ministry of Defencevide its Letter No. 4/(4)/86 D ( Civ. II) dated 27th June , 1988 circulated office memorandum regarding recruitment of casual labour and persons on daily wages along withDOPT OM No. F. 49014/2/86 dated 7-6-88, which isreproduced below:
6. No benefits other than those specified above will be admissible to casual labourers with temporary status. However, if any additional benefits are admissible to casual workers, working in Industrial establishments in view of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , they shall continue to the admissible to such casual labourers .
"The policy regarding engagement of casual workers in Central Government Offices has been reviewed byGovernment keeping in view the judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on the 17th January, 1986 in the Writ Petition filed by Shri Surinder Singh and Other Vs. Union of India and it has been decided to lay down the following guidelines in the matter of recruitment of casual workers on daily wage basis :-
7. Despite conferment of temporary status , the services of a casual labourer may be dispensed with by giving a notice of one month in writing. Acasual labourer with temporary status can also quit service by giving a written notice of one month . The wages for the notice period will be payable only for the days on which such casual worker is engaged on work.
(1) Persons on daily wages should not be recruited forworkof regular nature.
(ii) Recruitment of daily wages may be made only for work which is of casual or seasonal or intermittent nature or for work, which is not of fulltime nature, for which regular posts cannot be created.
Adjutant branch of the army vide letter No. 15226/ org 4 (Civ) (a) dated 29-1-98 came out with the clarification stating that conferring temporary status is not applicable to those who are not completed 240 or 206 days on 10 Sept. , 93 and also those who were employed subsequently. Later is reproduced below:
29 Jan98
"15226/org 4 (Civ) ( a)
ADJUTANT GENERAL'S BRANCH 15226/ org 4 ( Civ) ( a)
Clarification-Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation scheme for Casual Labour.
(iii) The work presently being done by regular staff should be reassessed by the Administrative Departments concerned for output and productivity so that the work being done by the casual workers could be entrusted to the régular employees . The Departments may also review the norms of Staff for regular work and take steps to get them revised, if considered necessary.
(iv) Where the nature of work entrusted to the casual workers and regular employees is the same, the casual workers may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the pay at the minimum ofthe relevant scale plus dearness allowance for work of8hours a day.
I. Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation Scheme circulated by the Deptt. of Personnel and Training under their O. M. No. 51016/ 2/90 -Estt. (C) dated 10th Sep. , 93 was disseminated to all the Branches/Dte. of Army HQ vide out note No. 71881 / CL/org 4 (Civ) (a) dated 29 Oct. , 93. Recently while examining a case on grant of temporary status to casual employees , the DOP &T have clarified that the said scheme employees , the DOP&T have clarified that the said scheme was a one time affair and is applicable in respect of only those casual employees who were in service on the date of the notification of the scheme i.e. 10-9-93 and had rendered one year of continuous service with 240 or 206 days , as the case may be , on the date . Thus conferring temporary status is not applicable to those who had not completed 240 or 206 days , as the case may be , on 10 Dec. , 93 and also those employed as casual labours subsequently.
(v) In cases where the work done by a casual worker isdifferent from the work done by a regular employees , the casual worker may be paid only the minimum wages notified by the Ministry of Labour or the State Government/Union Territory Administration , whichever is higher,. as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. However, if a Department is already paying daily wages atahigher rate, the practice could be contirtued with the approval of its Financial Advisor.
(vi) The casual workers may be given one paid weekly off after six days ofcontinuous work.
2. In view of the above , it is requested that all the Units/Estts under your administrative control may be apprised of the above clarification immediately for compliance.
4. Please acknowledge .
JAGIR SINGH, SCSO, Dir. (MP ) "
(vii ) The payment to the casual workers may be restricted only to the days on which they actually perform duty under the Government 10694
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] with a paid weekly off as mentioned at (vi ) above. They will, however, in addition , be paid for a National Holiday, if it falls on a working day for the casual workers.
Each Ministry should furnish a quarterly statement indicating the progress of the review in respect of the Ministry (proper ) and all Attached/ Subordinate officers under them to the Deptt . of Personnel and Training in the proforma attached . The first quarterly return should be furnished to this Department by the 10th October, 1988 .
(viii) In cases where it is not possible to entrust all the items of work now being handled by the casual workers to the existing regular staff, additional regular posts may be created to the barest minimum necessary, with the concurrence of theMinistry of Finance.
3. By strict and meticulous observance of the guidelines by all Ministries /Departments , it should be ensured that there is no more engagement of casual workers for attending to work of a regular nature, particularly after the review envisaged above is duty completed. Each Head of Office should also nominate an officer who would scrutinise the engagement of each and every casual worker and the job for which he is being employee to determine whether the work is of casual nature or not .
(ix) Where work of more than one type is to be performed throughout the year but each type of work does not justify a separate regular employee, a multifunctional post may be created for handling these items of work with the concurrence ofthe Ministry of Finance .
(x) The regularisation of the services of the casual workers will continue to be governed by this Department in this regard. While considering such regulation, a casual worker may be given relaxation in the upper age limit only if at the time ofinitial recruitment as a casual worker , he had not crossed the upper age limit for the relevantpost.
4.Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the contents of this Office Memorandum to the notice of all the appointing authorities under their respective administrative control for strict observance. Cases of negligence in the matter of implementing these guidelines should be viewed very seriously and brought to the notice ofthe appropriate authorities for taking prompt and suitable action against the defaulters .
D. P. BAGCHI ,
Jt. Secy. to the Government of India . " (xi) If a Department wants to make any departure from the above guidelines , it should obtain the prior concurrence of the Ministry of Finance and the Department of Personnel and Training.
All the administrative Ministries/Departments should undertake a review of appointment of casual workers in the office under their control on a time bound basis so that at the end of the prescribed period , the following targets are achieved:-
(a) All eligible casual workers are adjusted against regular posts to the extent such regular posts arejustified .
The said communication has stressed that there should no more engagement of casual worker for attending work of a regular nature , but in spite of this workers were engaged and not only were engaged but also strength continued increasing as stated earlier. It cannot be said that the officer commanding of 192 , Petroleum Platoon was not conscious of the aforesaid OM of DOPT . Commanding Officer of the 192, Petroleum Platoon & Ministry ofDefence which allocates the budget very well knew the need of the platoon and accordingly it allowed the payments to be made from contingency knowingly that the platoon has regular work for these casual labours . The only flaw erupted that the concerned department could not create additional regular posts , may be due to financial restraints and economic policy.
(b) The rest of the casual workers not covered by (a) above and whose retention is considered absolutely necessary and it in accordance with the guidelines , are paid emoluments strictly in accordance with the guidelines .
(c) The remaining casual workers not covered by (a) and (b) above are discharged from service .
2.The following time limit for completing the review has been prescribed in respect of the various Ministries / Departments:-
2Years
(a) Ministry of Railways .
Soon after the enactment of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, Ministry of Defence vide its letter No. 2 ( 17)51/ 10805/ D (Civ) dated 10th Sept. , 1953 , laid down the service condition of the casual industrial employee. It was provided there in that " Men will be recruited in this category only when it is clearly anticipated that they are not likely be required for more than six months . " Further it provided , " It should be clearly stipulated in the terms of appointment that their services will be terminated at any time without notice during the first six months . " (b) Department ofPosts , Deptt. of Telecommunications and Deptt. ofDefence Production
1Year
(c) All other Ministries/Deptt ./Office. 6 Months
It is also provided that for any reasons appointment is continued beyond six months , individual will not be 10695 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
discharged and reemployed from the same date. Instead he will be allowed to continue on service without break andwill be treated as regular industrial employee from the date of original appointment as casual industrial employee . This change of category from casual to regular will be declared even before the expiry of six months as soon as it is definitely known that individual will continue in services beyond six months .
Photo copy of the said letter was filed by the representative of the workers on 18-4-2002. No document has been filed by opposite party against the said letter to prove that the said letter is not in existence.
person is industrial dispute which can be made subject - matter of reference to the Labour Court of Industrial Tribunal as the case may be for adjudication. While considering such dispute , Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal have necessary jurisdiction to examine whether the dispute arose out of any unfair labour practice by the employer, giving cause for the dispute , if so , it has also jurisdiction to remedy. Unfair labour practice has beendefined in S. 2( ra) means any practice specified in the 5th Schedule . The 5th Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act enumerates various practices which are termed as unfair labour practice . In such enumeration at item 10 we find that to employee as workmen, badlies , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years with the object of depriving them of the status and privilege of permanent workmen amounts to an unfair labour practice . The unfair labour practice in its very expression has germs of arbitrariness and unreasonableness in its practice and such practice ofunfair labour practice must he held to be violative ofArt . 14 which guarantees to every citizen of this land equal protection of law. Article 14 is a genus of this basic fundamental right and the other articles providing specific protection against specific inequalities are but Species of Art. 14. Ordinarily, there is no conflict of operation of different articles and if one is violative or Art . 14 unless it is directed by some other provision of the constitution , the same continues to be violative of constitutional provisions . Therefore , the question whether regularisation as such results in back -door entry the service denying equal opportunity to the citizens and results in Violation of Art . 16 does not brook any answer in abstract . "
Therefore, the concept of employing industrial labourer was recognised by the Ministry of Defence . Thereafter, another other DOPT OM No. 49014/2/8 -Estt. dtd. 7-6-88 was circulated which provided that recruitment may be made only for work which is of a casual and intermittent nature or for work which not full time nature, for which regular posts are not created. Department was directed to review norms of staff for regular work and take steps to get them revised if considered necessary. It also made guidelines for creation of regular posts . Opposite party has tried to submit that the workers were engaged on casual and intermittent work from time to time as the opposite party platoon is subject to movement as per the necessary requirement of national defence . It is further submitted that the unit is subject to disbandment/closure. This argument is not sustainable as even otherwise law shall take its own course in case establishment is closed . Workers in thepresent case have been engaged as a casual workers for pretty long time. Majority of the workers have worked over nine years with the opposite party, besides some of them have worked even beyond fifteen years as casual labours . Capt . Avinash Acharya, the witness of opposite party on the other hand has stated in the cross examination that " Casual labour sejo kam lete hain wo na to intermittent hai na seasonal , varan atayadhik awashakta ki purti ke leya in se kam liya jata hai.
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has also laid down in para 24 of the case law that continued casual labour employment on the ground of non - availability ofvacancy is unfair labour practice . Para 24 ofthe case is reproduced below:
Thus , it is clear that casual labours have been deployed for necessary essential work for long period . Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in 1999 LAB IC 26 39 GSRTC Vs. Workman of ST Corporations have laid down in para 7 that while considering such disputes Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal have necessary jurisdiction to examine whether the dispute arose out of any unfair labour practice by the employer, giving cause to dispute , if so it has also jurisdiction to remedy. Unfair labour practice has been defined in Section 2 ( ra ) means any practice specified in the fifth schedule . The fifth schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act enumerates various practices which are termed as unfair labour practice . Para 7 of the case law is reproduced below:
"A dispute relating to the term of employment or relating to the conditions ofemployment of any
"As has been stated by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid referred decisions where persons are shown to have been employed temporarily for long duration and ithas also been shown that there exists permanent nature of work to employ number of persons in that event , the insatiable conclusions is thatcontinued temporary employment in respect of some ofthem on the jejune ground ofnon - availability ofvacancy is nothing but an unfair labour practice to deny the payment in the regular pay scales as are available to permanent employees to get the same work done on payment of minimum wages or lesser wages permissible to daily rated workmen for casual type or temporary type ofwork. Once this conclusion 2800 G1/05-17 10696
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
is reached on the findings recorded by the Tribunal about which nothing has been said, namely, that there exists permanent nature of work for the members at least and since July, 1996 only one person has been employed on permanent basis and that these persons are discharging functions of wiremen or helper wiremen with effect from the date referred toabove inthe case of each workmen, no justification can be found to interfere with the order of regularisation granting permanent status to these workmen with effect from ......... 96, when they have been found to be qualified to hold such positions otherwise also . This clearly falls within the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Piara Singh case (supra) . In this connection reference may usefully bemade from observation of Das Gupta, J. in Jaswant Millsv.Badri Prasad ( 1961 ) ILLJ 649 : AIR 1967 513 , underlining the important requirement job security ofa workman (at page 514 ofAIR).
Thedistinction between a permanent engagement on a work of a permanent nature and a temporary workman engaged on work of a permanent nature is that a temporary workman is engaged to fill in a need of temporary hands of hands of permanent jobs . When a workman is engaged in a work of permanent nature which lasts throughout the year, it is expected that he would continue permanently unless he has been engaged to fill in a temporary heed. "
Later on DOPT dtd . 7-6-88 also directs that regularisation of casual workers will continue to be governed by instructions issued by the department in this regard.
Again in the year 1993 , Ministry of Defence , Govt . of India vide its letter No. 4( 1)/93(Civ II) dtd. 14-10-93 circulated letter of DOPT No. 51016/2/ 90-Estt .- (C ) dtd. 10-9-93 for compliance, which pertains to the grant of temporary status This scheme was to come into force w.e.f. 1-9-93 for all those casual labour who have put in 240 working days in a year . In this scheme following benefits were made available to the casual labour after conferment of temporary status as mentioned in the page 27 ofthis award.
The said conferment of temporary status was circulated as a result of disposal of writ petition filed by Raj Kamal& Others Vs. Union of India. It was also decided thatwhile existing guidelines contained in OM dtd . 7-6-88 may continue to be followed . The Government of India, Ministry ofPersonnel , PG & Pension , Deptt. of Personnel and Training vide its letter No. 51010/2/ 90 -Estt . ( C) dtd.10-9-93 referred to the judgment of Central ministrative Tribunal , Principal Bench , N. Delhi delivered on 16-2-90. Photocopy of the case law of Administrative Tribunal (1990) 13 Administrative Tribunal Cases 478 Raj
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Kamal& Others Vs. Union of India has been filed by the worker's representative. Hon'ble Tribunal held that casual labours are entitled to equity of law, they can therefore claim equitable distribution of chances of regularisation . Hence , they should be considered for regularisation centrally by the department of personnel and training issued by the individual ministries/ department . In the said case the government was directed to prepare an integrated scheme . Government was also directed not to engage fresh casual labourers unless the existing were regularised . Though the Government provided some sort of security to the casual labourers by providing them temporary status so that the workers are benefited, but in the present case those qualifying to get temporary status have not been able to get their share. On September, 1993 Prem Narayan, Shaukat Khan , Jai Chand, Turan Singh, Edgar, Suresh and Puran Lal were working as casual labour and they ought to have been considered for giving temporary status .
Onbehalfof the workers it has been argued that the casual labours working in FOL Depot ASC , Delhi Cantt . were ordered that the casual labours or the OA No. 255/99 IR MA No. 2051/99 be considered for regularisation of their services . On behalf of the worker the photostat copy ofjudgment, passed in OA No. 255/99 IR MA No. 2051/99 Sh . Dhir Singh & others vs. Union of India decided by Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, N. Delhi on 17 July, 2000 has been filed . Hon'ble member of the Tribunal passed the orders that casual labours with respondent were working for about 18 years . In the facts and circumstances of the case the respondents were directed to consider the case or applicant for regularisation of their services in any other unit of Respondents where vacancies exist and make suitable offers of appointment to them in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations . This may be done as early as possible .
The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in special appeal No.447/99 decided on 21-1-99 between GSRTC v . Workmen ofST Corporation declined to interfere into the award passed by the Tribunal . This judgement is published in 1999 LAB IC 2639. In the circumstances of the discussions above I come to the conclusion that the workers are entitled to be considered for regularisation . The award is accordingly answered in affirmative . Till such time the workers are not regularised at least those workers who qualify to the temporary status are entitled to the temporary status as per DOPT circular dtd . 10 September, 1993 and they are entitled to the back wages from 1-9-93 . The opposite party shall review the requirement of labourers and shall endeavour to get the posts and on failure the workers are entitled to be regularised in the other industrial units where the post exists .
Lucknow 2-9-2005
SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 8 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3522- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार प्रूफ एण्ड एक्सपेरिमेंटल एस्टेब्लिशमेंट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 425/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-14012/37/2001- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th September , 2005 S.O. 3522. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 425/ 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court . Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Proof and Experimental Establishment and their workmen . which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-2005 .
[No. L - 14012/37 /2001 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR
Present:
Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra . Presiding Officer. C.G.I.T. -cum- Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.
Industrial Dispute No. 425/2001
Date of Passing Award, 19th Aug. 2005 Between :
The Management of the Director, and Commandant, Proof and Experimental Establishment . Chandipore .
Balasore-756 025.
10697
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
(1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 14012/37/ 2001 [IR (DU), dated 17-10-2001 ] :
"Whether the action of the Management of P & E , Chandipore by retrenching Smt. Manjulata Sahu without complying Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act is legal and justified ? If not, what reliefthe disputant is entitled to ? "
2. The shortly stated case of the workman as contended in her claim statement is that she was engaged as a lady attendant in Chandipore Section Hospital under theManagement of Proof and Experimental Establishment (in short PXE) , an unit of military organization at Chandipore , Balasore with effect from 1-5-1999 on a consolidated salary ofRs. 800 per month . While continuing as such she remained on maternity leave from 22-3-2000 to 21-6-2000. When she wanted tojoin in her post on 22-6-2000 she was refused employment by Maj . Rajendra Singh of P.X.E. in- charge of the hospital and hence this reference.
And
Ist Party-Management
Their Workman , Smt . Manjulata Sahu W/o Rajendra Mohapatra , At/PO. Uparadiha.
Balasore -756 025.
2nd Party -Workman
Appearances :
Kumar Chandra Chaudhury. For the 1st Party- Management Snit . Manjulata Sahu.
:For Herself/the 2nd
Party-Workman
AWARD
The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour , in exercise of powers conferred by Clause ( d ) of sub-section 3. The Management of P.X.E. on the other hand contends in its Written Statement that the Section Hospital in question was never under its administrative control and therefore neither the engagement nor the refusal of employment to the workman is known to it. It is also averred that the workman was never granted maternity leave by the P.X.E. and furthermore there was no employee employer relation between them . According to the present Management the workman was simply given engagement by the concerned hospital authority to work on daily rate basis for two to three hours per day on a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 800 per month and that the job ofthe workmanwas simply to attend the family members ofmilitary personnel during their medical examination in the hospital and for this she was being paid Rs . 800 as wages from out ofthe contributions made by the military service personnel. This contribution was collected by the hospital from different departments such as P.X.E, I.T.R , Station Workshop, EME ,GE ( 1 ) , R& D and EMU stationed at Chandipore proportionate to their strength ofbeneficiaries and that the workman was engaged for the above purpose by the station headquarters. It is also contended that Major Rajendra Singh was never working under the Management ofP.X.E. and therefore the alleged claim of the workman that she was refused employment by the said Maj .Rajendra Singh is of no consequence in so far as the P.Χ.Ε. department is concerned . In nutshell it is averred by the presentManagement of P.X.E. that there being no employee . and employer relation between the workman and the P.Χ.Ε. Department, the reference is bad and the workman is not entitled to claim any relief from P.X.E. Department. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were frame 10698
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
ISSUES
1. Whether the disputant is a workman under the definition of Industrial Dispute Act ?
2. Whether the action of the Management PXE , Chandinore by retrenching Smt. Manjulata Sahu , 2nd Party-Workman without complying Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is legal and justified ?.
3. Ifnot, what reliefthe 2nd Party -Workman is entitled to ?
ISSUE NOS . I & II
These issues are taken up together for the purpose of convenience .
5. Besides examining herself the workman has examined two other persons to prove her engagement under the hospital . From the side of the Management a sole witness namely Shri Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, the Joint Director of P.X.E. has been examined . While one Lt. Col. Prafulla Mohan Tha, the O.C. of the Section Hospital in questionhas been examined as a Court witness .
To say that the disputant was a workman under the Management of PXE, it is necessary to examine at the first instance whether
(a) the Section Hospital where the disputant was workingwasunder the administrative control of PXEDepartment, and
(b) whether the hospital was an industry within the meaning of the term as defined under Industrial Disputes Act.
6. To substantiate the case the disputant besides adducing oral evidence has relied upon a document marked Ext. -1 . She has also filed another document ( un -exhibited) purported tobe a termination letter issued by Maj . Rajendra Prasad Singh of PXE Department .
7. Ext. 1 is a letter addressed to A.L.C. ( C ) after the industrial dispute was raised against the P.X.E. Department. One Col. R.K. Yadab of P.X.E. Department has written it on behalf of Station Commander . As to the status of the said Station Commander the evidence of Court witness is quite specific to say that the senior - most officer of all the military wing stationed at Chandipore taken as a whole is normally designated as the Station Commander to exercise limited administrative control over all the wings including the hospital in question on matters relating to grant of leave , welfare related activities including maintenance of discipline amongst military personnel. His evidence further indicated that Col. R.K. Yadab of P.X.E. Department was the Station Commander during the period of conciliation proceeding. The Ext .- 1 also indicates that the same was written to A.L.C. ( C) by Col. R.K. Yadab as and on behalf of Station Commander.
Therefore , on the basis of Ext . - 1 it cannotbe concluded that the Hospital in question was a part and
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] partial of the P.X.E. Department as because the Station Commander was an officer of that department . Rather the very evidence ofthe workman indicates that he was initially given engagement by one Shri Mohapatra the then O.C. of the Hospital . Her evidence further discloses that she was being paid her remuncration by self same O.C. Mohapatra and therefore under all probability the dispute should have been raised against the Hospital Management and the same having not been done, the present reference is held to be bad against the P.X.E. Department. :
8. Now coming to the other aspect ofthe case it may be stated that the law is very clear to the extent that where acomplex of activities are carried out in an establishment some quality for exemption from the definition of the term "Industry" while the others not and in such cases the whole undertaking will be an industry although those who are not workmanby definition may not benefit by the status . Therefore in case of an establishment like a hospital the entire establishment can be termed as an Industry within the meaning of the term but it is only in case of those employees who fall within the definition of the term workman. Hence , when in Ext. - 1 it has been admitted by the Station Commander that the workman was engaged temporarily in the hospital to be paid out of the contributions made by different military wings , that itself, brings the entire hospital within the purview of the term Industry.
9. It has been claimed by the workman in the evidence that while working as an attendant in the hospital she applied for maternity leave from 22-3-2000 but the same was refused on 28-3-2000 byMajor Rajendra Singh ofPXE Deptt . in- charge of the hospital through a letter dated 28-3-2003 . It is her further evidence that when she wanted tojoin in her post on 23-6-2000 after availing such leave she was refused employment by the self same authority. Butsuch of the evidence of the workman does not inspire confidence as from the evidence of court witness and Management witness it is clear that during the relevant period no such person named Maj . Rajendra Singh was either working in the PXE Department or in the Hospital as Officer Commanding or Station Commander as claimedby the workman. Furthermore the un -exhibited documents upon which the workman has built up her case also does not inspire confidence . Though it is the case of the workman that she was refused leave through that letter on 28-3-2000 and was refused employment on her joining on 23-6-2000 , the contents of this letter runs counter to abe . e story of the workman inasmuch as it contains a narr.tion as if she was refused employment as well as leave on a single day on 28-3-2000 . A simple look at that document on the other hand indicates that such a letter would not have everbeenwritten by a military officer ofthe rank of a Major. The get- up , the manner of writing and the arrangements of defective words which are apparent on the face of that document are indicative ofthe fact that it is a built-up letter 10699
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
And
1. TheGeneral Manager, South Central Railway, Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad
and therefore, when the workman is found to have not approached the legal forum with a clean hand she is liable to get an unclean reward. Therefore , in these circumstances there is no other go but to believe the stand of the Management. Accordingly I find no merit in the reference and hence the workman is declared not entitled for any relief.
ISSUE NO. III
2. TheDivisional Railway Manager , South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division, Secunderabad.
10. In view of my above findings given in respect of Issüe Nos . I and II the workman is not entitled to any relief.
Respondents
3. The Security Officer (TRG), RPF Training Centre , Moulali, Hyderabad-500040.
11. Reference is answered accordingly. Dictated and corrected byme . N.K. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer
Appearances:
नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
Forthe Petitioner :Yogender Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent : A. Pruthvi Raj , Advocate.
AWARD
का. आ. 3523- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथ सेन्ट्रल रेलवे 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 आई. डी. 34/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।
This is a case taken under Sec . 2 A(2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa andM/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .
[सं. एल -41015 /2/2005- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2005
S.O. 3523. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 34/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-2005.
.L -41015/2/2005- IR (B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present :
2. The petitioner Shaik Raja alleged in his petition filed under Section 2 ( A) of ID Act that he was appointed by the respondent w.e.f. 25-5-68 to April, 1973 as casual labour without any block under Loco Foreman at Purna and he was transferred to Secunderabad on administrative needs and he was engaged w.e.f. 1-3-74 to 8-5-90 as Store Boy-cum-Assistant Cook under Zonal Training Centre , Moulali. Subsequently he was deputed as substitute Kahar in the R.P.F. Training Centre , Moulali . He further submitted that he was engaged for a period of 964 days from 25-5-68 to31-5-71 by clearing stipulated period of 240 days within ayear. In the first spell , he was engaged for 321 days during the period from June 1971 to May 1972 and 517 days from June 1971 to December 1972 and again he was engaged for 107 days from January 1973 to April 1973. He further submitted that he was again engaged from 1-3-74 to 8-5-80, from 8-5-80 to 11-7-81 as he was transferred to Railway Protection Force Training School, Moulali . The transfer was without any notice or without any authority. He further submitted that he filed the petition in OA No. 466/2000 on the file ofCAT wherein a direction was given to the second respondent todispose of his representation. Subsequently the respondent filed a RA No. 10/2001 in the said case which was allowed setting aside the order of OA 466/2000.
Shri T. Ramachandra Reddy, Presiding Officer Dated the 12th August , 2005 Industrial Dispute L.C.L.D. No. 34/2004
Between :
Shaik Raja, S/o Abdul , C/o R. Yogender Singh , Advocate , No. 1-10-100, Temple Alwal ,
Petitioner
3. It is further submitted that his services were terminated by the Assistant Security Officer, Moulali , though he was not an appointing authority and competent authorityto terminate his service. It is further stated that thepetitioner filed WP No. 32788/1998 which was withdrawn byhim. The petitioner preferred a WP No. 3077/2003 against Secunderabad- 10.
10700
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OCTOBER 1. 2005 / ASVINA 9. 1927
PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ⅱ )
from Kurudhwadi to Moulali during the September 1979. It is further submitted that the CAT has given a direction to the respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28-3-2000 for his reinstatement but subsequently a review petition was filed that the petitioner was not working under the railway's and he was terminated by the Assistant Security Officer and the CAT has no jurisdiction to entertain the application . The review petition was allowed and consequently the OA was dismissed.
the orders passed by CAT in RA No. 10/2001 but the same was dismissed. The OA as well as WP were not disposed ofon merits . It is further submitted that the petitioner was engaged for more than 240- days in a year and entitled for conferment of temporary status and regularization of his services and his services cannot be terminated by Security Officer. His services can be terminated by only Loco Foreman or his superiors and that he was terminated without any provisions of ID Act . It is further submitted that his juniors engaged , were regularized. He further submitted that his petition in QA 466/2000 was dismissed . He sought the relief to set aside the order of termination dated 6-9-1980 as illegal and arbitrary and for reinstatement and to regularize of his services while confirming the temporary status .
6. It is further submitted that the Assistant Security Officer is empowered to terminate the services of the petitioner as he was declared medically unfit . It is further submitted that the petition is barred by principles of res- judicata since the earlier WP filed by the petitioner on the file ofHon'ble High Court was dismissed as withdrawn and further contended that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim against the RPF..
7. The petitioner filed his affidavit in support of his claim and got marked the documents as exhibits Exs . W1 to W21 . As against this evidence, the respondent filed affidavit ofB.N. Nameswar and got marked the documents as exhibits Exs . Ml toM5 .
The plea of the petitioner is that he was engaged as a casual labour from 25-5-68 to April 19th, 1973 under Loco foreman at Purna and subsequently from 1-3-1974 to 8-5-1990 as Store Boy- cum-Assistant Cook under Zonal Training School , Moulali . From there , he was transferred to RPF as a substitute Kahar from where he was terminated we.f. 6-9-1980 by the Assistant Security Officer . The petitioner has filed the record of service as casual labour which discloses that his date of birth is 6-5-1946 and he worked 964 days under the control of Loco Foreman, Purna from 25-5-1968 to 31-5-1971 . Subsequently he also worked from June 1971 to December 1972 and the total number of working days is 1481 days . The respondent has not disputed this document and admitted in counter in para - 6 that he worked as a casual labour from 25-5-1968 to April, 1973 but only disputing the subsequently engagement as Store Boy-cum-Assistant Cook under Zonal Training School, Moulali . It is not a dispute that the petitioner was engaged as a substitute Kahar in the RPF Training School and he was terniinated on account of the declaration that he was medically unfit by the Assistant Security Officer . RPF
4. The respondent Railways filed the counter and denied the averments made in the petition and pleaded that a case was filed after a lapse, of 24 years of the termination of services with ordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner and barred by limitation . It is further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a substitute Rakshak/ Kahar by the Assistant Security Officer, Moulali , Hyderabad along with other candidates when the RPF Training Centre was shifted from Kurudhwadi in Maharashtra State to Moulali during September 1979. The appointment order and concerned file was destroyed along with other records on 23-10-98 . He was appointed only aftershifting of RPF Training Centre to Moulali . He worked about one year in two spells . He was terminated on 6-9-80 and that he was re - appointed as a substitute Rakshak/ Kahar on 8-9-80 after a gap of two days and that he was sent toMedical exarnination in category C -2 in compliance with the circular of the Chief Personnel Officer dated 16-1-81 in order to regularize services . But the petitioner was declared medically unfit in category C - 2 vide letter of the additional Divisional Medical Officer, Lalaguda . certificate dated 17-8-81 . The petitioner services were terminated w.e.f. 17-8-81 since no regular appointment can be offered because he was declared medically unfit . All other substitute Rakshak/Kahars are appointed since they were declared medically fit. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence proving his service from 1-3-74 to 8-5-1990 as Store Boy- cum-Assistant Cook under Zonal Training School , Moulati . He only worked as a Substitute Rakshak/Kahar during the 1980-81. However, it is admitted by the respondent on considering the Xerox copy of the casual labour card issued by the Loco Foreman , South Central Railway, Lalaguda. that he worked as a casual labour from 25-5-68 to April 19th, 1973 .
5. It is further submitted that there is no truth that the petitioner was transferred to RPF Training School and there is no provision for such transfer. But he was only engaged as a substitute Rakshak/Kahar against a regular vacancy consequent upon shifting of RPF Training Centre
8. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner approached the CAT in OA 466/2000 alleging that he was engaged as a casual labour from 25-5-1968 to 1973 and that he was granted temporary status and further he worked as Store Boy -cun1 - Assistant Cook from 1-3-1974 to 8-5-1980 in the Mess under the Zonal Training School , Moulali. Subsequently he worked as a substitute Kahar from 8-5-1978 to 11-1-1981 and claimed that he worked for 14 years on temporary status and submitted a representation dated 25-3-1999 to consider for sanction of compassionate 10701
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
that the petitioner did not work under Zonal training School .
allowance and that his representation was not yet disposed of. The Hon'ble CAT has directed the Divisional Railway Manager, Secunderabad to dispose of the representation in accordance with the rules taking due note of the circular dated 1-12-1995 within two months from the receipt ofthe copyofthe order .
14. It is further contended that the petitioner is not entitled for any compassionate allowances even though he worked for about 5 years as casual labour from 1968 to 1973.
15. The termination order Ex . M2 show that the Assistant Security Officer has terminated the services of the petitioner who has been appointed as a substitute Rakshak/Kahar in the regular vacancy of Rakshak/Kahar inthe scale ofRs . 200 to 240. His appointment order Ex.M3 shows that he was appointed as a Substitute Rakshak/ Kahar against a regular vacancy and his appointment is onlytemporary and no claim for continuity of services and hewill be discontinued as and when the regular candidate is posted in the regular vacancy. Ex . M4 shows that he was terminated because he was declared, medically unfit in Category C-2 in view of the medical certificate dated 17-8-81 . The RPF Act, 1957 is governed by the provisions of Section 19 of the said Act as follows:
9. The respondent has filed a review application RA 10/2001 stating that the applicant never worked under Railways and he was terminated by the Assistant Security Officer, RPF and he was not terminated by the railways and theapplicant filed a WP 32788/98 Challenging the order of the termination dated 6-9-1980 passed by the Assistant Security Officer , Moulali and the same is pending and that suppressing this fact , the petitioner filed the application and further pleaded that since the applicant was terminated by the Assistant Security Officer, RPF, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the matter and further the petitioner approached after a lapse of 19 years . The representation of the petitioner dated 25-3-1999 could not be considered as the respondent railways is not competent to consider his representation . The review petition was allowed and orders passed dated 28-3-2000 in the application was set aside .
10. The WP No. 32788/98 filed by the petitioner on the file of Hon'ble High Court was withdrawn by the petitioner by filing a letter dated 7-2-2001 .
Section 19 : "Certain Acts not to apply to members ofthe Force-Nothing contained in the Payment ofWages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936 ) , or the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , or the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948 ) , or any corresponding law relating to investigation and settlement of industrial dispute in force in a State shall apply to members of the Force . "
11. The petitioner filed a WP No. 3077/03 against the first respondent herein for issue of Writ of mandamus declaring the order of the Industrial Tribunal in RA 70 / 2001 in OA466/2000 dated 19-3-2001 asillegal and to squash the same. But the said WP was dismissed on 12-2-2003 .
16. In view of the said provision, the Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to the members of the Railway Protection Force . The CAT also observed in their order of the review petition . On considering the materials record, it appears that the petitioner has worked only for about 5 years as a casual labour under Loco Foreman at Purna. Subsequently he worked as a Store Boy-cum-Assistant Cook under Mess which is under a privatė management . After leaving the job in the private management , he was appointed as a substitute Kahar by the RPF. There is no connection to his appointment. He was not appointed because he worked as casual labour . Since he was medically unfit he could not be appointed in the permanent vacancy and he was terminated. The termination of employment by the Assistant Security Officer cannot be questioned in this Tribunal. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to set aside the termination order.
12. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has worked as a casual labour for about 5 years before the first respondent under Loco Foreman and subsequently worked in Zonal Training Centre and Subsequently he was transferred as casual labour substitute Rakshak/Kahar. But the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Assistant Security Officer without any enquiry and further contended that the Assistant Security Officer is not a competent authority to terminate the services of the petitioner since the petitioner has acquired the temporary status in the respondent railways and further contended that the petitioner is medically unfit to any job and request to give a direction for awarding compassionate allowance in view of his service rendered by the petitioner.
17. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has worked for about 5 years continuously under Loco Foreman at Purna and the same was shifted to Secunderabad and subsequently he was transferred to Secunderabad . He has worked for more than 240 days in a year during that period. Had thepetitioner continued under Loco Forman, he would have been taken into regular service . Now the petitioner has become old and further found medically unfit for any job and he is only requesting to grant compassionate 13. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application since the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Assistant Security Officer, RPF and further the petitioner has come to this Court after lapse of more than 20 years and the certificate said to have been issued by the Zonal Training School. Mess management committee is only a private body which proves 10702
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
Ex.W13 : Petitioner's representation to Chief Security Officer, RPF Training Centre , Hyderabad , dt. 18-4-93 ,
Ex. W14: Petitioner's representation toGM, SCR, Sec'bad, dt. 17-12-1997.
allowance in lieu of the services rendered by him. In view ofthe fact and circumstances and in the interest ofjustice, I feel that the petitioner should be granted some compassionate allowances for his service rendered. The petitioner has approached several forms spending huge amounts seeking the relief ofcompassionate allowance .
Ex. W15 : Lr. No. P( C) 177/SK.R/97, dated 22-5-97.
Ex. W16 : Lr . No. P (C) 177/ SK.R/97 dt . 19-1-98 .
Ex. W17 : Petitioner's representation to Chief Security Commissioner, SCR, Sec'baddt . 19-7-1998 .
Ex.W18 : Order copy of OA No. 466/2000 dt. 28-3-2000 .
18. Inview of the circumstances, it is directed the respondent to pay consolidated sum of Rs . 10,000 as a compassionate allowance in full and final settlement ofthe claim ofthe petitioner. The said amount shall be paid within two months from the date of notification of the award, failing which the petitioner is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 6% per month. Accordingly, the Industrial Dispute is disposed of.
Award is passed accordingly. Transmit .
Ex. W19 : Order copy of RA No. 10/2000 in OA No. 466/ 2000dt. 29-3-2001.
Ex. W20 : Order copy of WP No. 3077 of 2003 dt. 20-2-2003 .
Dictated to Shri P. Kanaka Raju , LDC transcribed by him, correctedby me and given under my hand seal of this Court on this the 12th day of August, 2005.
Ex.W21 : Order copy of WP No. 32788/1998. dt . 8-2-2001 .
T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Presiding Officer
Documents marked for the Respondent Appendix of evidence
Ex. MI : The office note dt. 23-10-1996 .
Witnesses examined for the Petitioner
Witnesses examined for the Respondent
WW1
MW1
Ex. M2 : Training Centre order dt . 6-9-1980 terminating the services of the petitioner.
Documents marked for the Petitioner
Ex.M3 . Training Centre order dt. 8-9-1980 reappointing thepetitioner.
Ex. W1 The service certificate of Petitioner's father, dated 19-1-79 .
Ex. W2 : The transfer certificate of the petitioner, dt. 17-8-70 .
Ex.M4. Training Centre order No. 62/81 dt . 15-9-1981 pertaining to termination order of petitioner after reappointment.
Ex. W3 : The casual labour service card of the petitioner. Ex.M5 : Training Centre orderdt. 16-1-1981 pertaining ofChief Personnel Officer, Sec'bad , Civil Circular No.3/81.
Ex. W4 Service certificate given by ZTCT Mess of SC Rly, dt. 19-3-1997.
नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
Ex. W5 : The service certificate from Principal , RPF Training School, Hyd . dt. 1-5-1986
Ex. W6 : The letter No. S - 2 RTC/ MLY of SC Rly , dt.6-9-80 .
Ex.W7 Medical Memo given by DRN / SC Rly, dt . 15-5-1986
Ex. W8 : The fitness certificate , dt . 11-9-86 .
का. आ. 3524-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार. साऊथ सेन्ट्रल रेलवे 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 आई.डी. 1/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Ex. W9 : Petitioner's representation to DME, SC Rly , dt. 11-6-89 .
[सं. एल-41015/ 1/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी Ex.W10 : Petitioner's representation to Principal ZT School , SC Rly, Hyd, dt. 10-6-90 .
New Delhi , the 9th September, 2005 Ex. W11 : Petitioner's representation to AGM , SCR , Sec'bad, dt. 15-4-91 .
Ex. W12 : Petitioner's representation to AGM , SCR , Sec'bad, dt . 15-4-92 .
S.O. 3524. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 1/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour 10703 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-2005.
[No. L-41015 /1 /2005- IR(B- I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
authorities at Tenali have not allowed her to join duties from 28-7-91 to 13-7-1992 and also not informed her any reason for her discontinuation inspite of making appeal to the authorities.An enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer during March and April 1997 on the allegation of unauthorized absence from 28-7-1991 to 13-7-1992 and thereafter the petitioner has not heard anything though shemade representations to the concerned authorities and sought the relief of declaration of her discharge from 28-7-1991 as illegal and discriminatively and to reinstate with back wages and continuity of services .
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present :
Shri T. Ramachandra Reddy, Presiding Officer
Dated the 5th September, 2005
Industrial Dispute L.C.LD. No. 1/2003
Between:
Petitioner
D. Adilaxmi C/o B. Satyanarayana, H/o B. Seethamahalaxmi , Chakalipeta, PhitrangulaDibba, Eluru .
And
1. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada.
2. The Senior Divisional Manager , (Commercial) South Central Railway, Vijayawada.
Respondents
3. The General Manager, South Central Railway, RailNilayam, Secunderabad
Appearances:
Forthe Petitioner : Ch. Sudhakar Babu,
Advocate
For the Respondent : A. Pruthvi Raj , Advocate.
AWARD
This is a case taken under Sec . 2A.(2 ) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others.
2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are as follows:
3. The respondent Nos . 1 , 2 & 3 filed their counter through theDivisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Vijayawada and denied the averments made in the petitionand pleaded that the worker as Passenger Water Womenwas placed in the pay scale of Rs . 2550 to Rs . 3200 orRs . 2610 to Rs . 3540 according to their initial scale ofpay and they are not entitled to receive any D.A. , HRA etc. It is submitted that the petitioner is a permanent railway servant as such she has to seek her relief before CAT and further submitted that the applicant has been long absented to duty at Eluru Railway Station and that she was transferred to Tenali at her own request without prejudice to disciplinary action to be taken in further at later stage . An officeorderwas served to her on 30-1-1990 . The disciplinary authority has issued a major penalty charge sheet dated 5-8-1992 but the same was not served as her whereabouts not known to the Station Superintendent , Tenali . Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority has issued another major charge sheet dated 20-1-1997 duły citing the charge ofunauthorized absence from 28-7-91 onwards and the same was served on the petitioner on 19-3-1997 . The Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri S.K. Kaleshwali , Chief Commercial Inspector, Tenali as Enquiry Officer regarding unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 28-7-91 to 13-7-1992 and continuing. The petitioner has attended the enquiry on 19-3-1997 and sought time for 15 days to appoint her defence helper. The Enquiry Officer has fixed the date ofenquiry to 2-4-1997 by serving a notice. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the enquiry and sought 2 days time as such it was adjourned to 4-4-97 . Subsequently, the petitioner brought her advocate Shri A.V.S.R. Anjaneyulu, Repalle todefend her. But the Enquiry Officer did not permit to engage an advocate under the rulesRailway Servants (D &A) Rules . The Enquiry Officer subsequently issued notices dated 10-6-97 and 4-8-97 to theapplicant's last known address through the registered postwith acknowledgement. But the same was returned with remarks such as door locked or not known. Finally, the Enquiry Officer has proceeded the enquiry in the absence of the petitioner and examined Shri P. Jesudas , Sr. Clerk with musters for relevant period and concluded the enquiry and found the petitioner was unauthorized absent from duty from 28-7-1991 to 12-2-1997 . A copy of the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner's last known The petitioner was absorbed in the post of Passenger Water Women w.e.f. 21-8-81 on a regular post in the time scale and that she was transferred to Tenali Railway Station andjoined duty at Tenali on 15-5-1990 and working since then to the best of her ability and to the satisfaction of her superior officers . She further submitted that the station
2800 G1/05-18 10704
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
address by registered post and a copy of the same was pasted on the notice board by the Station Superintendent ofTenali . Finally, the penalty of removal from service w.e.f. 25-9-98 was imposed vide letter dated 15-9-1998 and the same. was sent to her last known address by registered postwhich was also returned . It is further submitted that the petitioner's transfer order to Tenali Railway Station itself reveal that she was long absented to duty prior to her transfer and requested to dismiss the petition.
4. This Tribunal held on 20-10-2004 that the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer is valid .
5. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has joined duty at Tenali on 15-5-1990 and thereafter she worked till 28-7-1991 and that she was not allowed to come to duty by the Station authorities at Tenali and further contended that the Enquiry Officer has not given proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend herselfand conducted enquiry behind her back and thereby violated the principles of natural justice , as such she is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service with allbenefits.
6. The Learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent even before her transfer to Tenali fromEluru and even afterjoining at Tenali , she was absented herself unauthorisedly from 28-7-1991 and further contended that the petitioner has attended the domestic enquiry at the beginning and sought time to defend herself and subsequently absconded and not joined the duty till she was removed from service w.e.f. 25-9-98 and the registered notices sent to the petitioner's last known address were returned and further contended that there are nutigating circumstances and the punishment is commensurate to the gravity ofthe charge ofunauthorized absence for more than 7years .
7. Onconsidering the material on record, the enquiry report and return acknowledgements show that she did not participate in the domestic enquiry held by Mr. Kaleshwali . The petitioner attended the enquiry on 19-3-1997 and sought 15 days time and the enquiry was posted to 2-4-1997 and the notice was served on the petitioner. She attended the enquiry on 2-4-1997 and sought time of 2 days . But she did not participate in the enquiry on 4-4-1997. Subsequently, she brought a defence advocate to defend her. But the Enquiry Officer has not permitted. Thereafter the petitioner did not attend and participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after issuing notice, has proceeded enquiry and examined one witness with muster- roll and found that the petitioner was unauthorized absent from 28-7-91 to 13-7-1992 and continuing.
8. The petitioner has taken the plea that she was not allowedby the Station authorities to work which does not appeal to reason and commonsense . It should be noted
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] that the petitioner is a permanent employee and working at Tenali after her transfer. If really she was not allowed to work , there must have been written orders to that effect. She must have proceeded and filed an application before the superior officers and further she could have approached the labour union for taking their assistance .
9. It should be noted that the petitioner was appeared atthe initial stage of the enquiry. But she did not choose to join duties , even though she was not suspended . The petitioner is having knowledge about the enquiry conducted and she was absent from the date 28-7-1991 till she was removed from service w.e. f. 25-9-98 . In view of the conduct on thepart of the petitioner that she was absented for more than 7 years and there is no explanation for her absence . The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is in commensurate to the gravity ofcharge . I do not see mitigating circumstances to hold that the punishment is not in commensurate to the gravity of charge . Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the petition is dismissed . An award is accordingly passed.
Dictated to Shri P. Kanaka Raju, LDC, transcribed by him, correctedby me and given under my hand and seal of this Court on this the 5th day of September, 2005. side. T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, PresidingOfficer Appendix of evidence No oral or documentary evidence adduced on either नईदिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3525-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी.- 74/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/284/ 2000- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September, 2005 S.O. 3525.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. ID No. 74/2000 ) of the 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 State Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 8-9-2005.
[No. L- 12012/284/2000 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1, 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE
Dated: 31st August, 2005
Present:
Shri A.R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer
L.D. No. 74/2000
I PARTY
II PARTY
Shri Suresh,
S/o LateVenkatappa, No.40/2, Marappa Garden, 3rd Cross, Benson Town, Bangalore-560046.
The ChiefGeneral Manager, PersonnelDepartment , StateBank of India, LocalHeadOffice, No. 48, Church Street, Bangalore-560001 .
AWARD
1. The Central Government by exercising thepowers conferredby clause (d ) of sub -section 2A ofthe Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order . No. L - 12012/284/2000- IR (B- I) dated 3 /7th November, 2000 for adjudication on the following schedule:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the claim of Shri Suresh, former Casual Messenger, under State Bank of India for re- employment and regularization isjustified ? Ifnot to what relieftheworkman is entitled ?"
2. The case of the first party workman, as made out inthe Claim Statement, inbrief, is that he joined the services of the Second Party w.e.f. 2-5-87 as Messenger on temporary basis and worked in various branches and his services came to be terminated without issuing anynotice. The nature of the work discharged by him was permanent in nature available throughout the year. He worked continuously for 240 days in each calendar year of service. At para 5 of the Claim Statement he has given the details of period ofservice rendered by him under the Second Party Management as follows:
Para 5: That the first party workman has worked as a Temporary Messenger under the Second Party Management during the following periods:
Year
Branch
No. ofdays May 1987 to April 1988
261
Jayamahal Extension Branch, Bangalore.
-do-
May 1988 to April 1989
301
-do-
May 1989 to April 1990
287 May 1990 to April 1991
-do-
309
10705 Year
Branch
No. ofdays May 1991 to April 1992
352
Jayamahal Extension Branch, Bangalore.
May 1992 to November 1992
-do-
207 May 1993 to November 1993
-do-
202 May 1994 to November 1994
-do-
199 June 1995 to January 1996
-do-
205
-do-
May 1996 to June 1996
32 28-6-1997 to 20-8-1997 97
54
R.T. Nagar Branch, Bangalore
February 1998 to July 1998
1:56
Sadashivanagar Branch , Bangalore
Andthe last two tenures were on time scale pay and all other periods were on daily wage basis . The way in which the Second Party management extracted work from the first party workman goes to show that there was permanent availability of work. Despite this, the Second Party management denied the First Party workman the permanent status. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid details show that he has worked continuously for more than 240 days in each calendar year ever since he joined the Second Party management.
3. He contended that during the last two tenures of service he worked on time scale pay and all other periods as a daily wager . Through he carried the work permanent in nature all through the above said period, he was denied the permanent status; that there has been settlement between the management and the recognized union and the temporary employees of the subordinate cadre are categoried in 'B' and ' C '. Under ' A' category come the employede who have completed 240 days oftemporary service in 12 months and the case of the first party comes under the said category and thereby he is entitled to be given top priority when it came to the question of regularisation of his services . After the settlement came into force, the management issued circular dated 24-6-88 calling upon the branches to forward the applications of temporary employees for permanent appointment and the Jayamahal Branch of the management by its letter dated 24-9-88 forwarded the application of the first party but no action has been taken to regularize his services . In the meanwhile , the recognised union took up the case of the first partywriting a letter dated 29-4-94 pointing out that thedenial of1 ofwork tolim amounts to retrenchment seeking regularization of his services but the management did not regularize his services and on the contrary refused any type of employment to the first party after 1-7-98 . He was denied regularization of services, though juniors to him have been regularized and there are enough permanent vacancies available to be filled up by temporary dailywage employees . Therefore, the action of the management is the worst kindofunfair labour practice as fefined under Section 2(ra) and also suffered from viver of the provisions of 10706
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
Section 25 F of the ID Act as the termination amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo ) of the ID Act .
4. The management by its Counter Statement , not disputing the fact that the first party was being engaged by it as aMessenger, however, denied his contention that he was discharging the work of permanent nature. It contendedthat the first party worked in Jayamahal Extension Branch as a casual worker for 163 day's purely on temporary basis being paid daily wages by way of petty cash during theyear 1987; that the first party was working on temporary basis against the leave vacancy of the permanent Messengers and never worked for a period of 240 days continuously; that the Bipartite Settlement of 1987 is not applicable to the case of the first party, moreover, the eligibility of the workman to be considered for permanent absorption is subject to age and other qualifications and the temporary employees who worked on time scale service onlywill be considered for permanent absorption by giving preference, thattoo , who had done temporary service for requireddays under time scale wages and not for employees whose services were engaged purely on temporary basis against the leave vacancies of the permanent Messengers oftheBank. Therefore , the first party not being a permanent employee, there was no question of terminating his services and violation of provisions of Section 25F of the ID Act read with Section 2 ( 00 ) thereof. It is also not a case of unfair labour practice as alleged by the first party.
5. During the course of trial , the management examined one witness as MW1 by filing his affidavit evidence and no document was produced and marked for the management. His statement in Examination Chiefby way of affidavit since is a repetition of the contentions taken in the counter statement need not be once again brought on record . The first party on his behalf also filed anaffidavit evidence reiterating the various contentions taken by him in his Claim Statement and in his further examination chief got marked 20 documents at Ex. W1 to W20 . They are as under:
1. Copy ofthe letter written by the Union to the management dated 29-4-1994 (Ex. W1 ) 2. Copy of the letter dated 9-4-1994 (Ex. W2) 3. Copy of the letter dated 18-3-1994 (Ex. W3 ) 4. Copy ofthe service certificate dated 10-8-1994 (ExW4)
5. Copy of the notice (Ex.W5)
6. Copy of the Paper notification page 6 dated 1-8-1988(Ex. W6)
7. Copy of the character certificate /service certificatedated 12-2-1992 (Ex .W7)
8. Copy ofthe Service/ Character Certificate dated 18-5-1992 (Ex. W8 )
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 9. Copy of the Service /Character Certificate dated 21-8-1993 (Ex. W9)
10. Copy of the Service certificate dated 26-11-1992 (ExW10)
11. Copy of the Service certificate dated 19-3-1994 (Ex.W11)
12. Copy of the Service certificate dated 30-1-96 (Ex.W12)
13. Copy of the Service certificate dated 30-9-1996 (Ex.W13)
14. Copy of the Service certificate dated 25-11-1997 (Ex.W14)
15. Copy of the Service certificate dated 22-8-1998 (Ex.W15)
16. Copy of the letter dated 17-6-1992 (Ex. W16) 17. Copy of the details of the working days of first party dated 27-5-1991 (Ex .W17)
18. Copies of the petty cash voucher No. 164 (Ex.W18)
19. Copy of the Bank statement for the year 1992 (Ex.W19)
20. Copies of the petty cash voucher No. (Ex. W20 ) 6. I would like to refer to their statements in cross examination as and when they are found relevant and necessary. Learned counsel for the management argued that the settlement quoted by the first party for the purpose of regularization of his services on the ground that he worked for 240 days in each calendar year coming under the category' A' is not applicable to his case . His services being engaged on daily wage basis purely on temporary basis against the leave vacancy caused by the permanent Messenger. He argued that the first party has not fulfilled the requirements of Section 25 B as he did not work for 240 daysandmore continuously during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding his alleged termination and therefore, it was neither a case of illegal retrenchment nor a case of illegal termination to attract the provisions of Section 25F read with Section 2( 00 ) of the ID Act . He took support of the very documents produced by the first party inthis context.
7. Whereas , the learned counsel for the first party vehemently argued that undisputedly the first party has been in the service of the management right from the year 1987 till the month of July 1988 rendering his services continuously for a period of 240 days and more in the years 1987 , 1988-89 , 90-91 and 91-92 and in the rest of the years he could not complete the statutory period of 240 days in all those years not being provided with the work bythe management bank . He submitted that when the first 10707 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
date oftermination in 1988 he did not work for 240 days or more in any one of those years . The documents relevant for the purpose produced by the first party marked at Ex. W14&W15 read along with his own statement at Para 5of the Claim Statement will disclose that from 28-6-97 to 20-8-97 heworked for 54 days and from 1-2-98 to 31-7-98 he worked for 156 days . Therefore , even if it takes into consideration, this period of 13 calendar months from June 1997 to July 1998 immediately preceding the date ofhis alleged termination, the total period of service would come to210 days, far less than the period of240 days prescribed under the provisions of Section 25 B of the IDAct.
party worked for 240 days and more during the aforesaid years , he came under the category of ' A' as per the above said settlement and therefore , his services ought to have been regularized in the light of the terms of settlement applicable to the first party irrespective of the fact that he worked only on temporary basis. His next contentionwas that even if the first party has not worked for 240 days and more continuously during 12 calendar months immediately preceding his termination from service , it cannot be said that the management was justified in terminating his services without the compliance of provisions of Section 25 F read with Section 2(00) of the ID Act as undisputedly from 1987 to 1992 each year he worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more for which documentary evidence have been produced by the first party and not disputed by the management . He contended that in order to attract the provisions of Section 25 F, it is sufficient for the first party to prove before this tribunal that he worked for 240 days and more at least any one of the calendar year and it is not necessary that he must have completed above said statutory period during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding his termination. On this point the learned counsel relied upon the following 3 decisions.:
1. 1983 ( 1 ) LLJ Page 30
2. 1985 ILR Page 1390
3. 1981 ( 1 ) LLJ Page 386
10. As noted above , learned counsel for the first party was of the view that services of the first party rendered during the period of 12 calendar months immediatelypreceding his termination cannot be the sole criteriaandthat for the purpose ofSection 25 B it is sufficient ifthe first party has worked for a period of 240 days and more in any ofthe calendar year rendering services under the management . In this context as noted above , he cited the aforesaid 3 rulings . I am not inclined to accept the above said argument of learned counsel keeping in view the clear wordings of Section 25 B and in the light of the principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the cases reported in AIR 1981 SC 1253 , 2002 LLR page 339, 2004 107 FJR 264 SC and also in the light ofthe principle laiddown by their Lordship of SC reported in 1981 (1 ) LLJ. page386 cited onbehalf of the first party himself. Provisions ofSection 25 B read as under :
"Aworkman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is for the period in uninterrupted service, including service which may be interrupted on account of sickness or authorized leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal , or a lock out or a cessation ofwork which is not due to any fault onthe part of the workman.
(2) Where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1 ) for a period ofone year or six months , he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer:
(a) for a period of one year, ifthe workman, during a periodoftwelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than :
(1) One hundred and ninety days in the case of aworkman employed below ground in amine; and
8. First of all coming to the question ofclaim made by the first party for regularization of his services , is concerned, learned counsel for the first party did not raise this issue very seriously except to say that he fell under the category ' A' as per the said settlement having been completed continuous service of240 days and more during the years 1987 to 1992. His claim also cannot be entertained for the reason that in the very words of the first party he was working purely on temporary basis being paid daily wages without there being any appointment order as against any sanctioned vacancy. Though he contended thatjuniors to him have been made permanent , he made no specific reference of any such junior similarly placed being made permanent ignoring his claim or his eligibility to the permanent post .As per his own claim statement he worked on time scale basis only during the year 1997 and 1998 for 54 days and 156 days respectively and that means to say that in this crucial period he did not work for the required 240 days or more apart from satisfying the other requirements such as age , educational and other qualifications . Therefore , in the light ofthe above , his claim for regularization of his services in my opinion is not tenable.
(ii) Two hundred and forty days in any other case.
11. Therefore, from the above provision of Section 25(a)( ii ) it becomes crystal clear that to fulfil the definition 9. Now coming to the question whether his termination was bad amounting to illegal retrenchment in the light of the provisions of Section 25F read with Section 2(oo) ofthe ID Act . As per his own avernment at para 5 of theClaim Statement, right from the year 1993 till the alleged 10708
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] of service of one year period the workman must render the services of 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to bemade i.e.with reference to the date of alleged termination. The principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court at para 12 of the decision in Mohan Lal's case relevant for the purpose reads as under:
said Hutchaiah's case will not come to the rescue of the firstparty. Firstly, for the reason that such a question was not directly involved and came before their Lordship to be dealt with. In the said case the Petitioner was a Probationer and undisputedly had put in one year service before his services were discharged . The main point raised in the said case was whether the Petitioners who were still the probationers can fit into the definition of ' Workman ' as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the ID Act and the answer given was that they do come under the above said definition. His Lordship ofHon'ble High Court in the above said Honnayyas case also was not on the point directly nor such a question was dealt with and decided. A reading of para 15 of the said decisions would reveal that in the said case the counsel for the Corporation relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Mohan Lal case and whereas , learned counsel for the Petitioners took support of observations at para 22 of the decision in the said Hutchaiahya's case . His Lordship did not decide this controversy on the point, taking into account the submissions made on behalf of the Corporation in accepting the claim of workman who had worked for 240 days in any year . The question as to whether this 240 days period must be during 12 calendar months period preceding the alleged termination was left open. The principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case of Surendra Kumar Verma and Others cited on behalf ofthe workman himself, in my opinion will be helping the case for the management rather than the case of the first party. The observations madeby their Lordship relevant for the purpose at para 9 of the said decision would read as under:
Para 12 : Sub-section (2 ) incorporates another deeming fiction for an entirely different situation . It comprehends a situation where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of sub - section (1) for a period of one year or six months , he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year or six months , as the case may be, if the workman during the period of 12 calendar months just preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made , has actuallyworked under that employer for not less than 240days. Sub -section (2 ) specifically comprehends a situation where a workman is not in continuous service as per the deeming fiction indicated in sub- section( 1) for a period of one year or six months . In such a case he is deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year if he satisfies the conditions in clause (a) of sub- section (2) . The conditions are that commencing the date with reference to which calculation is to be made . In case of retrenchment thedate ofretrenchment, if in a period of 12 calendar months just preceding such date the workman has rendered service for a period of 240 days , he shall be deemed to be in continuous service for a period of one year for the purposes of Chapter VA .
"After the Amendment Act of 1964 , it is not necessary for an employee must have been in employment during the preceding period of 12 calendar months inorder to clarify within the terms of Section 25 B. It is sufficient to the workman has actually worked for not less than 240 days in a period of 12 months " .
12. Their Lordship have made it abundantly clear that the period of 240 days under the provisions of Section 25 B ( 2) must be during the period of 12 calendar months justpreceding the date of the alleged termination. Their Lordship of Supreme Court in the Range Forest Officer case,at para 3 ofthe decision once again made the position oflaw very clear that the workman in the cases like one on hand must prove that he infact worked for 240 days in the yearpreceding his termination. Similar was the observations made by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the above said Rajasthan State , Ganganagar case . Therefore , going by the very definition of one year period made under Section 25 B of the ID Act and the observations on the principle laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the aforesaid 3 decisions, there should not be any doubt while arriving at the conclusion that in order to attract the provisions of Section 25 F read with Section 2(00) of the ID Act, the workman must establish before this tribunal that he worked for 240 days or more during the period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding his alleged termination. In the instant case undisputedly, the first party workman has not fulfilled the above said requirement. The principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in the above
13. The aforesaid principle laid down by their Lordship cannot be read in the sence that the workman should complete 240 days of service in a period of 12 months not immediately preceding his alleged termination but at any time. The question involved in the said case was as to whether the workman should complete service of 240 days covering the whole period of 12 months or is it sufficient if he completed the period of 240 days service within 11 months itself in a period of 12 months and this should be the service rendered by the workman immediately preceding the alleged date of termination . Therefore , in the instant case the first party, undisputedly, since has not worked for 240 days or more continuously during the period of 12 calendar months i.e. from July 1997 to July 1998, he cannot avail the benefits under Section 25 F of the ID Act . Provisions of Section 2(oo) of the ID Act therefore , will not 10709 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1, 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Versus
come intoplay and it cannot be said that it was a case of illegal retrenchment or a case of illegal termination.
AssistantGeneral Manager,
Region- I, State Bank of India,
14. In the result the reference must fail and hence the following award is passed.
AWARD
Zonal Office, Haryana, SCO No. 186-87, Sector8 , Chandigarh
Respondent
APPEARANCES
For the Workman :Workman with Jasbir Singh, Advocate
For theManagement : Shri V.K. Sharma.
AWARD
The reference is dismissed. However, keeping inview the undisputed fact that the first party had been in the employment of the management for a pretty long time of more than 10years starting from 1987 and also worked on time scale basis in his last tenure of service, the management shall take into consideration his services for the purpose of re -employment atleast on temporary basis . No order to cost .
Passed on 22-8-2005 (Directed to PA, transcribed by her, corrected and signedby me on 31st August, 2005)
A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer
CentralGovt. vide No. L- 12012/244/99-IR (B -I) dated 11th ofNovember, 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:
नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
"Whether Shri Naresh Kumar , Canteen Boy, Kurkshetra University branch of State Bank of India is aworkmanunder the I.D. Act, 1947. If so, whether the action of the State Bank of India representedby Assistant General Manager, Region - I , State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Haryana , Chandigarh in terminating his services w.e. f. 7-5-96. is justified and legal ? If so, what relief the workman is entitledto and from which date ?"
का. आ. 3526- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी- 245/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/244/1999-आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 9th September, 2005
S.O. 3526. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. ID 245/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on8-9-2005 .
2. Workman filed the claim statement claiming that he was appointed as Canteen Boy by the Local ImplementationCommittee (hereinafter referred to as LIC) State Bank of India Kurkshetra University branch Kurukshetra on a consolidated monthly wages ofRs . 500. Althoughbeing paid wages through the LIC, the workman worked as a messenger in the branch of SBI . That the applicant also filed claim application u/s 33 C(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947. That annoyed by the above filling of the LCA his services were terminating through LIC w.e.f. 6-5-96. That the termination is illegal . No notice of one month or pay in lieu of that was given . No retrenchment compensation was paid. Therefore, the applicant is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service with full back wages andall consequential relief.
[No. L-12012/244/ 1999 - IR (B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT-L, CHANDIGARH
Case No. 245/99
Naresh Kumar Son of Shri Amar Nath,
Resident of Roopo Majra,
P.O. Dhurkhara,
Applicant
3. Management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and the management of State Bank of India as workman is an employee ofLIC . It is also asserted in the written statement further on merits that workman has admitted that he was engaged as canteen boy by the LIC on a monthly salary of Rs .500 permonth. It is denied that workman was performing the duties of a messenger . That since the petitioner was not/appointed by the bank, therefore, appointment of the petitioner as alleged is irrelevant in the context of the cóntroversy raised in the matter against the State Bank of District Ambala, (Haryana) 10710
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
India. It is also prayed that workman is not entitled to any reliefas there is no violation of any provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947.
4. Wokman filed replication wherein he controverted the written statement and reaffirm the contents of the claim statement .
5. In evidence workman filed his affidavit Ex . W1 and examined himself as WW1 and one record clerk of the officewho produced record as WW2 .
6. The marnagement in support of its case examined MW1 V.K. Chhiber, Deputy Manager SBI Kurukshetra University Branch , Kurukshetra. Written arguments were filedby the workman as well as by the management . Oral arguments were also addressed by both the parties.
7. Learned counsel for both the parties admitted that the LCA filed by the workman has been consigned to record sine die, as the decision of the LCA shall be based upon thedecision ofthis industrial dispute .
8. Learned counsel for the workman in arguments submitted that workman was appointed as a messenger with the bank and he never worked as canteen boy. On 6-5-96, services of the workman were terminated by the management. Workman was neither given one month notice and he was also not paid the retrenchment compensation atthe time oftermination of his service . The respondent's simple plea is that workman was not given employment and not appointed by the State Bank of India and he has worked as canteen boy. Workman produced his affidavit Ex. W1 and produced through WW2 , record which was in the custody of the bank. Respondent witness Shri V.K. Chhiber is not a relevant witness as he was not aware of the fact as he was not working in the branch during the relevant period . So the workman has proved his case and documents W2 to W25 The respondent has not rebutted the documents produced by the workman in Court . Workmanproved his case that he worked in the bank and hehas receivedthe payments from the bank, besides these chequesweregiven to him. It is proved that the management has not complied with the provisions of the Section 25 F of the I.D. Act and also in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IndianOverseas Bank reported in SCT 2000(2 ) 682 wherein is held that such employees are employees of the bank so in view of the above judgement the workman is entitled for reinstatement in service with fullback wages.
9. On the other hand , learned representative of the management Shri V.K. Sharma submitted in argument that the law referred by the workman is not applicable in this case and the law referred by the management i.e. the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of Indiaand others Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle) & others AIR 2000 S.C. page 1518 following the earlier judgement in case of Reserve Bank of
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] India reported in 1996 S.C. 1241 wherein it is held that employees of canteen which are run at various branches by the LIC as per the welfare scheme framed by the State Bank of India should not become employee of the Bank as thebank is not under any statutory or contractual obligation or obligation under the Award to run such canteen . He submitted that workman who was not the employee ofthe bank is, therefore , not a workman qua the State Bank of India as there was no privity of contract of service between themanagement and the workman and when the workman was not employee of the management, then the question ofterminating his services by AGM , Region - I does not arise and the workman has failed to prove the same. Further that the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IOB is not applicable in the present case as the same deals with the scheme for running canteen by the co -operative of Staff of Indian Overseas Bank which has no bearing on the scheme of State Bank of India . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down law in respect of scheme of the staff welfare activities of State Bank of India, in thejudgement AIR2000 referred above and this judgement was delivered bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court after the judgement in lindian Overseas Bank case, therefore this judgement IOB case is not applicable in the present case . Similarly the copies of receipts /bills submitted by the workman do not prove anywhere that he had worked as a messenger employed by SBI and had privity of contract of employment . In view of the above it is prayed that the award may be passed in favour of the management.
10. In view of the above submissions ofboth parties and my perusal of written arguments and oral arguments I have found that workman examined two witnesses to prove his claim i.e. WWI himself and WW2 J.P. Sharma who produced the record. I have found that in cross- examination WW1 apart from admission in his claim statement that he was appointed as canteen boy by the LIC w.e.f 25-11-1991 and that wages have been paid through the LIC. Workman admitted in his cross-examination that he was not given any appointment letter or termination letter by the bank. He has also submitted that on paper he isworking as canteen boy. WW2 J.P. Sharma who produced vouchers in cross -examination admitted that Naresh Kumar has received amount as a canteen boy of LIC , i.e. all payments he received as a canteen boy of LIC.
11. I have also found that at the same time MW1 the only witness of the management denied that cheques of purchase of sugar tea etc. is issued in the name of canteen boy but actually it is issued in the name of LIC . He also deposed on oath that messenger is a permanent employee. Hehad never asked the canteen boy to do regular work of amessenger work of the bank. He did not know whether some workman was regularized . He denied that workman was an employee of the bank and not a canteen boy of LIC . I have found that workman who admitted in his claim statement and in his statement on oath in the court that he [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ) ]
० भारत का राजपत्र अक्तूबर , 2009/आश्विन 9 ,
was appointed as a canteen boy on a consolidated salary of Rs . 500 per month . But in his evidence on oath he improved itit byby sayingsay thatthat onon papapers he though, working as canteon boy but hể địa Hời know whether he was paid through cheques from the bank or from the LIC account . He also admitted that he was not marking his attendance in any register.On perusal of entire evidence and record and submissions , I have found thatfound that learned counsel for the workman has relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IOB case (supra) which as per management is distinguishable and the same is not applicable . He also while referring to the judgement orally submitted that as per the judgement of the workman , it is distinguishable and not applicable on the ground that in the present judgement relied by the workman on the point of employer and employee relationship, employees of a canteen in the establishment of a bank is managed through a cooperative body of bank employees but substantially being financed and subsidized by the bank. All the utensils, furniture, building and the infrastructure being provided by the bank, Bank maintaiming their service record, PFand ESI, being contributed by the bank in addition to periodical medical examination, Whereas specifically held in the case ofStateBank of India, the present management, thetheHon'ble Supreme Court relying on a judgement ofReserveBank of India held that the employees of canteen employed by the LIG are not the employees ofthe bank, Workman admitted in his claim statement that he was appointed by the LICat a monthly consolidated wages of Rs. 500. In his statement on oath , he has improved his version saying that on paper The was employed as canteen boy. On perusal of payment fvouchers , I have found that these vouchers wherein payment was made to the workman are not the vouchers of payment of salary to him as the amount is always a petty amount in all youchers and the petty work done for these payments do notnot make hini a messenger.
12. On the other hand on path it is admitted by MW1 that post of a messenger is aa permanent nest and undisputedly even the workman has admitted that he was not appointed as messenger and that he waswas appointedappoin as canteen boy by the LIC, The ratio applied by the workman that in view of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 10B case as canteen boy is a bank employée to which the management has strongly opposed and distinguished on the ground that SBI Judgemem irthecarinapresen management against a canteen boynisca later Judgemasut and this on the fact and circumstances and las prevailed connected with the affairs of the State Bank of India and thus fully applicable .लिए की जाए कि गड४४ new of the above submissions in find considered view that the judgement referred by the management of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SBI case as it relates to the similar facts, Circumstances and lawwith due apology to Their Lordships that the later law of the Supreme Gourt in SBE's case is fullsiapplicable and relying on the 1927TTOKAD JHT
10711 judgement I hold that the petitioner Naresh Kumar is not the workman of the State Bank of India and he was employed as canteen boy by the LIC. There was no privity ofcontract of servicebetween the State Bank of Indipand the petitioner Naresh Kumar. Hence there is no question of appointing him even as a canteen boyaraamessenger or histermination of service by the State Bank of India . As there is no privity of contract, there is no contravention or violation of the provisons of Section 25F of the I.D. Act qua the State Bank of India against the workman Naresh Kumar. The reference is answered against the workman and in favour of the management holding that workman who was working as a canteen boy appointed by the LIC in SBI is not a workman qua the State Bank of India is , therefore, not entitled to any relief. The reference is Fanswered accordingly Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record००।००९ Chandigarh. The sin jes te opis Ferri Dated: 22-8-2005.
RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
(1947 का. आ. 3527- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( का 14 ). की धारा 1717 के अनुसरण में,में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अजमेर के पंचाट(( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-1 /98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को। सरकार को 8-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआहुआ थाथा ।
15 स. एल -41012/48 /97 - आई अम ( बी-1 ) ] अपनी अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 9th September , 2005 Time S.O 3527-InIn pursuance of Section 1717 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947)), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. ID - 1 / 98 ) of the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Ajmer now as shown inthe Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between theemployers inrelation to the management of Western Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-09-2005
NoL41012 /48 /97 - IR (B - 1)] एक मिश्रार की है मानक JिAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer
( राज. ) श्रम न्यायालय एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर ( पीठासीन अधिकारी श्री श्री तावद आरएच जे.एस प्रकरयासी 911998 सोडफरेंस नंत 49 // सजाई. आर बी 11- दि.327- TT-98) संडासचिवालय 88-10-05 डी फ्रि कि प्रशिवर्मा रेलवे कर्मचारी परिणाली 3623/35, गुलाब खाड़ीधार रेलवेक्रॉसिंगाकेपास
माकामदार, अजमेर
2800 Gl/05-19 10712-
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] बनाम
... अप्रार्थी
मंडल रेल प्रबंधक, पश्चिम रेलवे , अजमेर
उपस्थित:
श्री विजय खन्ना, विद्वान अधिवक्ता, प्रार्थी
श्रीवी. डी. भार्गव, विद्वान अधिवक्ता , अप्रार्थी
दिनांक: 17-8-05
उल्लेख पैरा सं. 17 के उप- पैरा 4 में किया गया है, पद परिवर्तन की किंतु कोई परवाह नहीं की न स्थानांतरण का मामला तय किया न ही टिकट संग्रहकर्ता का वेतनमान दिया । री- स्ट्रॅक्चरिंग आदेशों के अनुसार प्रार्थी से पदोन्नत कर कोरियर के पद पर अजमेर में ही स्थापित किया गया। प्रार्थी को 2-8-96 या 5-8-96 के आदेश देकर ड्यूटी पर नहीं लेने के अवैध आदेश पारित कर रखे हैं । अंत में प्रार्थी को दि. 7-5-86 से टिकट संग्रहकर्ता का वेतनमान मय समस्त बकाया के दिलवाने तथा प्रार्थी के स्थानांतरण के मामले को निर्णीत कर ड्यूटी पर लेने के आदेश पारित करने की प्रार्थना की है ।
निर्णय/अवार्ड
केंद्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्नानुसार है: -
" मंडल रेल प्रबंधक, पश्चिम रेलवे , अजमेर के द्वारा कर्मकार
श्री रमेश डी. को दि. 7-5-86 से टिकट संग्रहकर्ता का वेतनमान 950-1500 नहीं है एवं कर्मकार का स्थानांतरण अजमेर से बनास
किया जाना उचित एवं वैध है यदि नहीं, तो कर्मकार किस राहत
काअधिकारी है ? "
प्रतिपक्षी ने अपने उत्तर में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी कार्यालय आदेश दि. 5-10-90 के द्वारा दर्जा चार से सहायक माल बाबूके पद पर पदोन्नत किया जाकर बांगड़ ग्राम साइजिंग पर पदस्थापित किया गया था । पद परिवर्तन के कोई प्रार्थना पत्र प्रतिपक्षी को प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं । दि. 24-1-90 के आदेश जारी होना स्वीकार किया है । प्रार्थी को टी. सी. के पद पर स्थानापन्न रूप से स्थानीय आधार पर लगाया गया था । वाणिज्य लिपिक के पद पर चयन बोर्ड द्वारा चयनित होने के पश्चात् प्रार्थी को ट्रेनिंग के लिये भेजा गया ट्रेनिंग में सफल होने पर प्रार्थी को पदोन्नति दी गयी । प्रार्थी निश्चित अवधि के पद कोरियर ( टेन्योर पोस्ट) पर कार्यरत था जिसकी निश्चित अवधि समाप्त होने पर प्रार्थी अपने माल बाबूके मूल पद पर दि. 18-7-97 के आदेश द्वारा पदस्थापित किया गया । श्रम संगठन के अनुरोध पर अस्थाई तौर पर रोक लगा दी थी दि. 2-8-96 के आदेश के अंतर्गत प्रार्थी का स्थानांतरण पुनः बनास से बनास यथावत् रखा गया । प्रार्थी का स्थानांतरण अजमेर से बनास दि. 2-8-96 को हो चुका है किंतु प्रार्थी पालना नहीं कर रहा है । प्रार्थी को दि. 5-8-96 को अजमेर से बनास हेतु कार्यमुक्त कर दिया गया है किंतु वह अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित चल रहा है । प्रार्थी ने बनास ड्यूटी ज्वाईन नहीं की । प्रतिपक्ष सेवा शर्तों में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं किया । बनास साइजिंग निजी संस्थाजे. के. सीमेंट द्वारा संचालित है । प्रार्थी ने बनास में कार्यभार ग्रहण नहीं किया । अतः जे. के. सीमेंट के अनुरोध पर वहां अन्य कर्मचारी को पदस्थापित किया गया और प्रार्थी को रेल विभाग के अधीन अन्य रिक्त स्थान एफ सी आई गांधीधाम स्थानांतरित दि. 2-3-97 द्वारा किया गया । वहां भी प्रार्थी ने कार्यभार ग्रहण नहीं किया । अंत में प्रार्थनापत्र निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की है ।
प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम की संपुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श डब. 1 से प्रदर्श डब. 54 तक प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत किये । प्रतिपक्षी ने रवि शर्मा प्रधान लिपिक का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम -1 से एम-25 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत कीं ।
उभयपक्ष का श्रवण किया, पत्रावली का आध्योपांत अध्ययन किया । प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत दृष्टांत जेठानंद एवं अन्य बनाम भारत संघ एवं अन्य फुलबैंच के जजमेंट ( कैट ) का ससम्मान् अवलोकन किया । नोटिसके उपरांत उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी ने प्रतिपक्ष के विरुद्ध प्रस्तुत क्लेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी की पदोन्नति वाणिज्यलिपिक वेतनमान 975-1540 में मंडल रेल प्रबंधक ( स्थापना) के पत्र. दि. 21-5-90 के द्वारा किया गया किंतु प्रार्थी ने अपने आवेदन पत्र दि. 17-7-90 एवं 17-9-90 के माध्यम से टिकटे संग्राहक वेतनमान की मांग की परंतु उस पर कोई विचार नहीं किया गया । जबकि अन्य कर्मचारियों का पद परिवर्तन का प्रार्थना पत्र दि. 24-10-90 के द्वारा स्वीकारकिया गया । प्रार्थी ने पूर्व में भी दि. 7-5-86 से 15-1-88 तथा 15-11-88 से 2-6-90 तक टिकट संग्रहकर्ता के पद पर तदर्थ आधार पर कार्य किया है । जब प्रार्थी का चयन वाणिज्य लिपिक के पद पर किया गया, उस समय प्रार्थी टिकट संग्रहकर्ता के पद पर था। परंतु फिर भी प्रार्थी को पदावनत कर खलासी बना दिया गया जो सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय के विरुद्ध है क्योंकि 18 माह तक लगातार तदर्थ आधार पर बिना किसी दोष या अक्षमता के कार्य करने के पश्चात् पदावनत नहीं किया जा सकता । रेल प्रशासन के पत्र दिनांक 2-8-96 के द्वारा प्रार्थी के स्थानांतरण आदेश स्पष्ट नहीं है जबकि उपरोक्त स्थानांतरण आदेश कार्यालय पत्र दि. 3-8-95 के तहत रद्द हो चुका है एवं उसी पत्र में प्रार्थी को पुनः सेल कोरियर में आदेश हो चुके हैं । प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ कर्मचारी वर्तमान तथा पूर्व में अजमेर में कार्यरत है जबकि प्रार्थी का स्थानांतरण कर बनास भेजने की कोशिश की जा रही है । रेल प्रशासन प्रार्थी को अजमेर में कार्य पर नहीं ले रहे हैं तथा पिछले 22 माह से वेतन भुगतान नहींकर रहे हैं । श्रम न्यायालय अजमेर के आदेश दि. 24-2-96 के बावजूद रेल प्रशासन ने प्रार्थी की सेवा शर्तों में परिवर्तन पर परिवर्तन किया है । टिकट संग्रहकर्ता का वेतनमान नहीं देना और अजमेर से बाहर स्थानांतरण कर देना अवैध है क्योंकि प्रार्थी टिकट संग्रहण गाड़ी बाबू एवं टेलीग्राफ सिग्नल की परीक्षा दि. 20-11-88 में सफल घोषित किया गया । चयन समिति ने वाणिज्य लिपिक के पद पर पदोन्नति के लिए उपयुक्त पाया जिस सूची में प्रार्थी का नाम क्र. 6 पर रखा गया है । टिकट कलेक्टर के पद का वेतनमान कामर्शियल क्लर्क वेतनमान से कम है इसलिए पद परिवर्तन की मांग उचित है । प्रार्थी ने चौदह पत्रों जिनका
जेठानंद के उक्त दृष्टांत में कैट की पूर्ण पीठ ने यह निर्णीत किया है कि एक रेलकर्मी तदर्थ आधार पर पदोन्नति के पद को ग्रहण करता है वह 18 माह पूर्ण होने से पूर्व किसी भी समय पदावनत किया जा 10713 [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
मेंअनेक स्थानांतरण किये जाने से दुर्भावना भी प्रकट नहीं की है । प्रार्थी काकेवल अजमेर से बनास एक ही स्थानांतरण किया गया और प्रार्थी के उस पद पर कार्यभार ग्रहण नहीं करने पर वहां अन्य व्यक्ति का पदस्थापन किया गया और प्रार्थी का स्थानांतरण गांधीधाम किया गया। प्रार्थी की सेवा शर्तों में क्या परिवर्तन किया गया इसका भी उल्लेख प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में नहीं किया है । अतः यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि सेवा शर्तों में कोई परिवर्तन किया गया ।
इस प्रकार प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
आदेश
फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि मंडल रेल प्रबंधक, अजमेर द्वारा कर्मकार श्री रमेश डी. को दि... 7-5-86 से टिकट संग्रहकर्ता का वेतनमान नहीं देना एवं कर्मकार का स्थानांतरण अजमेर से बनास किया जाना उचित एवं वैद्य है । प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।
जी. एस. शेखावत , न्यायाधीश
निर्णय/अवार्ड आज दि. 17-8-05 को खुले न्यायालय में सुनाया गया । अवार्ड की प्रति नियमानुसार केंद्र सरकार की वास्ते गजट में प्रकाशन प्रेषित की जावे ।
नई दिल्ली , 8 सितम्बर, 2005.
का. आ. 3528-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी- 99/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-09-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-12012/160/99- आई. आर (बी.- 1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी
NewDelhi , the 9th September, 2005 सकता है । यदि चयन परीक्षा में उत्तीर्ण नहीं होता है तो वह 18 माह पश्चात् भी पदावनत किया जा सकता है । इसके अतिरिक्त चतुर्थ श्रेणी रेलकर्मी तृतीय श्रेणी पदों पर तदर्थ आधार पर स्थानापन्न है उन्हें परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करने हेतु अनेक अवसर दिये जाने चाहिए । प्रस्तुत मामले में प्रार्थी ने दि. 7-5-86 से टिकट संग्रहकर्ता के पद पर तदर्थ आधार पर वेतनमान दिलाये जाने की मांग की है । प्रार्थी के क्लेम के अनुसार उसने दि. 7-5-86 से 14-1-88 तक तथा 15-11-88 से 2-6-90 तक टिकट संग्रहकर्ता के पद पर कार्य किया है । इसके विपरीत प्रार्थी ने अपने शपथपत्र में दूसरी बार 16-12-88 से 2-6-90 तक अर्थात् 17 महीने 18 दिन तक टिकट कलेक्टर के पद पर तदर्थ आधार पर कार्य करना अंकित किया है । प्रतिपक्षी के साक्षी ने अपने शपथ पत्र में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी ने लीव एवं सिक व्यक्ति के विरुद्ध स्थानापन्न रूप से 1-1-89 से 30-7-89 तथा 19-8-89 से 9-1-90 तथा 10-1-90 से 31-1-90 तक तथा 1-3-90 से 2-6-90 तक कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी ने निरंतर 18 माह से अधिक कार्य करने को सिद्ध नहीं किया है । प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में 15-11-88 से 2-6-90 तक टिकट संग्राहक के रूप में कार्य करना तदर्थ आधार पर अंकित अवश्य किया है किंतु शपथ पत्र में 16-12-88 से 2-6-90 तक तदर्थ आधार पर कार्य करना अंकित किया है । इससे स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी के अनुसार भी उसने इस अवधि में 17 माह 18 दिन ही कार्य किया है । इस प्रकार इस अवधि में प्रार्थी ने प्रार्थी के अनुसार ही 18 माह तक निरंतर कार्य नहीं किया और 18 माह से पूर्व ही उसको पदावनत कर दिया गया है । इस प्रकार उक्त दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में लागू नहीं होता । दि. 7-6-86 से 14-1-88 तक निरंतर टिकट संग्रहकर्ता के पद पर तदर्थ आधार पर कार्य करने से पदावनति को प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में प्रार्थी ने चुनौती नहीं दी है । प्रार्थी को लिखित परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण करने पर ट्रेनिंग के पश्चात् वाणिज्य लिपिक के पद पर पदस्थापित किया गया और इससे पूर्व ही ( ट्रेनिंग से पूर्व ) प्रार्थी को टिकट संग्रहकर्ता के तदर्थ पद से खलासी के पद पर निरंतर 18 माह पूर्ण होने से पूर्व ही पदावनत कर दिया गया । अतः तदर्थ आधार पर संग्रहकर्ता के पद की अवधि का प्रार्थी लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । प्रार्थी को पदोन्नति के पश्चात् वाणिज्य लिपिक के पद से टिकट संग्राहक के पद पर पद परिवर्तन की प्रार्थी के प्रार्थना पत्र को निरस्त किये जाने का जहां तक संबंध है , प्रार्थी को वाणिज्य लिपिक से टिकट संग्राहक के पद पर पदोन्नति के पश्चात् पद परिवर्तन का अधिकार दिया यह प्रार्थी नहीं बता पाया है । कुछ व्यक्ति वाणिज्य लिपिक या अन्य पद से पद परिर्वतन कर दिये जाने मात्र से प्रार्थी को किस प्रकार अधिकार प्राप्त हो गया है यह भी प्रार्थी सिद्ध नहीं कर पाया है । टिकट संग्राहक के पद पर कुछ समय तक तदर्थ आधार पर कार्य कर लेने मात्र से पदोन्नति पर पुनः उसी पद पर पदोन्नत किये जाने का अधिकार किसी व्यक्ति को नहीं मिल सकता जबकि प्रार्थी के मामले में प्रार्थी ने पदोन्नति के पश्चात् वाणिज्य लिपिक की ट्रेनिंग भी कर ली और कार्यभार भी ग्रहण कर लिया है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी 7-5-86 से टिकट संग्रहकर्ता का नियमित वेतनमान प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं माना जा सकता ।
S.O. 3528.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( 1.D. No. 99/99) of the 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 State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 08-09-2005.
[No. 12012/160/99- IR (B. I ) ]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer जहां तक प्रार्थी का अजमेर से बनास स्थानांतरण किये जाने की वैधता का संबंध है , यह स्थानांतरण किस प्रकार अवैध है , प्रार्थी नहीं बता पाया है । प्रतिपक्षी के किसी अधिकारी की दुर्भावना या लघु अवधि [PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 10714:
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
ANNEXUREE FRA
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT,
BANGALORES
किरि
:30th August 2005
FreitDated
ity for PRESENSE HA
Shri A. R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer
C. R. No. 99/99
विधिकरी
IPARTY
II PARTY
The Regional Manager,
Shri Ramalingam,
through the above said board and was engaged by it as a temporary Guard from 16-1-91, purely on temporary basis however, contended that he was being engaged by the management as a Security Guard whenever the permanent Security Guard used to go on leave. It contended that the first party was not selected for permanent post as Watchman or Guard during the course of interview held but was being engaged on temporary basis even after he failed in the interview. Therefore , the managenient contended that the nature of the work being carried out by the first party being temporary, there arose no question of terminating his services and thereby violating the provisions of Section 25 F and other provisions of the ID Act
State Bank of India ,
No. 3474, 3rdMain C
OMBR Lay Out
Zonal Office ,
Church Street,
Bangalore-560043
Bangalore- 1
AWARD एक
1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause (d) ofsub - section 2A of Section 10 of the IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute videorder No. L -12012 / 160 /99/ IR (Bel) dated 5th August 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :
SCHEDULE Se
"Whether Sri Ramalingam, Temporary Security Guard had worked for240days. If so whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in Rear refusing employment to the disputant is justified ?
Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "
4.. During the course of trial , the management examined one witness as MW1 . without getting marked any document. His statenient in examination chief being a replica of the contentions taken by the management in the Counter Statement need not be once again repeated. The first party on his part filed an affidavit evidence and in his further examination chief got marked 5. documents at Ex . WI to W7 . Ex. WI is the order of appointment of the first party as Part time Sweeper- Cum- Water Boy on temporary basis dated 27-7-1995 . It pertainsto Ulsoor branch . Ex . W2 is the certificate dated 26-3-1998 issued by the Chief Manager, Shivajinagar Branch , certifying to the effect that the first party worked for a period of 200 days from April , 1997 to October, 1997. Ex . W3 is the certificate dated 27-8-1998 issued by the Branch Manager, Shivajinagar branch giving out the statement of the days worked by the first party as 232 days from January , 1998 to August , 1998. Ex . W4 is the certificate dated 19-6-96 issued on behalfof the branch Manager, Ulsoor , Bangalore to certify the fact the first party worked for a total period of 200 days from September, 1995 to December, 1995 and January, 1996 to March , 1996. Ex. W5 is the Xerox copy of the letter issued to first party dated 6-9-95 in response to his letter dated 4-9-95 stating that the first party worked at the local Head Office , Bangalore as a Temporary Watchman for a period of396 days between 16-1-91 . to 25-1-93, Ex, W6 and W7 are the two representations made by the first party. one to the General Manager and another to the Personnel Officer dated4-12-92 and 10-9-98 respectively. I would like to come to the statement of the first party and the management witness in their cross- examination as and when found relevant and necessary.o 2. The case of the first party workman, as made out in the Claim Statement , briefly, stated is that after having retired from Indian Army Service for having worked for a period of 22 years , he got his name registered with Zila Sainik Board and his name being sponsored by the said board to the Second Party Management , he was called upon to join duty being selected in the interview and he joined the duty at the local head office of the manageinent as per the appointment order on 16-1-91 . He worked at different branches namely, Ulsoor , Shivajinagar as a temporary Messenger having an excellent record of service till he was terminated w.e.f. 24-8-1998; that in the month ofNovember 1992 he was called for the interview for the post of subordinate staff but could not get through the interview not being found fit for the post . Even then the management allowed the first party in service till the year 1998, and then he was refused work for no valid grounds, that too , without any notice or payment, of compensation amount and therefore, the action of the management was in gross violation of Provisions of Section 25 H and G read with Section 2 ( ra ) and Section 25 F readwith Section 2 (oo) ofthe ID Act .
5. Learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that the documents produced by the first party are from the respective Branch Managers and not from the management itself and therefore , they cannot be relied upon . His next contention was that as per the very documents at Ex . W2 , W3 , W4 & W5 , the first party has not worked for a period of 240 days and more during the years 1991 to 1993, 1995 and 1997 as well as during the year 1998 and therefore , his case does not fall under [( 1.8 ) 3 The management by its counter statement , not displling the fact that the first party was sponsored 10715
भारत का राजपत्र अक्तूबर
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii) ]
Section 25 B of the ID Act andid inin the reresult even if it is taken for granted that the first party was refused work in the month of August, 1998, he being a temporary worker engaged on daily wage basis , it cannot be a case ofeither illegal retrenchment of illegal terminationwarranting the compliante of Provisions of Section25 F (a & b) of the IDAct
6. Whereas, learned counsel for thethit party argued that first party is in the service ofthe management working as temporary Sweeper -cum -Water Boy as well as dischargingging thethe wowork of Security Guard right from the year 1991 up till the year 1998, and this fact has been established by the first party in his oral testimony as well as the documents produced, the gemineness of which has not been disputed or challenged by the mariage them. In order to substantiate the fact that the first party worked for a period of 240 days and more during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding Merifion from Service The learned counsel fehed apoli the certhemes and W3 and submitted that inese verificates racing been issued by the Branch Managers concerned working under the management , thelf evidentiary value caliabeBe questioned particularly, when the management has failed to produce any piece of paper to suggest that the first party did not work for the above said period before his services have been terminated. After having gone through the records; I find very muehnsubstance in the arguments advanced for the first partyОЛАЯЗВЯТ
In mining the gentfineness or the vernaty of the documents produced by him byby way of the aforesaid erheads No Musee whether the statenlent' offirst party that he worked continuously for a period of 240 Rays and more during 12 - calendar months thimediately prior to his alleged termination gets support from any Wifitfel docufhent Rs seen above, as por Ex: W2 issued on 26-3-1998 , a certificate has been issued by the Chief she'shtvandagar fanch on behalf ofState Bank of India Chief Mandler, SHRafinagar certifying tothe emelet Ratche firstpartyworkedna 200 days nom Afar 1997 to Budber, 1995 " Ws dated 27-8-98 would reveal that thon Parliary 1998 to August, 1998 the first party worked for a 8989 232Therefore, ifwe reda' these two Certificates a wand we together, can bevery well gathered thất thường the period from Augus ¥ 999 AURUS 1998,Which is the period relevant tot the purpose, the first party undisputeng worker for a period of 240 haye anderable mat hieans to say that during these 12 CaterhadPramonths,Thatlemarety, preceding his alleged Perditation nearspipaty was the service of the management Continuously for a period of 240 days and mad suasivingthe definitiofi as provided thđer Section 25 B of the ID Act as noted above, there has been Ho antonine part of the management to challenge or controvert the above said oral testimony as waras madamemary Evidence prodliced by the first Party The managemefit withess exceptio repeat the stand taken by the management in its Counter Statement has not dong anything advancing the cause of the management in his affidavit filed before, this tribunal and on the other hand in his cross -examination he admitted thatthat thethe first Party, worked in Shivajinagar local head office at Bangalore and other branches, but did not work under him at any mehewa na 19 say that the first pasty has taken against Trays, vacancy Prawhose says yaganfy his admitted the fact that the first party was dischargime she work at Ma T the sruutjo cross examination 15 the admission made by bw effect that the offionis maintaining tis ansodanes, register himband was being signed by the first party, and that the job ofthe first party as a Security guard and MarsEDAFIger was permanent in nature. Therefore , from the above said statement ofMW1 , if anything can be made out is the fact that the first party was in the service of the management 12Home 199pam1998 author horas Carrying nour thejob or moboda gerą Włochasan uk doen asosetunity Gammadirecek ordinomas afromlonskadiant Therefore, his statememb meadorapingidho vadeo of the management will help the case of the first party in many respects.spects. The stand taken the management that first party did not workork forfor aa period of 246 days and more in Tomy of the salendar ve much less any calendar year
preceding his alleged termination as already noted above 7. As per the point of reference , the first party was called upon to substantiate before this tribunal that he worked 240 days and more and therefore, the action ofthe management în refusing work to him was not justified. To substantiate this fact as seen above, the first party examined himself as WW1 and got marked as many as 7 documents . His statement in examination chief speaking to the fact 1hat he was in the service of the management right from the year 1994 l he was refused aworldin the month of August 1998 Has remained very much inshaken in his cross - examination for the management has absolutely no suggestion on the part of the management management during that he was not in the service the aforesaid period, The only suggestion made to him was that his documents at Ex. W1 to W3 will not disclose that he worked for 240days with any branch in a particular year and there was 19, written appointment order to him . The first party denied the first suggestion but admitted the Second suggestion to the effect that there was no written appointment order to him bythe, management . In the last , puggestion was made to the first party that documents at ExoWibto/W3are no from themanagement and that they are from the branches working under, the management: Therefore, there was neither a suggestion to the first party, that he was not in the service of the management working under different branches during the period from 1991 to 1998 nor a suggestion was made to 10716
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]
नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3529- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-09-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-22012/383/1993- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी . केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 9th September, 2005
S.O. 3529. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12 of 1995) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Moutdih Colliery ofEastern Coalfields Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 05-09-2005 .
[No. L- 22012/383 / 1993 -IR ((C -II ) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
has not been substantiated by cogent oral or documentary evidence . The statement of MW1 on the point is very much useless . Whereas , no document is produced by the management to rebut the case of the first party made out inhis oral testimony as well as in the documents referred to supra . Although MW1 admitted that there is an attendance register being signed by the first party, unfortunately, it was not produced before this tribunal . Therefore, in the light of the above , there is no doubt in the mind of this tribunal to come to the conclusion that the first party worked for a period of 240 days and more during the period of 12 calendar months from August, 1997 to August , 1998 immediately preceding the date of his termination from service . This being the position of fact , it was rightly argued for the first party that the management would not have terminated the services of thefirst party without the compliance of the provisions of Section 25 F ( a & be of the ID Act read with Section 2 ( 00) thereof . It is a clear cut case of illegal retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the ID Act, there being no compliance ofprovisions of Section 25 F ( a & b ) of the ID Act. Undisputedly, there was no one month's notice issued to the first party nor any salary was paid to him in lieu of the notice much less making payment towards a retrenchment compensation. In the result, I must hold that the termination of the services of the first party was illegal and void ab initio and therefore, he is entitled to reinstate in service to the post he was holding at the time of termination.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . 12 OF 1995
PARTIES: Agent , Moutdih Colliery, ECL , Sundarchak , Burdwan .
Versus
Shri Karali Das , Village: Damgarh, P.O.: Chitra: Dist : Deogarh .
REPRESENTATIVES :
For the management :None.
For the union (Workman) : None .
8. Now coming to the reliefs of back wages , continuity of service etc. , the first party in his affidavit has not made out the case that he has not been gainfully employed during the period he was out of the service of the management . There is also no evidence on the part of the management to suggest that the first party has been gainfully employed during the above said period . In the result it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if the first party is awarded 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement . He cannot be given the relief of continuity of service and other attendant benefits , his services being utilized by the management on temporary basis without any appointment inaccordance with law. Accordingly, reference is answered and the following award is passed.
INDUSTRY : Coal
AWARD
STATE : West Bengal Dated the 20-05-05
AWARD
The management is directed to reinstate the first party to the job he was holding at the time of termination with 50% of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement . No order to cost .
(Dictated to PA transcribed by her, corrected and signedby me on 30th August , 2005) .
In exercise of 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) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012 (383 ) /93 - IR-C- II dated 16-2-1995 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer 10717
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
SCHEDULE
Limited and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05-09-2005.
[No. L-22012/211/ 1992- IR (C -II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
"Whether the action of the management ofMoutdih Colliery ofEastern Coalfields Ltd. in dismissing the services of Shri Karali Das , Timber Loader is justified ? If not to what relief is the concerned workman entitled to ? "
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL
PRESENT : Md. Sarfaraz Khan , Presiding Officer
REFERENCE NO . 10 OF 1993
PARTIES : Agent, Kuardih Colliery, ECL, Kalipahari , Burdwan .
After having received the aforesaid order ofreference from the Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour summons were issued to the respective parties through the registered post and both the parties in compliance of the summons issued appeared in the court and filed their written statement in support oftheir respective claims.
Versus
Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Sabha of India, Sishu Bagan , P.O.: Raniganj , Dist : Burdwan.
REPRESENTATIVES :
: None .
Forthe management
None .
For the union(Workman) :
INDUSTRY: Coal
STATE : West Bengal Dated the 12-05-05
AWARD
Onperusal of the record it transpires that 16-4-03 was the date fixed for evidence but unfortunately none of the parties appeared and took any step on their behalf. It is further clear from the order sheet of the record that again registered notices were issued to both the parties on 5-6-04 . The lawyer for the management side appeared but none appeared to represent the workman in spite of giving several adjournments . Non - appearance of the workman or the union regularly on several dates itself indicates that the union has got no interest in this case. As such it is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more as no purpose is to be solved and that will amount a sheer wastage of the valuable time of the court. Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED
Inexercise ofpowers conferredby clause (d) of Sub- section (1 ) and Sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/211/ 92 - IR ( C-II) dated 10-12-1992 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.
that let a "No Dispute Award" be and the same is passed. The reference is accordingly disposed of. Send the copies ofthe award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful.
SCHEDULE MD. SARFARAZ KHAN , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
"Whether the action ofthe management ofKuardih Colliery under Satgram of ECL in paying wages to surface trammers and denying it to U/G trammers (asper list attached) as a result of work stoppage from 2nd shift of30-4-90 was legal and justified ? If nottowhat relief the aggrieved workmen are entitled to ?"
का. आ. 3530- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/1993 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-09-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
Onhaving received the aforesaid order of reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, summons through the registered post were sent to the respective parties to appear and file their written statement in support oftheir claims .
[सं. एल-22012/211/1992- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी
New Delhi , the 9th September, 2005
Inpersuant to the issuance of the summon through the registered post both the parties appeared through their representatives and filed their respective written statement insupport oftheir claims .
Onperusal of the record it transpires that the case was fixed for hearing on 9-4-03 but none of the parties appeared in the court nor any step was taken on their behalf. It is further clear from the record that again on 7-7-04 a fresh notice was issued against both the parties S.O. 3530. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10 of 1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Kuardih Colliery of Eastern Coalfields 10718
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
whichch were served upon both the parties and the service report to that effect have been recorded and attached with the record. But unfortunately in spite of several adjourninents, none of the parties appeared in the court nor any step was taken on their behalf.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances prevailing in this record it reflects that the workmen or the union is notatall interested to contest and proceed with the record. It is not proper and advisable to keep the record pending any more specially when the reference has become very old of the year 1993 and no purpose is to be solved. As such it is hereby
ORDERED
that let a No Dispute Award be passed and the same is passed. Accordingly the reference is disposed of. Send the copies of the award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful .
MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2005
का. आ. 3531 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ई . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निवीजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल,के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 2/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-09-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं एल -22012 /313 / 1994 - ओई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 9th September, 2005 8.03531. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 2 of 1995) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Poidih Colliery of Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman ,which was received by the Central Government on 05200
20 6 910Ntz.dq-22012/313/ 1994- IR (C- II) ] Duque tinchla gotta tid POKESAVAN: Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL COOT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, PRESENT: Sri Md Sarfaraz Khan
Presiding Officer Sing it to điều 20-1-е по длиной
niet no notes Reference: Not249951
" PARTIES ! Agent, Poian Canidry brECL inq out drosmarenar Burdwaniton da
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
Versus
Branch Secretary, Colliery Mazdoor Congress, Sodepur Colliery, Sundarchak, Burdwan.
REPRESENTATIVES :
None .
For the Management
For the Union (Workman) : None.d
INDUSTRY: Coal
STATE: West Bengal
Dated the 03-06-2005
AWARD аним Inexercise ofpowers 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) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its Letter No. L-22012 (313 )/94 - IR ( C.II ) dated 05-01-1995 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of Poidih Colliery of M/ s. ECL in stopping the work of Smt . Parbati Majhian w.e.f. 6 /9-4-92 is justified ? If not to what relief is the concerned workwoman entitled?"
In pursuance to the receipt of the aforesaid order of reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour. notices through the registered post were issued to the respective parties who in compliance ofthe same appeared through their representatives and filed their written statements in support of their case.
From perusal of the record it transpires that 25-2-03 was the date fixed for evidence from the side of the union but a time petition was filed by the side of the union and the next date for evidence was fixed on 1-4-03. It further transpires from the order sheet that the union left taking any step on its behalf, ultimately a fresh registered notice were issued to both the parties . In pursuance to the said notice Sri P. K. Das , Advocate for the management appeared but unfortunately even after the receipt of the notice the union did not turn up to take any step. Several adjournments were given to the union to appear and proceed with the case but in spite of repeated adjournmnts the union did not appear. Under the circumstances it is not proper, just and advisable to keep the record pending any more as there was no prospect of appearance of the union in the near future . Accordingly it is hereby
ORDERED
that let a " No Dispute Award be and the same is passed . Send the copies of award to the Ministry of Labour for information and needful
MD. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer 10719
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर , 2005
which was received by the Central Government on 08-9-2005.
[No. L - 12012/240/2001 - IR(B-1)
L-12012/242/2001 -IR(B-I)
L-12012/247/2001 -IR (B-I)
L-120 12/243 to 245/2001 - IR (B-I )
L- 12012/308/2000 -IR (B-I)
L- 12012/249/2001 - IR (B- I)
L- 12012/ 324/2001 -IR (B-I) का. आ. 3532-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 9/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 08-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
L-12012/411 , 412 & 431/2000- IR (B-1)
L-12012/401 to 405/2000- IR (B - I) [सं. एल-12012/240/2001-आई. आर. ( बी-1 )
L- 12012/100/2000- IR (B- I) एल-12012/242/2001- आई. आर. (बी-1 )
L-12012/407/2000-IR(B- I) एल-12012/247/2001- आई. आर. ( बी- I )
L- 12012/231 to 236/2000- IR (B-I)
L- 12012/425/2000- IR(B -I) एल-12012/243 से 245/2001- आई. आर. ( बी-1)
L- 12012/422/2000 -IR (B- I) एल-12012/ 308/2000- आई. आर. ( बी-1 )
L- 12012/467/2000 -IR (B- I) एल-12012/249/2001-आई. आर. (बी- I)
एल -12012/ 324/2001-आई. आर. ( बी- I )
एल-12012/411 , 412 और 431/2000-आई. आर (बी- I)
एल-12012/401 से405/2000-आई. आर. (बी. I )
एल -12012/ 100/2000-आई. आर (बी-1 )
एल-12012/407/2000-आई. आर. (बी-1)
एल-12012/231 से 236/2000- आई. आर. (बी-I)
एल-12012/425/2000-आई. आर (बी-1)
L-12012/470, 84 , 93, 86, 129, 97, 128, 125, 127, 112, 120, 85, 88 , 123 , 121 , 94, 83, 124, 96, 177, 87, 178, 183,458 , 184,459, 186, 460, 461, 462, 227, 463, 228, 37, 473/2000- IR (B- I) L- 12012/ 177/2001 - IR (B -I) L-12012/40, 36, 303 , 304, 172, 173, 175, 320, 229 , 41, 34, 415,43, 424, 101, 426, 78, 427, 108, 89, 428, 39, 82, 430, 126, 99, 10, 107, 81 , 79, 90 , 21 , 23, 25, 29, 44, 52, 53 , 38 , 35, 27, 28 , 30, 31 , 42, 92, 98, 122, 42 , 111, 43 , 95, 1-10/2000 IR(B-I) एल-12012/422/2000-आई. आर (बी-1)
एल-12012/467/2000-आई. आर. (बी-1)
L-12012/45 , 46 , 47, 378, 391 , 396, 397, 129, 225, 131 to 138, 435, 401 , 400, 398, 436, 170, 169, 175, 171 , 167, 172, 174, 168/2001 -IR(B-I) L-12012/5 , 6, 7 , 9, 10 & 158/2002- IR (B-I) L-12012/35 /2000- IR (B- I)]
AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
एल-12012/470, 84, 93, 86, 129, 97, 128, 125, 127, 112, 120, 85,88, 123, 121 , 94, 83 , 124, 96, 177, 87, 178, 183 , 458, 184,459, 186, 460, 461, 462, 227, 463, 228, 37, 473/2000-आई. आर. (बी-1) L- 12012/177/2001-आई. आर. (बी-1)
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
एल-12012/40, 36, 303 , 304, 172, 173 , 175, 320, 229, 41 , 34,415, 43, 424, 101, 426, 78, 427, 108 , 89, 428, 39, 82 , 430, 126, 99, 10, 107, 81 , 79, 90, 21 , 23, 25, 29, 44, 52, 53,38, 35 , 27, 28, 30, 31 , 42, 92, 98, 122, 42, 111, 43, 95, 110/2000-आई. आर. (बी-1)
Shri E. Ismail, B. Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer
Dated the 17th May, 2005 एल-12012/45,46, 47, 378, 391 , 396, 397, 129, 225 , 131 से138, 435, 401, 400, 398, 436, 170, 169, 175, 171 , 167, 172, 174, 168/2001-आई. आर. (बी-1)
I. D. No. 9 of 2002
BETWEEN:
एल-12012/5 ,6, 7, 9, 10 और 158/2002- आई. आर (बी-1) एल-12012/35/2000-आई. आर (बी- I)]
अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी
Petitioner
R. Maheswara Raju
New Delhi, the 9th September, 2005
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India,
Zonal Office, Renigunta Road,
Respondent
Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No .: L- 12012/240/2001 -IR(B-1) S.O. 3532. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 9/2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of State Bank of India and their workman,
2800 G1 /05-20 10720
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
L. D. No. 10 of2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner R. S. Shivaji
AND
TheDy.General Manager ,
StateBank of India, Zonal Office,ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/242/2001-IR(B-I) L. D. No. 11 of 2002
BETWEEN:
D. Karinaullah Khan
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. GeneralManager,
Respondent StateBank of India, Zonal Office,ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 247/2001- IR(B-I) L. D. No. 12 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner V.Mallikarjuna Rao
AND
TheDy.General Manager,
... Respondent StateBank of India, Zonal Office, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
L- 12012/ 244/2001- IR(B- I) Reference No .:
L. D. No. 13 of 2002
BETWEEN :
G. Babu
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. GeneralManager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/245/2001- IR(B-I) L. D. No. 15 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner D. Damodharam
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/243/2001- IR(B - I)
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] L. D. No. 16 of 2001
BETWEEN:
P. Rasoolkhan
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/308/2000- IR(B-I) L. D. No. 21 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner S. Ramakrishna
AND
The Dy. GeneralManager,
StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
L- 12012/249/2001- IR(B-1) Reference No.:
I. D. No. 28 of2002
BETWEEN:
R. Bhaskar
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/324/2001- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 29 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner M. Mastan
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P.) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/411/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 30 of 2001
BETWEEN :
K.Ravi
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/ 412/2000- IR(B -I) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
10721
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
L D. No. 31 of2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner B. Shanthamma
AND
The Dy. GeneralManager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent
L-12012/431/2000- IR(B- I) Reference No.:
L. D. No. 34 of2001
BETWEEN :
B. Suseelamma
Potitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/401/2000- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 35 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner GandamRaju
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/402/ 2000-IR(B-I) L. D. No. 36 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner G. Pushpa Raju
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No.: L-12012/403/2000- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 37 of2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner P. Obanna
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No .: L- 12012/404/2000- IR(B-1) L.D. No. 38 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner M.Venkata Subbamma
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent ReferenceNo.: I -13012/ 405/ 2000-IR(B-1) L. D. No. 39 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner C.Raju
AND
TheDy.GeneralManager,
StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
L- 12012/100/2000- IR(B-I) Reference No .:
L. D. No. 40 of2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner S.Nityapujaiah
AND
Respondent TheDy.GeneralManager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P.)-517 501
Reference No .: L-12012 /407/ 2000- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 41 of2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner Mahaboob Basha
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/231/2000- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 42 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner C. S. VijayKumar
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L-12012/ 232/2000- IR(BI) 10722
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
I. D. No. 42 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner V.NagaRaja
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
StateBank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road ,
Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent No.: L- 12012/ 425 /2000- IR (B - I) Reference
L. D. No. 43 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Abdul Hafeez
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/233/2000- IR(B- I) .
I. D. No. 44 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner S. A. Basha
AND
The Dv. GeneralManager,
Respondent State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/ 234/ 2000- IR( B - I) I. D. No. 45 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner B. Ramakrishna
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/235/2000- IR (B -I) I. D. No. 46 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner K. Vanurappa
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No .: L- 12012/236/2000 - IR ( B - I )
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] L. D. No. 55 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner V. M. Venkatratnam
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi ( A. P. ) - 517501
.. Respondent Reference No .: L - 12012/422/2000- IR(B- I) I. D. No. 59 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner M. Raghunath
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/467/2000- IR(B- I) I. D. No. 60 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner N. Rama Subbaiah
AND
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road ,
Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/470/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 78 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner P. Satyanarayana
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zorial Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L - 12012/84/ 2000- IR(B -I) I. D. No. 79 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner Syed Khadervali
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent
L - 12012/93/2000- IR(B -1) Reference No .:
10723
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
I. D. No. 80 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner Chenna Babaiah
AND
L.D. No. 85 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner Y. Mohan Rao
AND
Respondent TheDy.General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P.)- 517 501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/86/2000- IR(B-1)
I. D. No. 81 of2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner S. Yesubaktha
AND
Reference No .: L- 12012/127/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 86 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner P. Koteswara Rao
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P.)- 517 501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A.P. )-517501
Reference No .: L- 12012 / 129/ 2000- IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 82 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner B. Krishna Murthy
AND
Reference No.: L- 12012/112/2000- IR(B-1) I. D. No. 87 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner P.Yelamanda
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
Respondent State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/97/2000- IR(B -I)
I. D. No. 83 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
R. Banerjee Babu
AND
Reference No .: L - 12012/120/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 89 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner M. Bala Murali Krishna
AND
Respondent TheDy. GeneralManager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012 /128/2000- IR(B-I)
I..D . No. 84 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
B. Nirmal Kumar
AND
Reference No.: L- 12012/85/2000- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 91 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner M. Rama Krishna
AND
Respondent The Dy.General Manager, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, State Bank of India, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
... Respondent
The Dy. General Manager , StateBank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/ 125/2000- IR(B-I) Reference No.: L- 12012/88 /2000- IR(B-I) 10724
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
L. D. No. 92 of 2002
BETWEEN :
D. Ranganayakulu
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) 517501
Respondent Reference No. L- 12012/ 123/2000- IR(B-I) L. D. No. 93 of 2002
BETWEEN:
P.Mallikarjun
Petitioner
AND
TheDy.General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/121/2000- IR(B- I)
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] L. D. No. 98 of 2002
BETWEEN :
M. V. Surendra Kumar
Petitioner
AND
StateBank of India , The Dy. General Manager, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/96/2000- IR(B-I) L. D. No. 99 of 2002
BETWEEN:
C. Srinivasa Babu
.Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No
L. D. No. 94 of 2002
BETWEEN :
K. Suryanarayana
.Petitioner .: L- 12012/ 177/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 100 of 2002
BETWEEN :
G. Sai Prasad
AND
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No. L- 12012/94/2000- IR(B -I) L. D. No. 95 of 2002
BETWEEN :
H.Gangamma
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice , ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. )-317501
.. Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/83/2000- IR(B-I) L. D. No. 96 of 2002
BETWEEN:
B. Venkateswarlu
.Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, ReniguntaRoad,
Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Respondent Reference No.: 1-12012/ 124/2000- IR (B- I)
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L - 12012/87/2000- IR(B -I) L. D. No. 101 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner A.Nageshwar Rao
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
.. Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 178/ 2000- IR(B- I) I. D. No. 102 of 2002
BETWEEN:
P. Laxmiramana
.Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager , StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/ 183/2000- IR(B- I) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
L. D. No. 103 of 2001
BETWEEN :
V. S. Habibulla
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager ,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P.) -517 501
10725
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
L. D. No. 106 of 2001
BETWEEN :
P. Chindambaraiah
Petitioner
AND
.Respondent
Reference No.: L- 12012/458/2000- IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 103 of 2002
BETWEEN :
G. Venkata Subbamma
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India , Zonal Office, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
The Dy.General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent ReferenceNo.: L- 12012/ 461/2000-IR(B-I) L. D. No. 107 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner G.Nageswara Rao
AND
Respondent
Reference No.: L- 12012/ 184/2000- IR(B-I)
L. D. No. 104 of 2001
BETWEEN :
K. Subbanarasaiah
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Respondent ReferenceNo.: L- 12012/462/2000- IR(B-1) L. D. No. 107 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Mastanvali
Petitioner
AND
Respondent
Reference No.: L- 12012/459/ 2000- IR(B-I)
L. D. No. 105 of 2002
BETWEEN :
T. Deva Prasad
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517 501
Respondent
L- 12012/227/2000- IR(B-I) Reference No.:
L. D. No. 108 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner K.Nagaraju
AND
Respondent
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/186/2000- IR(B-1) L.D. No. 105 of 2001
BETWEEN :
.Petitioner B. Sivanarayana
AND
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/463/2000- IR(B-I) L.D. No. 108 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Ramesh Babu
.Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501 ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad,
.Respondent
The Dy.General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/460/2000-IR(B-I)
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/228/2000-IR(B-I) 10726
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9, 1927
I. D. No. 122 of 2001
L. D. No. 109 of 2002
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
Petitioner
K. Subramanyam
K. Venkateshwarlu
AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
Respondent
TheDy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A P. ) - 517501
L- 12012/303/2000- IR(B-I)
Reference No .:
Reference No.: L- 12012/37/2000 - IR(B - I)
L. D. No. 123 of 2001
I. D. No. 111 of 2001
BETWEEN:
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
Petitioner
R.Babuji
C. Subbarayudu
AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent
StateBank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference : L- 12012/304/2000- IR(B-I) L- 12012/ 473 /2000- IR(B - 1)
Reference No.:
I. D. No. 131 of 2002
I. D. No. 113 of 2001
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
P. Munaiah
Petitioner
G. Bhaskar
AND
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
StateBank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) - 517501
L- 12012/ 172/2000- IR(B-1)
Reference No .:
L- 12012/177/2001 - IR(B- 1)
Reference No .:
I. D. No. 133 of 2002
I. D. No. 116 of 2002
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
Petitioner
P. Pushparaju
Ch .Gangadri
AND
AND
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
:
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) - 517 501
Reference No.: L - 12012/173/2000- IR(B- I) Reference No.: L- 12012/40/2000- IR(B- I)
I. D. No. 135 of 2002
1. D. No. 117 of 2002
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
Petitioner
G. Sivaganganna
V. Raghu
AND
AND
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager , StateBank of India , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501 Zonal Office , Renigunta Road,
Respondent
TheDy. General Manager , StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. )- 517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/ 175/2000- IR(B-I) Reference No .: L- 12012/36/2000- IR (B -I) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
I. D. No. 137 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner Smt . Lal Bee
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
10727
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
L. D. No. 152 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner A. Sree Ramulu
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
Respondent State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent
State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No.: L - 12012/ 320/ 2000- IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 138 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner Immam Sab
AND
The Dy. GeneralManager,
L- 12012/43/2000- IR(B-1) Reference No.:
I. D. No. 153 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner K. Raghupathi
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
Respondent State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. )- 517501
Respondent
State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No. : L- 12012/ 229/ 2000- IR(B- I)
I. D. No. 139 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner N. Asheef Ahmed
AND
L- 12012/424/2000- IR(B- I) Reference No .:
L. D. No. 163 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner Ch. Salappa
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P. )- 517 501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road , Tinipathi (A. P. ) - 517501
L- 12012/41 /2000- IR(B - I) Reference No.:
L. D. No. 146 of 2002
BETWEEN :
L- 12012 / 101/2000- IR(B -I) Reference No.:
L. D. No. 154 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
Petitioner
Y.Ramanjini
AND
Kuppaiah
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Reference No.: L- 12012/34/2000- IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 152 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
B. Bhaskar
AND
Reference No.: L- 12012/426/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 154 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner K.Nagendra
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 415/2000- IR (B- I) 2800 G1 /05-21
Reference No.: L- 12012/78/2000- IR(B- I) 10728
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
I. D. No. 155 of 2001
BETWEEN :
P.Gangaiah
Petitioner
AND
TheDy.GeneralManager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent
.: L- 12012/427/2000- IR( B-I) Reference No
I. D. No. 155 of 2002
BETWEEN :
R. Srinivas Rao
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 108/2000- IR(B -I) L. D. No. 156 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner S.Narayanaswamy
AND
TheDy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/89/2000- IR( B - I) I. D. No. 156 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Y. Venkatadri
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager , State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012 /428/2000- IR(B- 1) 1. D. No. 157 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner P.Narayanaswamy
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India , ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/39/2000- IR(B - I)
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] I. D. No. 158 of 2002
BETWEEN :
V. Ramesh Babu
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. )- 517501
Respondent Reference No. : L- 12012/82/2000- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 158 of 2001
BETWEEN :
C.Hari Prasad
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No .: L - 12012/430 /2000 - IR(B -I) I. D. No. 159 of 2002
BETWEEN:
P. Prabhakar
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
State Bank of India . Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/ 126/2000- IR(B - I) I. D. No. 160 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner C.Doddappa
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L - 12012/99/2001- IR(B - I) I. D. No. 160 of 2001
BETWEEN :
M. Govindham
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 10/2001 - IR( B - I) [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
10729
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
I. D. No. 162 of 2002
BETWEEN:
S. Balakoteswarao
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager ,
State Bank of India, ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )- 517 501
Respondent
L-12012/ 107/ 2000- IR(B- 1) Reference No.:
I. D. No. 163 of 2002
BETWEEN :
K. Veeranna
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P.) -517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/81 /2000- IR(B -1) I. D. No. 164 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner K. Ramanjaneyulu
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/79/ 2000- IR(B-1) I. D. No. 165 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner A. Chakrapani
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/90/2000- IR(B-1) I. D. No. 171 of 2001
BETWEEN:
P. Siddiramulu
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
.Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/21/2001- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 173 of 2001
BETWEEN :
T. Venkata Subbaiah
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A.P.) -517501
:Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/23/2001- IR(B- 1) L. D. No. 175 of 2001
BETWEEN :
B. Sreeramulu
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/25/2001 - IR(B -1) L. D. No. 177 of 2001
BETWEEN:
:Petitioner G.Venkatesh
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent
L- 12012/29/2001- IR(B -1) Reference No.:
I. D. No. 179 of 2001
BETWEEN :
V.Rabi
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P.) -517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012 /44/2001 - IR(B -I) L. D. No. 180 of2001
BETWEEN:
V.Narasimha Rao
Petitioner
AND
Respondent TheDy.GeneralManager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012 2/2001 -IR (B -1) 10730
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
L. D. No. 181 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Md. Kashim
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A) P. ) - 517501-
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/53/2001- IR(B -I) L. D. No. 191 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner M. Jayaramareddy
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A.P. ) -517501
Respondent No.: L- 12012/38/2000- IR(B -I) Reference
D. No. 193 of 2002
BETWEEN :
A. Narasimhulu
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India , ZonalOffice Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/35/2000- IR(B - I) 1 D. No. 194 of 2001
BETWEEN :
N. Sinivasulu
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. GeneralManager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/27/2001- IR(B -I) LD . No. 195 of 2001
BETWEEN:
K. V. Pullaiah
Petitioner
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A.P.) -517501
.. Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/28/2001 - IR(B - I)
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] I. D. No. 196 of 2001
BETWEEN:
R. Chandrasekhar
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/30/2001- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 197 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner K. Raghunath
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/31/2001 - IR(B - I) L. D. No. 200 of 2002
BETWEEN :
A. Ramasekhar
... Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
..Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 42/2000- IR(B- I) I. D. No. 201 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner Ch. Bhagawan
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India . Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 92/ 2000 - IR(B - 1) I. D. No. 202 of 2002
BETWEEN :
D. Chennakesavulu
. Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. )- 517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/98/2000- IR(B- I) [ भाग II-खंड 3 (ii) ]
L. D. No. 203 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner T. Jayaramaiah
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) -517 501
10731
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
L. D. No. 206 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner R. Mahalaxmaiah
AND
TheDy.General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
Respondent
Reference No .: L- 12012/122/2000- IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 204 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner G. Srinivasulu
AND
Reference No.: L- 12012/110/2000- IR(B- I) L. D. No. 206 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner S. Venkataramana
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
Respondent
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/42/2001 - IR(B-I)
L. D. No. 204 of 2002
BETWEEN:
S. Ramesh
Respondent State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )- 517 501
Reference No .: L-12012/45/2001- IR(B -I) L. D. No. 207 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
. Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
M. Krishnaiah
AND
The Dy.General Manager,
Respondent State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
..Respondent
L- 12012/111/2000- IR(B -I) Reference No .:
I. D. No. 205 of 2001
BETWEEN :
.. Petitioner Md . Rasool
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Reference No. L- 12012/46/2001 - IR(B -I) L. D. No. 208 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner D. Murugesan
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent
Respondent
Reference No .: L- 12012/43/2001- IR(B-I)
L. D. No. 205 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
M. Sridhar
AND
Reference No.: L- 12012/47/2001 - IR(B -I) I. D. No. 209 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner B. Prasad
AND
...Respondent The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/95/2000- IR(B- I) Reference No.: L- 12012/378/2001 - IR(B-I) 10732
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
L. D. No. 213 of2002
BETWEEN :
C.Pandiyan
Petitioner
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] L. D. No. 226 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner R.Murthy
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/391 /2001 - IR (B- 1) I. D. No. 215 of 2002
BETWEEN :
A. Menaiah
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. GeneralManager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P) -517501
Respondent Reference No : L- 12012/396/2001- IR(B- 1) I. D. No. 216 of 2002
BETWEEN:
G. Chandraiah
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/131/ 2001 - IR(B- 1) I. D. No. 227 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner D. John Jai Singh
AND
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 132/ 2001 - IR(B- I) I. D. No. 228 of 2001
BETWEEN :
R. Prabhakar
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/397/2001 - IR(B-1) I. D. No. 224 of 2001
BETWEEN:
Petitioner P. Subrahmanyam
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
.. Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/ 129/2001 - IR(B-I) I. D. No. 225 of 2001
BETWEEN :
A. C. Sudha
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No. L- 12012/ 225/2001 - IR(B-1)
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India .
Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L - 12012/ 133/2001 - IR (B -1) I. D. No. 229 of 2001
BETWEEN:
S. Ramakrishnaiah
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/ 134/2001 - IR(B- I) I. D. No. 230 of 2001
BETWEEN :
D. Krishnamurthy
Petitioner
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )- 517 501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/ 135/2001 - IR(B-I) [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
10:733
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
I. D. No. 233 of 2001
BETWEEN :
I. D. No. 238 of2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
Petitioner
T. Anjaneyulu
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
P. Suresh Babu
AND
TheDy. GeneralManager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. )-517501
Respondent
Respondent
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 136/2001- IR(B-1)
I. D. No. 234 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner P.Rangam
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P.) -517 501
Reference No .: L- 12012/400/2001 - IR(B-1) I. D. No. 241 of 2002
BETWEEN:
P. Nanda Kumar
Petitioner
AND
TheDy.General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent
Respondent
Reference No. : L - 12012/ 137/ 2001 - IR(B-1)
I. D. No. 235 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Reference No.: L- 12012/398/2000- IR(B-1) I. D. No. 243 of 2002
BETWEEN:
Petitioner
Petitioner
U. Jayababu
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
A. Chandraiah
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent
..Respondent
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 138/2001 - IR(B-1)
I. D. No. 235 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Reference No .: L- 12012/436/2001 - IR(B-I) I. D. No. 243 of 2001
BETWEEN:
N. Rama Rao
Petitioner
Petitioner
M. Giridharsingh
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
AND
Respondent The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent
Reference No .: L-12012/ 435/2001 - IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 237 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner P. Lakshmaiah
AND
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 170/2001- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 245 of 2001
BETWEEN :
Petitioner G. Chandrasekhar
AND
TheDy. General Manager, StateBank of India , Zonal Office, Renigunta Road,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 401/2001- IR(B-I) Reference No.: L-12012/ 169/2001- IR(B- 1) 10734
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] I. D. No. 247 of2002
I. D. No. 249 of 2002
BETWEEN:
BETWEEN :
T. Nagaiah
Petitioner
M. Ankalaiah
Petitioner AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi ( A. P. ) -517 501
.. Respondent
TheDy. GeneralManager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/5/ 2002- IR(B -I)
Reference No.: L - 12012/7 /2002- IR(B-I) I. D. No. 247 of2001
I. D. No. 250 of 2002
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN:
N. C. M. Kondaiah
.Petitioner
G. Venkataramana
Petitioner AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
Respondent
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India , Zonal Office , ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012 / 175/ 2001 - IR (B-I)
Reference No .: L- 12012/9/ 2002 - IR(B -I) L. D. No. 248 of 2002
I. D. No. 250 of 2001
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN :
T. Manoharam
Petitioner
S.K. Mahaboob Basha
Petitioner AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A P. ) -517501
Respondent
The Dy. GeneralManager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) - 517 501
Respondent Reference No.: L- 12012/6/2002- IR(B -I)
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 172/ 2001 - IR(B- I) I. D. No. 248 of 2001
I. D. No. 251 of 2001
BETWEEN:
BETWEEN:
B. Gnananandam
Petitioner
Petitioner
G. Satyanandam
AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, ReniguntaRoad, Tirupathi (AP. )-517 501
Respondent
TheDy. General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent Reference No .: L- 12012/171/2001- IR(B- I)
Reference No.: L- 12012/ 174/2001 - IR(B- I) D. No. 249 of 2001
L. D. No. 252 of 2001
BETWEEN :
BETWEEN :
V.Emmanial
Petitioner
T. Srinivasarao
Petitioner AND
AND
The Dy. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road, Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517 501
Respondent
State Bank of India , Tirupathi (A. P. )-517 501 The Dy. General Manager , ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road ,
.. Respondent Reference : L- 12012/ 167/2001 - IR( B- 1)
Reference No .: L- 12012/ 168/2001- IR(B-I) [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
I. D. No. 273 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
Y.Mani
AND
TheDy. General Manager,
State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road,
Respondent
Tirupathi (A. P.) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/35/2000- IR(B-I)
I. D. No. 274 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner
G. Narasimham
AND
The Dy. General Manager,
StateBank of India, Zonal Office, Renigunta Road ,
Respondent Tirupathi (A. P.) -517501
Reference No.: L- 12012/10/2002- IR(B-1)
I. D. No. 300 of 2002
BETWEEN :
Petitioner J. Sankar
AND
The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZonalOffice, Renigunta Road,
Respondent
Tirupathi (A. P. ) -517501
10735
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non-Messenger, State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I. D. No. 222/2001 and notices were issued to the parties . The Government of India has referred about 500 such references and it will not be possible or practicable to answer every reference separately. As the main issues involved are one and the same, I am of the opinion that all of them canbe decided in groups by giving common awards , this group which I am now dealing pertains to Tirupathi Zone andthis reference and 154 other references a common award is passed.
4. To begin with I am quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975. I have not only to consider merely the technical aspects , powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference but 1 will also have to see viewing it as a human problem. These cases remind me of a poem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and I find no better way than to start my award by quoting the entire poem of Faiz ,
"Humility I've learnt, sympathy for the poor, learnt the meaning of despair, suffering and pain; learntto comprehend the miseries of the oppressed, the meaning ofcold sighs , of pallid faces.
Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to сту, In whose eyes tears , bitterly shed, fall asleep, And those destitute upon whose morsels swoop
L- 12012/ 158/2002- IR(B-I)
Reference No .:
APPEARANCES :
For the Petitioners : S/Shri Vikas , Prabhakar, S. Prasad Rao, P. Damodar Reddy, D. G. Choudhary, Anjanadevi , A. K. Jayaprakash Rao , Niranjan Rao , Advocates .
For the Respondents : M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates .
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L - 12012 / 126/2001 - IR (B. I) dated 18-9-2001 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 )( d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Hyderabad in
2800 G1/05-22
down the vultures hovering above , poised on their wings whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of the labourer, and on the highways flows the blood of the poor , asort of fire upsurges in my bosom and I lose all hold over my heart . "
As I stated supra , these cases have got a chequered history, and instead ofmyself narrating the same, I think it would be better to write down what he stated in his claim statement of this particular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statements in all the cases filedby the Petitioners.
5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in 1. D. No. 222/ 2001 has filed the following claim statement . That the workman joined in the services of the Management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in 1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services were terminated by oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997 . The workman submits that he is erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of State Bank of India . He belongs to 10736
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
Scheduled Caste, he passed IX class . The qualification is VIII standard which is prescribed for the post of messenger. TheManagement of Bank has decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel found suitable for by offering permanent appointment of waitlisting them till such opportunity arises.
6.That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank ofIndia-settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed . That is, (A) thosewho have completed 240days in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975, (B) those who have completed 270days in any continuous block of36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 , (C) ( i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or (ii) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuousblock of 36 months after 1-7-1975.
7. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee. The said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore, the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workman then prescribed certain the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee . Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in ortler of their respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 ofthe settlement is specifically provided that henceforth, " there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre " , except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, " from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank" , the workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers . The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . A written examination followed by viva- voce in May, 1989 was held . A selected panel was prepared, as per clause 7 of the agreement , i.e. settlement No. 1 , the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991 , the workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms ofthe agreement dated 17-11-87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, " to all eligible temporary employces for permanent appointments . The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96 , circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel , eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] their cases thereafter, " will be given another chance to appear for interview" .
8. In fact, there is some confusion in the claim statement, but actually another panel was prepared . There were total five settlements , settlement dated 17-11-87 is the 1st settlement (Ex. M1 ) , settlement dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement (Ex. M2 ) , settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex. M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement ( Ex. M6) . In between there is minutes of conciliationproceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex. M5 . That due to all these settlements which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with its a question of time before appointments or services are regularized in the services of the bank. The workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
:
9. The Government of India issued circular No. F-3/3/104/87- IR, dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the Chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved , the bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Management of the bank in not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W. P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A. P. It is specifically averred in the said Writ Petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India . The Hon'ble High Court ofA. P. , by an order dated 5-3-97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time . It also directed the bank to carry out the terms of the settlement before the expiry ofMarch , 1997. The High Court also recorded a finding that the bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement . In view of the directions grantedby the High Court in W. P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17- 11-87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991 , and on the basis of a settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the panel was valid upto December , 1999. The other agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was valid 10737 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.
upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27-10-1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the directions given by the High Court on 5-3-1997 in W.P. No. 4194/97 and contraryto the settlements entered into between the parties , the bank issuedproceedings dated 25-3-1997, dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97. The said order was followed by the management . Aggrieved by the said action the workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3 , 4 and 5 therein) on 25-3-1997, 27-3-97 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non- continuance of the Petitioners therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2 (p ),and 18(1) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service .
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25 -Fmay be decided byentering into a settlement with the representative union . In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para 6 (h) , it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put intemporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days , the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect ofthose who had put in less than 90 days . As such, it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for thatpurpose temporary employees worked in the bank on orafter 1-1-1982 could be considered for re -employment in terms of the scheme . The Respondents have gone furtherwherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
10. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9206/97 , the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks , it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre . It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged . Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice . It is designed to, on the one hand, keep the employee in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank, a reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opine that being just fair and reasonble are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice .
It is further submitted that at para 6 (k) of the approach paper , " it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . This would mean that theGovernment of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise . As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines bat in fact covered cases of the employees who had wiked for less than 90 days . As such, question ofviolation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives".
11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88 and 27-10-88. The bank in the guise of extending the benefits ofthe circular of Government dated 16-8-90 stated in its counter affidavit as follows : " Government of India , vide its letter dated 16-8-1990 , issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . The Government of India
12. The workman submits that the bank also referred in further settlement dated 9-1-1991 whortinthere is a clause to the effect that the panek of teamровагу employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore their cases will not be considered . The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugnedition. It is submitted that 10738
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
even the settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/attenders/ sweepers etc. , even after the judgement ofHon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the workman, herein the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view ofthe circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4194/97, dated 5-3-97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9-1-1991 . Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust , violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The workman submits that the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 and batchby anorder dated 1-1-1998 . It is pertinent to mention that as a matter of fact the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings offact:
"(1) That the candidates had appeared for written examination and a viva voce test . They , therefore, satisfied a procedure of objective criteria in the process ofselection.
(2) The life ofthe panels were admittedly extended by the bank beyond its initial life -span .
(3) Inspite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation of the services of the employees who were continued to be in the panel , the above workmen were continued to be engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997 , 27-3-1997 and31-3-1997.
(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive till all the empanelled candidates were absorbed .
(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees are absorbed and regularized in the services ofthebank .
(6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation ofbeing regularized in the services of the bank.
(7) Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] of the bank, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the services of the workmen but to terminate their services even if they were otherwise eligible for regularization.
(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. V. Sundara Mani reported in AIR 1976 SC 1111.
(9) The status of the workmen vis - a - vis the bank needed no probe.
(10) That the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealing with the question of temporary workmen pointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of 3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is not only violation of Bipartite Agreement of the Desai Award that after the said period , the status of the employees is that of regular employees .
(11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners , is totally right in contending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except to know whether they have been implemented or enforced. Therefore , it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or flouted by the respondent bank in its true and real implications ".
14. The workman submits that in W.P. No. 4194/97 filed by the union of tentporary employees wherein they have complained about the non - implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption . Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement , the Court held that the meinbers of the union had been empanelled in the list , they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31-3-97 .
15. Further judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way they will be referred to while referring the arguments . He further averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and 10739 [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Management terminating the services ofthe workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management is directed to reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits .
inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the clause 10 of the statement it is specifically mentioned that the workman to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlements . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled candidates . The Management has indulged in unfair labour practices . The Management has committed unfair labour practice and terminated the services of candidates from 1-4-97 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India.
17. A counter was filed with the following averments . That the reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is respectfully submitted that to tide over severe sub-ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies , exigencies , etc. , and also owing to the restrictions imposed by theGovernment of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake ofstaff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub- ordinate staff like messengers , sweepers , sweeper-cum- water boys , etc. , depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches . It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for anyprotectionunder Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
18. Discussions were held and on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2 (p) read with Sec . 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17-11-87 which may be hereinafter referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here . In the first settlement , it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorised would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration ofvacancies as 1987 to 1992 inplace of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17-11-1987. This is the second settlement. Athird settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down 16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so -called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25-2-1997 , that the action of terminating such employees like the workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which can not be allowed to be perpetuated . That the discontinuance of the workman after 31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment . It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec . 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the said action is violative ofprinciples of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India . This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice . Thus , the main proceedings are issued in cleanable exercise of power, without jurisdiction , arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the allegedMemorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97 , Ex .M5 does not appoint the workman and its own legal entity, the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the workmanwhose rights are being affected. Submitted that the Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its instructions dated 16-8-90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies . The management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here. It is not pertinent to note/mention here that the Respondent/Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June , 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders . After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating , the Management refused to engage these candidates . It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies . Hence , the action of the Respondent 10740
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec. 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desiredthey could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6( h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1-1-82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days , the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered . Hence , there was genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies .However , para 6 (k) ofthe approach paper made itclear that it is a one time exercise in full and final settlement ofall the claims and disputes for the past period , in respect oftemporary workmen covered by the settlement . Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 hereinafter referred as 4th settlement. And the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees casual/daily wagers . It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers , they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
19. It is submitted that the administrative set up of theHyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada , Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts ofAndhra Pradesh . Interms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual /daily wagers denoted as1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption . These panels were prepared zone- wise. separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put inby the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. , 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) for implementation of bi -partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrivedbetween the Federation and the bank. It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the
parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec . 2 (p) read with Sec. 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement . That on 27-2-1997 a Memorandum of Understanding was also signed by the Federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non - messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30-7-1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997 . That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels. The Petitioner who hasput in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/ law except under the settlement entered into thereon . In fact, the case of the Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her . The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement . That the very preparation and maintenance of a panel is non - compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements . These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31-3-1997 . That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank . That the settlements are binding on the parties . The Petitioner is also bound under the terms of the said settlement . The settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise . The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context . It is submitted that the period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in 10741 [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
deposed that he worked for 93 days but he was given certificate only for 55 days before interview. That he worked between 1988-97 for 843 days . That as per the norms he also fits in category B and he speaks about the settlements and he further deposed that on 18-11-93, 800 contract labourers were made permanent by the bank.By then, their existing panels were still not completed. That till date the bank is still continuing with some persons who are from the panel by making pick and choose method and it is also claimed by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) that some ofthese employees are still working . In Ex. W10 itself it was mentioned that still temporary employees were continuing against permanent vacancies and sweepers were not being appointed on regular basis, canteenemployees were being used for messengerialwork, ex-temporaryworkers are still being used for performing messengerial work.
any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 12964/94 , held as follows , " It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Petitioners also . It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management . If the Petitioner had worked in the bank on part - time basis before 31-5-94 , that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable. However, it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management . As already pointed out that it is not thegrievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitioner has been denied by the bank Management . Therefore , I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs ."
20. If the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence , there is no question of any legitimate expectation being violated.
21. Similarly placed ex -employees filed WP No. 9206/ 1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions .
23. In the cross examination he deposed that the BranchManager, Local Head Office branch, State Bank of India, was known to his father who was a Mali in thebank. Afterintroducing him tothe Branch Manager he requested him for providing work to the Petitioner as a temporary messenger. Accordingly, he was given appointment as messenger on temporary basis in 1988 for 55 days and later he hadworked as messenger on temporary basis now and then. He was not sponsored by any employment exchange . That he used to work depending on the availability of work in the branch. That he applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1991. He was called for interview and his name was included in the panel oftemporary messengers in the year 1992. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel . That he is not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days was given appointment in the bank. He did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service. That he appeared for interview as per the settlements and the settlements expired on 31-3-97.
Aggrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge . Thereafter the ex - temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside . The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. The question of operation of Sec. 25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements ofHon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
24. The ChiefManager (Per. & HRD) , Sri A. Rama Rao deposed to the facts as stated in the counter, as MW1 and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Judgement, the appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP. In the cross -examination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated. He denied that all should have been absorbed. He agreed that no notice or pay in lieu thereof was given. That all these Petitioners were asked not to come . He denied that there are still number ofvacancies . He does not know whether Mr. M. Lingam, claimant in ID No. 236/2001 working in Barkatpura branch and Mr. Ravi Kanth in ID No. 59/2001 working in Parishram Bhavan branch.
22. The Petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition. He further 10742
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]
problem of existing temporary employees is fully solved, no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments . In spite of the clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issue of temporary employees before passing impugned oral orders on the other hand, they are engaging third parties and some of the claimants are still working on temporary basis . In fact he has given the list of atleast 46 candidates who are before this Court still working in Hyderabad module, Vijayawada module . There are as many as 26 candidates working, in Tirupthi module 43 are working , even in Visakhapatnam module four are working. Before the 5th settlement took place there was a conciliation proceeding wherein it was specifically agreed , " as regards for filling of messenger posts as already been ordered , the remainder number will be filled before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of an understanding. that maybe reached after ascertaining correct procedure with regard to the number of messenger posts to be created in terms of settlement . Another joint committee will be constituted to review existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 ." And having agreed that coolly dispensed them by oral order on 31-3-1997 . The question that there are no vacancies is false . In fact , there are number of vacancies in all the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly, new persons were engaged by the Respondent apart from engaging some of the claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997 . In order to show that there are vacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis . Sample copies of proceedings of the bank which show that some ofthe claimants were re -engaged after 1-4-97 is also submitted with a separate statement who were engaged after their oral termination and who are continuing till today. In fact, instead of entering into a fresh agreement assettled before the conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all canons of justice . The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao , Sr. Advocate and further more arguments have been advanced by him and several Judgements were cited which will be dealt in due course .
25. Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners, Mr. Prasada Rao , Mr. Prabhakar, Mr.Vikaas etc.. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalf of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao , Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and they were given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services of the Respondent by way of settlements. Instead they were removed from service by oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the claimants while engaging third parties on temporary basis, apart from re -engaging some of the claimants on temporarybasis as messengers/ non- messengers . The said action of the Respondent is high -handed, unilateral, arbitrary and colourable exercise ofpower apart from being amounts tounfair labour practice . It is an admitted case of the Respondent that it has 805 branches all over the State whereas the Respondent has 827 branches . That it consists offour modules , Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam. and Tirupathi. That the counsel is appearing for 100 claimants for Hyderabad module . Likewise they are appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing. All these claimants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions of the Central Officeand Local Head Office . In order to settle the issue oftemporary employees and to streamline the same these settlements were entered into in pursuance of the decision taken by the Respondent to give a chance for absorption. There are five settlements , one Memorandum of Understanding, one conciliation proceedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination . One example may be taken of a Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who workedboth in messenger cadre and non- messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days. The break-up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988, which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank. He belongs to SC community. He has passed 9th class, though the qualification for the post of messenger is 8th class . That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the settlements they were made to work with artificial breaks . Though they were empanelled and given a hope that their cases will be considered for absorption. The same was not considered. On the other hand their services were orallyterminated on 31-3-1997 asking them not to attend duties from 1-4-97 . Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered into between the bank and in the last settlement it is specifically mentioned that the non- messengerial posts shall be filled inbefore 31-3-1997 before theempanelled list is allowed to lapse. The Government of India had issued a circular dated 16-8-90 wherein it is specifically stated that the concerned authorities have to follow the procedure in the approach paper for regularization who are on the rolls of the bank. Until the
26. Sri S. Prasada Rao , Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a boon to the industrial development which aims at (a) Investigation and settlement of Industrial Disputes , (b ) to keep social justice as a main criteria, (c) Progress of Industry and (d) Harmony and cordial relations . He submits that in the case of Management of Hotel Imperial , New Delhi and othersVs. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1342, it was held that, " Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to grant interim relief also . " The applicants are employees of the State Bank of India and they have worked for a period which is noted in the list of cases which are pending before this Court. That the ultimate object of 10743 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
further argues that the Memorandum of Understanding is not correct, because the last settlement does not provide for lapsing of the empanelled candidates , the bank is obliged for implementation ofthe empanelled candidates and not for lapsing the panels. That in the case of all the applicants with respect to whom that the principles of fair play, equity and consciousness and justice is required. The workers have fundamental right to live under Article 14, 15 & 16 which can neither waived nor taken away. Since many of the applicants are jobless and have worked for longer periods , upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived oftheir livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered. That the State Bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. , A.P. Shops & Establishments Act . Sec. 2A(2) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners . These arguments need not be repeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India Industrial Adjudication has been received by all as one of revolutionary import which admits its task not on purely theoretical abstract, academic grounds adhering to any dogmas , or applying abstract principle mechanically or under any sub - consciousness pressures preconceived notions, theories or ' isms ' but since to evolve working principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner . The interest of proper judicial enquiry including the collection, collation and analysis of relevant facts. Therefore, it becomes highly significant in industrial matters . The Supreme Court right from Bharath Banks case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest Airports Authority case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance ofthe ignorance ofthe working class and important oftheir rights restating principles of social justice . The present trend of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests of not only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are so wedded that they cannot be separated in all contexts and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to survive in this world . As observed by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Association of Australia Vs. State of Australia which was also quoted in the State of Bombay Vs.Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case " in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in .... ".
He submits that it was a legitimate expectation of these employees . No doubt, one may not have a right but Courts have recognized that in such cases like these cases a legitimate expectation was created by the bank by taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 andwe are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the conciliation officer that a further settlement may be entered into after 31-3-97 all of a sudden a Memorandum of Understanding is entered into and thousands of people are given a good-bye. All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered . That about 35000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected. It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there will be more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered, they will fall short of total vacancies .
28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikaas , Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short, the State Bank of India has committed the following illegalities : 1. unfair labour practice , vitiated by colourable exercise of power, 2. impugned oral orders ofterminationwithout authority on 31-3-97, 3. the exercise ofthe said power is violative of article 14 and Sec. 19 (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, 4. the purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as if it's a back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements they have created legitimate expectations of absorption to these poor workmen who have been running around since 1975. The order not to engage is a non- speaking order. Further several of these persons although were terminated are still working , if there is no work how these persons are working ? The argument that due to computerization lesser staff is required does not hold good 27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way of life for everyone in Bharat Republic . The poor workmen and common men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right to work and right to adequate means of livelihood in just and humane conditions of work, to living wage , a decent standard of life , education and leisure . Article 43 (A) 43 Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of Undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry. He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore , in interpreting the constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to build up continuity of socio, economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equality of opportunity ar.d status and the Law should constantly meet the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order . Therefore, the concepts engrafted in the Statute require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violence to the language. Then he further argues and reiterates the facts of the settlements which need not be repeated here . He
2800 GI/05-23 10744
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] because the work of attenders could only be done by robots which have not yet come in India, hence , waterboys, sweepers and for odd work, still the services of the attenders are required. Those who were made to understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after all the so - called Memorandum of Understanding is to defeat the purpose ofsettlements wherein the affected parties are not even consulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec. 23 of the Contract Act.
29. I now refer to the cases cited by various Advocates. The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rab . AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein a full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal of a permanent employee without assigning any reason , their Lordships held, is arbitrary unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy. He also relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571, this dealt with the rule empowering the Government corporation to terminate services of its permanent employees by giving notice or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violative of Article 14, 39(a) and 41. He also relies on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248, their Lordships held, that an agreement can be challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised even by a person who had earlier consented to the agreement . They further held that the illegal contract, cannot constitute and effect and accord satisfaction . He also relies on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that , " We have , no doubt that the precedents on the point , the principles of industrial law, the constitutional sympathy of Part IV and the sound rules of statutory construction converge to the samepoint that when a notice intimating termination of an award or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is set for fresh negotiations or industrial adjudication and antil either effort ripens into a fresh set ofconditions of service the previous award or settlement doesregulate the relations between the employer and the employees ." He also relied on 1999( 5) ALD 1992 (D.B. ) , General Manager State Bank of Hyderabad and another Vs. P. Ramulu, wherein their Lordships referred to the circular of the Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approach paper in the recruitment as well as in absorption of temporary employees as follows : " For the staff which is presently onthe rolls ofthe Banks their services will be regularized in terms of the Approach Paper. For the current requirement banks may utilize their existing panel of temporary employees and in case these employees were not taken from the employment exchanges the Banks would be required to approach the DGE & T directly seeking exemption. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved no Bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments. " In that case para 6 ,
all employees who had put in 90 or more days after the cut off date i.e. , 1-1-1982 will only be eligible for considering the scheme. The Respondent in the Writ Petition has put in more than 90 days before the said cut off date . Their Lordships held that as per the scheme one time opportunity each person who had completed 90 days of temporary service as on 1-1-1982 and after 1982 shall be regularized by empanelling him for the post . He also referred to Supreme Court employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India wherein it was held, that it is well settled principle of law that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisagedby article 141 ofthe Constitution . He also relied on 1997 ( 6) Supreme Court cases page 564, which is to the same effect. He also relied on 2003 (4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their Lordships held, it is well settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reason that order would not constitute a binding precedent .He also relied on 2003 Supreme Court case page 231 which reiterate the same . He also relied on AIR 2002 Supreme Court page 3088 wherein their Lordships held, "the High Court and all other courts in the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court, but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility to find out the ratio of the decision and ascertain the law, if any, so declared from a careful reading of decision concerned and only thereafter proceed to apply appropriately. He also relied on 2003 ( 7 ) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein it was held , "Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case , the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision . A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation . The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided . Statements whichare not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative . The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into the facts it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice . Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment . Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all , nor ever passing expression of a Judge , however eminent , can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority. " He also relies on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 Supplementary IV Supreme Court cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. State ofU.P. and Others , wherein their Lordships held . " since no dispute was raised on behalf of respond 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the WritPetition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion, inasmuch as the said 10745
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents . " He therefore , submits that the Petitioners have alleged in the petition that there were about 1500 vacancies and it has not been controverted, hence , this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has been admitted by the bank.
expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities , with this element forming a necessary component of the decision- making process in all State actions . To satisfy this requirement of non - arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore , necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness . Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise ofpower , as it is unrealistic , but provides for control ofits exercise by judicial review. [ Para 8 page 91 ] " .
He also relied on the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 (4) Supreme Court case page 188, wherein their Lordships held if for any reason, anad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State . He also relied on 2001 (1 ) LLJwherein their Lordships held that , " so far as the work- charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early aspossible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability ofwork. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services. In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization . While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person. " He also relied onJudgement of the High Court of Patna reported in 2003 III LLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed, "All said, the claim of such persons who have remained in the employment of the State for long periods , those who have spent the golden period of their lives in the service of the State, those who with the passage of the time have become eligible for appointment elsewhere cannot be ignored altogether." He also relied on 1995 (2) Supreme Court cases page 326 where the full bench of the Supreme Court held. "In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the courts have evolved the principle oflegitimate expectation. The expression which is said to have originated from the Judgement ofLord Denning in Schmidt Vs. Secy. ofState for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong Vs. Ng Yuen Shiu Privy Council applied this principle where 30. He also relies on LLJ 2004 February page 227 , wherein it was held , " the Respondent was working as a part-time sweeper in the organization of the Petitioner. After fifteen years of service , the Respondent was terminated from service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part - time employee also falls within the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . The High Court also retreated the findings of the Labour Court and stated that as long as the ingredients ofSec.2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee has been appointed as a regular, permanent/temporary or daily wages , casual or part- time . He also relied on LLJ 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ page 323 wherein the High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the bus driver on an average worked for 20 days in a month but was paid wages for one month. Average working hours 10 to 12 hours and no overtime wages paid . Finding of the Industrial Tribunal thatworkman has worked 240 days in a calendar year legal and proper. " He also relied on 1995 Supplementary (4) Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordships directed regularization of services of the Petitioners who had worked for three years including the break till today, shall not be terminated and shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as and when they arise . He also relied on 1991 supplementary (2 ) SCC page 363 wherein it was held, the change of service rules cannot be made in the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to the change . He also relied on 1986 Supreme Court page 954 wherein it was held, " such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise then in the course ofconciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec . 18 ( 1 ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen any who are not parties in the settlement. " He also relied on 1993 (1 ) SCC page 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held as follows : " In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 ofthe Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significant facet . There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good . This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action ' . Due observance of this obligation as a part ofgood administration raises a reasonable or legitimate 10746
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
the anvil of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or results in civil consequencies would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right , just and fair not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose ofprinciples of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice, it is different to see why it should be applicable only to quasi -judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both . Therefore , fairplay in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just , fair and reasonable . The manner of exercise of power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article 21 cleaves life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence . When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice , it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence . Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality , equalitarian in its sould and allergic to discriminatory dictates . Equally is the antithesis of arbitrariness . It is , thereby, conclusively held by this court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just , fair and reasonable . He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein it was observed " the right to life includes right to livelihood . Therefore cannot hand on to the fancies of the individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can it servival be at their marcy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income the rightto work becomes as much fundamental . Fundamental rights can Ill - afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications . That will be mockery of them.
expectations were " based upon some statement or undertaking by of on behalf of the public authority " and observed: "Accordingly ' legitimate expectations ' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights , provided they have some reasonable basis . A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment . " He also relied on 1998 (7) Supreme Court cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held, the doctrine oflegitimate expectation has itgenesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its Departments, in administering the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion . The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively Continuing their Lordships further held though the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fairplay in administrative action , it may, in a given situation , be enforced as a substantive right . The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b ) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii ) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn . Indian scenario in the field of legitimate expectation is not different . The question whether the expectation and the claim is reasonable or legitimate , is a question of fact in each case. This question had to be determined not according to the claimants' perception but in larger public interest . " He also relied on 1997 7 SCC 592 wherein it was held that the selected industries ( Respondents) with which the agreements were entered into by the State Government legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice . The doctrine of " legitimate expectation " has been judicially recognized by the Supreme Court. The doctrine oflegitimate expectation" operates in the domain of public law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right . He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 wherein it is held that the law must therefore be now taken to be well - settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge ofArticle 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on
Mr. Vikas , appcaring for various Petitioner cited various Judgements some of them are 1998 7 SCC page 804 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staff of Income Tax Department some of them working front 8 years , directions issued to pay such workmen at the rate equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption. He also relied onAIR 1990 Supreme Court page 2228 wherein it was held that the Kerala water supply and civil water authority shall immediately regularize the services of Public Health Department employees as per as resolution dated 30-1-1987 without waiting for the State Government approval . They also directed those who have put in less that one year service age bar may be waved etc. Several more citations 10747
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
he filed about regularisation. He also relied on 1996 1 Service Law Reporter Supreme Court of India page 56 wherein it was held, workman in the employment in the state of forest Department for 5 to 6 years and in each year theyworked for a period ranging 100 to 330 days, workmen employed under the schemes at hand had been so done . To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularize them amounts to unfair labour practice and various other judgements and further added to his arguments that by further arguing that these cases are the most fit for regularization as some of them are working from 1975.
Mr. Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs. TN Jaya Ram wherein it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned single judge held that the Petitioner had not worked continuously for a period 30 days. The learned singlejudge relied on category C of the settlement to arrive at the said conclusion . Their Lordships allowed the Writ Appeal on the ground, in view of the fact " that the Petitioner falls short of the required 30 days by 4 days, the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity in the employment of the bank. "
the All India SBI Staff Federation as party to the dispute before this court to seek interpretation of the settlements. As such, the cases are bad for non-joinder of necessary party. That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancies are less than 100 each year. The SBI has absorbed messengers and Non-messengers totaling to more than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgement that the settlement are repugnant to Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the Memorandum of Understanding and theTheory of Legitimate Expectations has no place in the settlements . That in terms of the 5 settlements , the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive upto 31st March 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Administrative instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 as there were no vacancies . That the question of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz. , if on any available clear vacancies which are ofa long duration appointment are made on adhoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if their services are required by the Bank. In any case , backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in breach of the requisite procedure ofrecruitment and ere is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could not be offered.
Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate , Shri Prabhakar Rao , Advocate on behalf of Shri Ramachandra Rao , Advocate and Shri Prasad , Advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners who have been unceremoniously dismissed on 1-4-1997 and some of them are still continuing and it is not only a question on industrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioners who worked since more than two decades .
They also relied on several cases , in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere inclusion of a candidates name in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected. Some vacancies remaining unfilled after process of selection finally closed-candidate not appointed-No discrimination. They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, theydo not acquire any right to the post . They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 584 Syndicate Bank Vs. Sankarpal where in it was held that if a waiting list is for specific period the wait listed candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses . They also relied on 1997 4 SCC 283 Sanjay Vs. Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wat listed candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies . He also relied onAIR 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 where it was held- Stop gap appointees or temporary appointees do not have any right for continuous or for regularization.
Smt . Lalitha Kumari, advocate for Respondent relied on 2004 Vol . IV SLT page 947 which was a Judgement from Madras High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment held in violation of mandatory provisions of statues ignoring minimum education qualifications , wholly illegal . Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality.
It is argued by the Learned Counsel for Respondent ShriB. G. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate and Smt. Lalita Kumari, Advocate that the Hon'ble CGIT -cum -Labour Court is fully empowered to decide the disputes which are pending before it in the LCIDs and ID . That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the courts for short periods at the instance of concerned Branch Manager who had not jurisdiction to appoint them . They are not employees of the State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure. The daily wagers /casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited . That the Petitioners were engaged by the concerned branch managers to meet the exigencies of work at intermittent intervals and they cannot be termed as employees of the bank on temporary basis in any identified post or vacancy. That the Petitioners have no statutory right to seek any relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . The Petitioners have not put in continuous service of240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act. It is to be examined whether they stand a chance for absorption as per the settlements . That the Petitioners failed to implead 10748
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
dispute in any form existing and even apprehended definitely could be a subject of reference to the board of settlement , to a court for enquiry, to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication....... " . It is also his apprehension genuinely expressed that driving the Petitioners to such forums for such disputes could be nothing less than pushing the halpless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry mount of the wild life" .
Butboth of them mainly relied on the Judgement of Hon'bleHigh Court of Orissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 in which itwas held that only those casual workers who were in the waiting list of the bank ( panels) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies of the bank. As the select list came to an end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgement of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP (CC) 3082/99.
Be that may be so . The above Judgement was set aside by writ appeals by division bench holding that the matter has to be dealt with and settled by the parties unde the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court . Against which a Special Leave Petitions were filed which were dismissed .
He further argued that even those who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization as the very entrywas irregular and they got any right it is through the agreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Supreme Court held that any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds. Such regularization isjeopardizes the larger public interests . So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance. And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is in an all India agreement and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP on merits , hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Petitions may be dismissed.
The position now is that under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 those who have completed 240 days in a year has some right as notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation . But all of them entered into settlements , no doubt , these persons are not members of the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation . But those who have worked even for 30 days in a calendar year or 70 days in 36 calendar months and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements entered into by All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements .But for the settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year others do not have any right under the ID Act . And this is an all India problem and unfortunately for the Petitionersthe same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex . M6 herein, was discussed by the Orissa High Court in OJC No 9039 of 1997 (WP) and batch , which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Where in it was held "the currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the impugned decisions/ scttlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997 . It is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have not been fixed. Wedo not think it necessary to go into this hypothetical questions Against which SLP was filed in the Hon'ble SC which dismissed saying the SLP is dismissed on merits. In fact , all these references or 2 (A) (2) are about their termination . For example the reference is " Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/ Non -Messenger, State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not , what relief the applicant is entitled ? " Actually if they had any grievance that the bank had agreed vide minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-1995 , vide Ex . M5 , they should have approached conciliation officer raising a dispute that nojoint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997. As the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa also stated in the As stated in the beginning , these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 2005. To sum up the entire facts in a nut shell , the entry of these persons was as casual employees . Seeing the enormity of the situation the SBI and All India SBI Staff Federation entered into various agreements . The candidates were called for interview and were empanelled. The last agreement was dated 30-7-1996 (Ex. M6) which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Then there was a Memorandum ofunderstandingdt. 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary employees , daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997. There was a conciliation dated 9-6-1995 vide Ex. M5 whereinbefore the conciliation officer it was agreed that anotherjoint committee will be constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come intoeffect from 1-4-97. No such joint committee was constituted nor any fresh settlement came into effect from 1-4-1997. Carrot was dingled before the workers for number ofyears creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good-bye to all the employees on 31-3-1997. Their hopes were further raised by the Judgement of the High Court which held " the Petitioners/ employees who were on duty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deemed to be on duty and shall be entitled to all the benefits of such a post and they shall be immediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some supernumery posts within 3 months from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to which they were entitled as on that date, till they are absorbed" . In fact the Hon'ble Single Judge stated in the Judgement which quote " Mr. S. Premchandra Rao Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have never converted such a factual and legal position. Such a 10749
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Bank circular to employment exchange
Ex. W6
end of the Judgement , it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated , the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/authority. The reference here is whether termination is justified or not .
: Bank circular to its regional branches ID 10 of 2002
WW1 : R. S. Shivaji
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
: Transfer Certificate
Ex. W1
: Caste Certificate
Ex. W2
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Empanellist
I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of persons involved and the great expectations raised but justice has to be rendered as per law. Therefore in view of the Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits when the SLP was dismissed on merits. I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri Anil Kumar and 154 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
: Service Certificate
Ex. W6
: Notice ofALC
Ex. W7
: Minutes of conciliation
Ex. W8
ID 11 of2002
D. Karimullah Khan
WW1
:
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex.W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
ID 12 of2002
WW1
: V. Malikarjuna Rao
Before parting with the case, I feel it apt to direct the Respondent " which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India " to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary daily wagers/ casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities of the expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with mercy. I was constrained to follow the settled law position, but my conscience prompted me to issue the above directions , which I hope and trust will be honoured by the Respondent bank. While so considering, the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable ground as the above category employees have spent long time with the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization oftheir services .
MW1
: KBalakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Nativity Certificate
: Marks Memo
Ex. W2
Transfer Certificate
:
Ex. W3
As I have to follow the settled law and the position in which I found myself while delivering this award it prompted me to describe the condition of these petitioners asdepicted in the poem of Faiz Ahmed Faiz quoted at the beginning of the Award .
: CasteCertificate
Ex. W4
Typed by LDC to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day ofMay 2005.
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
Ex. W6
Service particulars
:
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
: Service Certificate
Ex.W7
Documents marked for Petitioners
Ex. W8 : Application to bank
ID 9 of2002
Ex. W9 : Letter to bank for absorption WW1 : R.Maheswara Raju
Ex. W10 : Notice ofALC
: K.Balakotaiah
MW1
Ex. W11 : Notice of ALC
ID 13 of2002 Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
WW1 : G. Babu
Ex.W2 : Empanel list
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
: Service Certificate
Ex. W3 10750
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W7 : Guide lines to employ panel workers Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex.W8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 Transfer Certificate
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Working days particulars ofpetitioner
Ex.W11 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W12 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W7 Notice of ALC
Ex. W13 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W8 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex.W14 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W9 : Failure report
Ex. W15 : Failure report
ID 15 of 2002
ID 28 of 2002
WW1 : D. Damodharam
WWI : R. Bhaskar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex: W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex.W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W7 : Notice ofALC
Ex.W6 : Service Certificate ID 29 of 2002
Ex. W8 : Failure report
WW1 : M. Mastan
ID 16 of 2001
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
WW1 : P. Rasoolkhan
Ex.WI : Marks Memo
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W1 : School Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex.W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 21 of 2002
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 30 of 2001
WWI : S. Ramakrishna
WWI
: K. Ravi
MW1 : KBalakotaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W! : Study and conduct Certificate
Ex. WI : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex.W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W6 Service Certificate [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
ID 31 of 2001
WW1 : B. Shanthamma
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah.
Ex. W1 : School Certificate
Ex. W2 : Employment card
Ex. W3 : Telegram sent by respondent Ex. W4 : Letter from the respondent Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate ID 34 of 2001 WW1 : B. Suseelamma
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : School Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate ID 35 of 2001 WW1 : Gandam Raju
MW1 : KBalakotaiah
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : CasteCertificate
Ex.W4 Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 36 of 2001 WW1 : G. Pushpa Raju
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
2800 G1/05-24
10751
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate ID 37 of2001
WW1 : P. Obanna
MWJ : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex.W5 : Empanel list
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 38 of 2001
WW1 : M Venkata Subbamma
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : School Certificate
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex.W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 39 of 2002
WW1 : C. Raju
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Empanel list
ID40 of 2001
WW1 : S. Nityapujaiah
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 Telegram by respondent
Ex. W6 : Interview call letter
Ex. W7 : Empanel list
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate 10752
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
ID 41 of 2002
: Mahaboob Basha
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W6 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 42 of2001
WW1 : V. Naga Raju
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Petitioner application for absorption Ex. W4 : Service Certificate. ID43 of2002
WW1 : C. S. Vijay Kumar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex.W3 : Empanel list
Ex,W4 Service Certificate ID 43 of 2002
WW1 : Abdul Hafeez
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. Wl Service Certificate
Ex. W2 Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W7 Bank circular to its regional branches ID44 of 2002
WW1 : S. A. Basha
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ] Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex . W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate ID 45 of 2002
WW1 : B. Ramakrishna
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate ID 46 of 2002
WW1 : K. Vanurappa
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 55 of 2001
WWI : V. M. Venkatratnam
MWI : KBalakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate ID 59 of 2001
WW1 : M. Raghunath
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W9 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID60 of2001
WW1 : N. Rama Subbaiah
: K. Balakotaiah
MW1
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex.W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Interview call letter
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate ID 78 of 2002
WW1 : P. Satyanarayana
K. Balakotaiah
MWI
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
ID 79 of 2002
WW1 : Syed Khadervali
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Service Certificate
Ex. W1 :
Ex. W2 : Empanellist
Ex. W3
Paysheet ID 80 of 2002
WW1 : Chenna Babaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Notification ofthe bank
Ex. W1
10753
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
: Interview call letter
Ex. W2
Ex. W3
Empanel list
Service Certificate
Ex.W4
Ex. W5
Service Certificate ID 81 of2002
S. Yesubaktha
WW1
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Service Certificate
Ex. W1
: Service Certificate
Ex. W2
Ex. W3 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W4 : Interview -call letter
: Service Certificate
Ex. W5
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 82 of2002
: B. Krishna Murthy
MWI
: K. Balakotaiah
: Notification of the bank
Ex. W1
Ex.W2 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate ID 83 of 2002
WW1
: R. Banerjee Babu
: K. Balakotaiah
MW1
: Notification of the bank
Ex. W1
: Interview call letter
Ex. W2
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
: Service Certificate
Ex. W4
: Service Certificate
Ex. W5
Service Certificate
Ex. W6
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate ID 84 of 2002
WW1 B. Nirmal Kumar
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
: Service Certificate
Ex.W1
: Interview call letter
Ex.W2
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate 10754
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
ID 85 of 2002
WW1 : Y. Mohan Rao
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 : Empanel list ID86 of2002
WW1 : P. Koteswara Rao
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex.W8 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W9 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 87 of2002
WWI : P. Yelamanda
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex.W2 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W6 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID89 of 2002
WW1 : M. Bala Murali Krishna
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Bank audit report
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] ID 91 of 2002
WW1 : M. Rama Krishna
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Caste certificate ID 92 of 2002
WW : D. Ranganayakulu
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 93 of 2002
WW1 : P. Mallikarjun
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Bank circular to employment exchange
:
Ex. WII : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 94 of 2002
WWI : K. Suryanarayana
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 Service Certificate [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ] .
ID95 of2002 WW1 : H.Gangamma
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Empanel list
Ex.W2 : Service Certificate Ex. W3 : Service Certificate ID 96 of 2002 WW1 : B. Venkateswarlu MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Interview call letter Ex. W2 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 98 of 2002 WW1 : M. V. Surendra Kumar MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate Ex. W2 : Empanel list
ID 99 of 2002 WW1 : C. Srinivasa Babu MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate Ex. W2 : Interview call letter Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Caste Certificate Ex. W6 : Marks Memo
Ex. W7 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W8 Service Certificate ID 100 of 2002 WW1 : G. Sai Prasad
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate Ex. W2 : Service Certificate Ex. W3 : Service Certificate Ex. W4 : Notification of the bank
10755
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex.W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 : Bank circular to its regional branches Ex. W8 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex.W9 Bankaudit report ID 101 of 2002
WW1 : A. Nageshwar Rao
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W7 : Transfer Certificate ID 102 of 2002
: P. Laxmiramana
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. Wl : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Empanel list
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 Service Certificate
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate
Ex.W10 : Marks Memo
Ex. W11 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W12 : Transfer Certificate
ID 103 of 2001
WWI : V. S. Habibulla
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list 10756
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex.W7 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 103 of 2002
WW1 : G. Venkata Subbamma
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 Empanel list
Ex. W4 Service Certificate ID 104 of 2001
WW1 : K. Subbanarasaiah
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W7 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 105 of 2001
WW1 B. Sivanarayana
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate ID 105 of 2002
WWI : T. Deva Prasad
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 Interview call letter
Ex. W2 Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate ID 106 of 2001:
WWI : P. Chindambaraiah
MWI : KBalakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Ex: W2 : Absorption letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex.W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate
Ex.W9 : Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Service Certificate
Ex. W11 : Service Certificate
Ex. W12 Service Certificate
Ex. W13 Service Certificate
Ex. W14 : Service Certificate
Ex.W15 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 107 of 2001
WWI : G. Nageswara Rao
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. Wl : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex.W3 : Service Certificate ID 107 of 2002
WWI : Mastanvali
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Interview call letter
Ex. W2 : Empanel list ID 108 of 2001
WW1 : K. Nagaraju
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Application to respondent
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Empanel list
Ex. W6 : Caste Certificate
Ex . W7 : Marks Memo
Ex. W8 : Transfer Certificate ID 108 of 2002
WW1 : Ramesh Babu
MWI : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
Ex.W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 109 of 2002
WW1 : K. Venkateshwarlu
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W6 : Bank circular to its regional branches Ex. W7 : Emp. registration card ID 111 of 2001
WW1 : C. Subbarayudu
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. Wl Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 113 of 2001
WW1 : G. Bhaskar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service particulars of the petitioner ID 116 of 2002
WW1 : Ch. Gangadri
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate ID 117 of 2002
WW1 : V. Raghu
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
10757
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 122 of 2001
WW1 : K. Subramanyam
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1. : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W6 : Failure report ID 123 of 2001
WW1 : R. Babuji
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
: Service Certificate
Ex. W1
Ex. W2 Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex.W4 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W5 Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex.W7 Service Certificate
Ex.W8 Service Certificate
Ex. W9 Service Certificate
Ex. WIO Service Certificate
Ex.W11 : Service Certificate
Ex.W12 : Service Certificate
Ex.WI3 : Service Certificate
Ex.W14 : Letter of respondent
Ex. W15 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W16 : Notice ofALC
Ex. WI7 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W18 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W19 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W20 : Failure report ID131 of2002
WW1 : P. Munaiah
MWI : K.Balakotaiah 10758
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W2
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
: Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate ID 133 of 2002
Ex. W6 : Bank circular to employment exchange WWI : P. Pushparaju
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W7 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 139 of 2002
WW1 : N. Asheef Ahmed
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter :
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex: W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Bank circular to employment exchange
Ex. W7 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 135 of 2002
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate ID 146 of 2002
WW1 : Y. Ramanjini
WW1 : G. Sivaganganna
MW1
: K. Balakotaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.WI Marks Memo
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex . W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate ID 152 of 2001
Ex. W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 Service Certificate
WW1 : B. Bhaskar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate ID 137 of 2002
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
WWI : Smt . Lal Bee
Ex . W2 : Marks Memo
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
;
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex.W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
i
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W6 : Empanel list ID 152 of 2002
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
WWI : A Sree Ramulu
ID 138 of 2002
MW1 : KBalakotaiah
WW1 : Immam Sab
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
MWI K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W4 : Empanel list [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
ID 153 of 2001 WW1 : K.Raghupathi
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate Ex.W2 : Interview call letter Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate ID 153 of 2002 WWI : Ch. Salappa
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank Ex. W2 : Interview call letter Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate Ex. W5 : Service Certificate Ex. W6 : Service Certificate Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
ID 154 of 2001 WW1 : Kappaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate Ex, W2 : Interview call letter Ex. W3 : Empanel list
ID 154 of 2002 WW1 : K.Nagendra
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank Ex. W2 : Interview call letter Ex. W3 : Empanel list ID 155 of 2001 WW1 : P. Gangaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Employment card Ex.W2 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W3 : Marks Memo
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate Ex. W5 : Service Certificate 2800 GI/05-25
10759
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
ID 155 of 2002
WW1 : R. Srinivas Rap
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex.W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W9 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 156 of 2001
WW1 : Y. Venkatadri
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interviewcall letter
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex.W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Service Certificate
Ex. W11 : Service Certificate
Ex.W12 : Empanel list
ID 156 of 2002
WWI : S. Narayanaswamy
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Empanel list
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate ID 157 of 2002
WWI : P. Narayanaswamy
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank 10760
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W4 ServiceCertificate
!
Ex. W5
Service Certificate
محمد
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID158 of2001
WW1
Hariprasad
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex.W3 Service Certificate
Ex. W4 Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W6 Interview call letter
Ex. W7
Empanel list
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W9
Bank circular to its regional branches Ex. W10 Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W11 reply of respondent to Ex. W10 Ex. W12 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W13 : Notice of ALC
Ex.W14 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W15 Failurereport
Ex.W16 : Letter of respondent
Ex. W17 : Reply of respondent to Ex. W16 ID 158 of 2002
WW1 : V Ramesh Babu
MW1 : K Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
ID 159 of 2002
WW1 : P. Prabhakar
MW1
: K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
ID 160 of 2001
WW1 : M. Govindham
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
ID 160 of 2002
WW1 : C. Doddappa
MW1
: K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate ID 162 of 2002
WW1 : S. Balakoteswarao
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Empanel list
Ex.W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W8 : Bank audit report of the bank ID 163 of 2002
WW1 : K. Meeranna
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Emp. exchange recommendation letter Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 164 of 2002
WW1 : K. Ramanjaneyulu.
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Empanel list [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
10761
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 165 of 2002
WW1 : A. Chakrapani
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter ID 171 of 2001
WW1 : P. Siddiramulu
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 : Service Particulars ID 173 of 2001
WW1 : T. Venkatasubbaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
ID 175 of 2001
WW1 : B. Sreeramulu
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Marks Memo
Ex. W5 : Secondary Education Certificate ID 177 of 2001
WW1 : G. Venkatesh
MWI K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Cerificate
Ex.W5 : Empanel list ID 179 of 2001
WW1 : V. Rabi
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 Service Certificate
ID180 of2001
WW1 : V. Narasimha Rao
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex.W4 : Interview call letter
Ex.W5 : Failure report
Ex. W6 Notification of the bank
Ex. W7 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W8 : Bank circular to its regional branches Ex. W9 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W10 : Bank letters to branches
Ex. W11 : Bank letters to branches ID 181 of 2001
WWI : Md. Kashim
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 Marks Memo
Ex. W2 . : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W6 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W7 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex.W8 : Failure report
ID 191 of 2002
WW1 : M. Jayaramareddy
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Notification of the bank 10762
[PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
: Interview call letter
Ex. W2
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex.W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 197 of 2001
Ex. W6 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 193 of 2002
WW1 : K. Raghunath
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
WWI : A. Narasimhulu
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex.W4 Empanel list
Ex.W5
Ex. W4
: Service Certificate
: Service Certificate
ID 200 of 2002
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate ID 194 of 2001
WW1 : A. Ramasekhar
MWI
: K. Balakotaiah
WW1 : N. Sinivasulu
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 Telegram ofrespondent
Ex .W7 : Service Certificate ID 201 of 2002
Ex. W7 Service Certificate
Ex.W8 Service Certificate
WW1 : Ch. Bhagawan
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
ID 195 of 2001
WW1 : K. V. Palliaiah.
Ex.W1 : Service Certificate ID 202 of 2002
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
WW1 : D. Chennakesavulu
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W2 Interview call letter
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 Empanel list
Ex. W4 Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter ID 203 of 2002
Ex. W5 Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
WW1 : T. Jayaramaiah
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
ID 196 of 2001
WW1 : R. Chandrasekhar
Ex . W2 : Interview call letter
MWI
: K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W3 : Empanel list [भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
10763
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
ID 204 of 2001
WW1 : G. Srinivasulu
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W7 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W8 : Failurereport
ID 204 of 2002
WW1 : S. Ramesh
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 205 of 2001
WW1 : Md . Rasool
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Petitioner application to respondent Ex. W6 Notice of ALC
Ex . W7 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W8 : Failure report ID 205 of 2002
WW1 : M. Sridhar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate ID 206 of 2001
WW1 : S. Venkataramana
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate ID 206 of 2002
WW1 : R. Mahalaxmaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex.W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
Ex.W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate ID 207 of 2001
WW1 : M. Krishnaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. Wl : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Nativity Certificate
Ex. W4 : Employment card
Ex. W5 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Respondent letter to petitioner Ex. W9 : Interview call letter
Ex. W10 : Empanel list
Ex. W11 : Service Certificate
Ex. W12 : Minutes ofConciliation ID 208 of 2001
WWI : D. Murugesan
MW1- : K. Balakotaiah 10764
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W5 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W6 Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W7 Failure report ID 216 of 2002
Ex. WS : Service Certificate
WW1 : G..Chandraiah
ID209 of2002
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
WWI : B. Prasad
Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 Caste Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service particular
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Bank letter to petitioner
Ex. WS : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 Interview call letter
Ex. W8 : Interview call letter
Ex. W7 Service Certificate
Ex. W9 : Service particulars
Ex. W8 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W10 : Bank circular to its regional branches Ex. W9 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W11 : Notice of ALC
:
Ex.W10 : Failure report
Ex. W12 : Notice of ALC
ID 213 of 2002
Ex.W13 : Minutes of Conciliation
WWI : C.Pandiyan
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.W14 : Failure report ID 224 of 2001
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
WWI : P. Subrahmanyam
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
MWI : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. WS : Service Certificate
Ex.W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Bank circular to employment exchange
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex: W8 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 215 of 2002
Ex. W7 : Notice ofALC
WW1 : A. Menaiah
Ex. W8 : Notice ofALC
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W9 : Minutes of Conciliation ID 225 of 2001
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
WWI
:
A. C. Sudha
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
MWI
:
K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W4 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W1 Service Certificate [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter Ex.W3 : Service Certificate ID 226 of 2001 WW1 : R. Murthy
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate Ex.W2 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W3 : Marks Memo
Ex. W4 : Employment card Ex. W5 : Caste Certificate Ex. W6 : Service Certificate Ex. W7 : Service Certificate Ex. W8 : Interview call letter Ex. W9 : Interview call letter Ex. W10 : Empanel list
Ex. W11 : Service Certificate Ex. W12 : Appointment letter Ex. W13 : Conciliation notice Ex:W14 : Conciliation notice Ex. W15 : Conciliation minutes Ex. W16 : Failure report ID 227 of 2001 WW1 : D. John Jai Singh MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Transfer Certificate Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate Ex. W5 : Service Certificate Ex. W6 : Interview call letter Ex. W7 : Empanel list
Ex. W8 : Service particulars Ex. W9 : Notice of ALC
Ex.W10 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W11 : Minutes of conciliation Ex. W12 : Failure report ID 228 of 2001 WW1 : R. Prabhakar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
10765
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Ex. WI : Transfer Certificate
Ex.W2 : Study Certificate
Ex. W3 : Marks Memo
Ex. W4 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Empanel list
Ex. W9 : Application of petitioner to bank Ex.W10 : Medical Certificate
Ex.W11 : Service Certificate
Ex. W12 : Service Certificate
Ex. W13 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W14 : Notice ofALC
Ex.W15 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W16 : Failure report ID 229 of 2001
WW1 : S. Ramakrishnaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Empanel list
Ex.W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 230 of 2001
WW1 : D. Krishnamurthy
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex.W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Employment card
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6. : Interview call letter 10766
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service particulars ID 233 of 2001
WW1 : T. Anjaneyulu
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Orders for absorption
Ex. W7 : Proforma list of panel workers Ex. W8 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W9 : Empanel list
Ex. W10 : Bank circular to its régional branches Ex. W11 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W12 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W13 : Notice ofALC
ID 234 of 2001
WW1 : P.Rangam
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Interview call letter ID 235 of 2001
WW1 : U.Jaya Babu
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex. W6 : Interview call letter
Ex. W7 : Empanel list
Ex. W8 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate
Ex.W10 : Service Certificate
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Ex. W11 : Bank circular to its regional branches Ex. W12 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W13 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W14 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W15 : Failure report ID 235 of 2002
WW1 : M. Giridharsingh
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex. W3 : Residential Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 Interview call letter
Ex. W8 Notice of ALC
Ex. W9 Notice of ALC
Ex. W10 : Minutes of Conciliation ID 237 of 2002
WW1 P. Lakshmaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex.W3 : Conduct Certificate
Ex. W4 : Bank letter to petitioner
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex.W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate
Ex.W9 : Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Service Certificate
Ex. W11 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W12 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W13 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex.W14 : Failure report
ID 238 of 2002
WW1 : P. Suresh Babu
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( in ) ]
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 :: Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W9 : Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Service Certificate
Ex. W11 : Service Certificate
ID 241 of 2002
WW1 : P. Nanda Kumar
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Interview call letter
ID 243 of 2001
WW1 : N. RamaRao
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Interview call letter
Ex. W4 : Service particulars ofpetitioner ID 243 of 2002
WW1 : A. Chandraiah
MW1 K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
2800 G1/05-26
10767
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1, 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Ex.W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W3 : Marks Memo
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
Ex. W6 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W7 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W8 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex.W9 : Failure report
ID 245 of 2001
WW1 : G. Chandrasekhar
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex.W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Bankcircular to its regional branches Ex. W8 : Bank circular to employment exchange Ex. W9 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W10 : Minutes ofConciliation
Ex. W11 : Failurereport
Ex. W12 : Respondent letter to its branches Ex. W13 : Respondent letter to its branches ID 247 of 2001
WW1 : N.C.M. Kondaiah
MW1 : K.Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Notification of the bank 10768
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
ID 249 of 2001
Ex. W5 : Interview call letter
W.W1
:
V.Emmanial
Ex. W6 : Notification of the bank
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W7 : Bank circular to its regional branches
Ex. W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W8 : Bank circular to employment exchange
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex.W9 Notice of ALC
Ex. W10 : Minutes of Conciliation
Ex. W3 : Bank circular to employment exchange ID 247 of 2002
Ex. W4 : Bank circular to its regional branches ID 249 of 2002
WW1 : T. Nagaiah
WW1 : M. Ankalaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI : Transfer Certificate
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
Ex.W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex.W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex.W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Employment card
Ex. W5 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W5 Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Notice of ALC
Ex. W6 : Letter regarding interview
Ex. W7 : Minutes ofConciliation
Ex. W7 : Interview call letter
Ex. W8 : Interview call letter
Ex. W8 : Failure report ID 248 of 2001
Ex. W9 : Empanel list
Ex. W10 : Bank letter dt. 27-10-93
WW1 : B. Gaananandam
Ex. WI1 : Service Certificate
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. WI2 : Notice ofALC
Ex. W1 : Marks Memo
Ex.W13 : Notice of ALC
Ex . W2 : Interview call letter
Ex. W14 : Minutes of Concillation
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W15 : Failure report ID 250 of 2001
WW1 : S. K. Mahaboob Basha
Ex. W5 : Minutes of conciliation ID 248 of 2002
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
WW1 : T. Manoharam
Ex. WI : Marks Memo
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex.W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Interview call letter
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate [ भाग II-खंड 3 ( ii ) ]
ID 250 of 2002 WW1 : G. Venkataramana MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W2 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W3 : Caste Certificate Ex. W4 : Service Certificate Ex.W5 : Interview call letter Ex. W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 : Service Certificate Ex.W8 : Failurereport ID 251 of 2001 WW1 : G. Satyanandam MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W2 : Service Certificate Ex. W3 : Service Certificate Ex. W4 : Service Certificate Ex. W5 : Notice ofALC ID 252 of 2001 WW1 : Srinivasarao
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex, W1 : Marks Memo
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate Ex. W3 : Interview call letter Ex.W4 : Empanel list
Ex. W5 : Minutes of Conciliation ID 273 of 2002 WW1 : Y.Mani
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah .
Ex,W1 : Transfer Certificate Ex, W2 : Caste Certificate Ex, W3 : Interview call letter Ex.W4 : Service Certificate Ex. W5 : Interview call letter Ex. W6 : Empanel list
Ex. W7 : Empanel list
Ex. W8 : Service Certificate Ex. W9 : Notice ofALC
10769
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
Ex. W10 : Notice of ALC
Ex.W11 : Minutes ofConciliation
Ex. W12 : Failure report ID 274 of 2002
WW1 : G. Narasimham
MW1 : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W2 : Marks Memo
Ex.W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W7 : Petitioner application
Ex.W8 : Notice of ALC
Ex.W9 : Minutes of Conciliation ID 300 of 2002
WW1 : J. Sankar
MWI : K. Balakotaiah
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W3 : Empanel list
Documents marked for Respondent ( in all 154 cases) Ex.Ml : Settlement dated 17-11-1987
Ex.M2 : Settlement dated 16-7-1988
Ex. M3 : Settlement dated 27-10-1988
Ex. M4 : Settlement dated 9-1-1991
Ex. M5 : Minutes ofConciliation Proceedings dt. 9-6-1995
Ex.M6 : Settlement dated 30-7-1996
Ex. M7 : Memorandum of Understanding dt. 27-2-1997
Ex. M8 : Particulars of 1989 Messenger Panel Ex.M9 Particulars of 1989 Non-Messenger Panel Ex. M10 : Particulars of 1992 General Attendant Panel Ex M11 : Judgement of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in Writ Appeal No. 86/98 and batch dt. 1-5-1998
Ex. M12 : Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP 11886-11888 / 98 dt. 10-8-1998 10770
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर, 2005
R3 : Regional Asst . Manager , SBI, Vijayawada
R4 : BM , SBI, Labbipet branch, Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 23 of 2003
Between : Y. Venkaiah
And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central office, Mumbai
R2 : CGM, SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada का. आ. 3533.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-09-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
R4 : BM, SBI , Main branch , Narsaraopet , Guntur [से. एल-12012/126/2001- आई. आर. ( बी- I ) ] L.C.I.D. 32 of 2003
Between S. Raja Ratnam
अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai New Delhi , the 12th September, 2005
R2 : CGM ,SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada
R4 BM,SBI, Governorpet branch , Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 33 of 2003
Between : K Vijay Babu
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central office, Mumbai
R2 : CGM, SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
) S.O. 3533. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award( of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court . Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on09-09-2005.
R3 Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada
R4 : BM, SBI , Narsaraopet branch , Guntur [ No. L - 12012/ 126/2001 - IR (B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
L.C.I.D. 35 of 2003
ANNEXURE
Between : J. Dass
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2 : CGM, SBI , Bank Street, Hyderabad BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
R3 Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada PRESENT :
R4 BM, SBI , Narsaraopet , Guntur
L.C.I.D. 37 of 2003
Shri E. ISMAIL . B. Sc . , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
Between : T. Narasimha Rao
Dated the 17th May , 2005
L.C.I.D : 13 of 2004
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai Between : Srinivas Rao
R2 : CGM ,SBI , Bank Street, Hyderabad
R3 Regional Asst . Manager , SB1 , Vijayawada And R1 : The Dy. Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
R4 : BM, SBI , Bellamonda branch, Vijayawada L.C.I.D. 18 of 2003
L.C.I.D. 42 of 2003
Between : D. Ratana Prakesh
Between : K. Ramesh Babu
And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central office , Mumbai
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office, Mumbai R2 : CGM ,SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R2 : CGM , SBI . Bank Street , Hyderabad R3 : Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada
R3 : Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada R4 BM.SBI , Governorpc( branch , Vijayawada
R4 BM, SBI , Governorpet branch , Vijayawada L.C.I.D. 21 of 2003
L.C.I.D. 44 of 2003
Between S. Ahil
Between : G. Prakasha Rao
And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central Office . Mumbai
And R1 : Chariman, SBI , Central Office, Mumbai R2 : CGM ,SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R2 : CGM , SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad R3 Regional Asst . Manager, SBI , Vijayawada
R3 Regional Asst . Manager , SBI , Vijayawada R4 BM. SBI , Governorpet branch, Vijayawada
R4 : BM, SBI, Post Box No. 2 branch, Vijayawada L.C.I.D. 22 of 20x 3
L.C.1.D. 47 of 2003
Between : C. Koteswara Rao
Between : Y. Nagavenkata Subba Rao
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central office , Mumbai
And R1 BM, SBI , Ponnur Branch , Guntur R2 : CGM ,SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R2 : CGM , SB1 , Bank Street , Hyderabad 10771
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
L.C.I.D. 48 of 2003
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between : G. Adam
L.C.I.D. 117 of 2003
And R1 BM, SBI , Ponnur Branch, Guntur
Between : M. Venkateshwar Rao
R2 : CGM,SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
L.C.I.D. 82 of 2003
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between : Kattepogu Simon
L.C.I.D. 118 of 2003
Between : M. Raja Rao
And R1 : The Asst . Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 88 of 2003
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between : M. Ramesh
L.C.I.D. 119 of 2002
Between : T. Venkata Swamy
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 89 of 2003
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between : G. Srinivas Rao
L.C.I.D. 120 of 2003
Between : Ch . S.S. Shoban Babu
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 101 of 2003
AndR1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between : Ch . Pardesi
L.C.I.D. 121 of 2003
Between : Bhramaramba
And R1 The Chief Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
R2 : TheGM , SBI , LHO , Hyderabad
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 102 of 2003
L.C.I.D. 122 of 2003
Between : S. Narasimha Rao
Between B. Srinivas Rao
And R1 The Chief Manager , SBI . Zonal Office Vijayawada
AndR1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
R2 : TheGM, SBI , LHO , Hyderabad
L.C.I.D. 130 of 2003
L.C.L.D. 103 of 2003
Between : K. Rama Swamy
Between : V.B. Sundar Rao
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
And R1 : The Chief Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 131 of 2003
R2 : The GM , SBI . LHO, Hyderabad
Between : M.P. Raju
L.C.I.D. 104 of 2003
Between : P. Thomas
And R1 : The Dy. Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.J.D. 132 of 2003
And R1 : The Chief Manager , SBI . Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between : A. Mahendra Mani
R2 : TheGM, SBI , LHO , Hyderabad
L.C.I.D. 111 of 2003
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
Between T. Sai Venu
L.C.I.D. 146 of 2002
Between : P. Joseph
And R1 : The Asstt . Gen. Manager , SBI . Zonal Office Vijayawada
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central office , Mumbai L.C.I.D. 113 of 2003
R2 : CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad Between : A. Uma Meheswar Rao
R3 : Regional Asst . Manager , SBI, Vijayawada
R4 : BM, SBI , Narsaraopet Branch, Guntur And R1 : The Asstt . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 148 of 2002
L.C.I.D. 115 of 2003
Between : M. Royala Babu
Between : M. Satyanarayana
And R1 : Chairman, SBI, Central Office , Mumbai
R2 : CGM, SBI , Bank Street, Hyderabad And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
R3 : Regional Asst . Manager , SBI, Vijayawada L.C.I.D. 116 of 2003
R4 : BM, SBI, Labbipet, Vijayawada Between : C. Ram Babu 10772
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
L.C.I.D. 149 of 2002
Between : M.J. Prashanth Rao
And R1 : Chariman, SBI, Central Office , Mumbai R2 : CGMSBI , Bank Street, Hyderabad R3 : Regional Asstt . Manager, SBI , Vijayawada R4 : BM, SBI , Narsaraopet Branch , Guntur L.C.I.D. 150 of 2002
Between : V. Babu Rac
And R1 : Chariman , SBI , Central Office, Mumbai R2 : CGMSBI. Bank Street , Hyderabad R3 : Regional Asstt . Manager, SBI , Vijayawada R4 : BM. SBI , Machavaram, Vijayawada L.C.I.D. 151 of 2003
Between : V. Subba Rao
And RI : The Dy . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 152 of 2002
Between : K. Venkateshwar Rao
And R1 : Chariman, SBI , Central Office , Mumbai R2 : CGMSBI . Bank Street, Hyderabad R3 : Regional Asstt . Manager. SBI , Vijayawada R4 BM. SBI , Main Branch. Vijayawada L.C.I.D. 152 of 20013
Between : M. Purnachandar Rao
And R1 The Dy. Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 153 of 2003
Between : P. Sudhakar Rao
And R1 : The Dy . Gen. Manager, SBI . Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 154 of 2113
Between : G. Bhaskar Rao
And R1 The Dy . Gen. Manager . SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 155 of 20X13
Between : P. Jayaraj
And R1 : The Dy. Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 156 of 210013
Between : Manikva Rao
AndR1 : The Asstt . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 157 of 2003
Between : M. Babu Rao
And R1 : The Asstt . Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 176 of 2013
Between : G. Vankaiah
And R1 : The Asstt . Gen. Manager, SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] L.C.I.D. 177 of 2003
Between : T. Prasada Rao
And R1 : The Asstt . Gen. Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
L.C.I.D. 194 of 2003
Between : N. Pulla Rao
And R1 : The Asstt . Manager , SBI , Zonal Office Vijayawada
R2 : TheGM . SBI , LHO, Hyderabad
APPEARANCE :
For the Petitioner
: S /Shri Vikas , S. Prasad Rao . Adinarayana, Narulla Baig. C. Vijaya Sekhar Reddy . Niranjan Rao , Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar Smt . B. Lalita Kumari , Advocates .
AWARD
The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 12012 / 126/ 2001 - IR ( B - I) dated 18-9-2001 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal . between the management of State Bank of India and their workman . The reference is:
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India . Local head office , Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar . Temporary /Non -Messenger . STATE BANK OF INDIA w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not , what relief the applicant is entitled ? "
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as 1. D. No. 222 of 2001 and notices were issued to the partics . The Government of India has referred about 500 such references and in view of the judgeinent of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8.395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others , about 250 Petitioners have filed cases directly under Section 2 (A) (2 ) of the ID Act . It will not be possible or practicable to answer every case separately . As the main issues involved are one and the same , I am of the opinion that all of them can be decided in groups by giving common awards , this group which I am now dealing pertains to Vijayawada Zone & this reference and 48 others 2 ( A) ( 2 ) Petitions a common award is passed .
To begin with I ain quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975. 1 have not only to consider merely the technical aspects . powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference but I will also have to see viewing it as a human problem . These cases remind me of a poem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and I find no better 10773 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
way than to start my award by quoting the entire poem ofFaiz ,
"Humility I've learnt , sympathy for the poor,
learnt the meaning of despair, suffering and pain; learnt to comprehend the miseries of the oppressed, the meaning ofcold sighs , ofpallied faces.
Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to cry,
Inwhose eyes tears, bittelry shed , fall asleep .
And those destitute upon whose morsels swoop down
the vulture hovering above , poised on their wings Whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of thelabourer,
and on the highways flows the blood of the poor, a sort of fire upsurges in my bosom and I lose all hold over my heart . "
As I stated supra, these cases have got a chequered history and instead of myself narrating the same, I think it would be better to write down what he stated in his claim statement of this particular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statements in all the cases filedby the Petitioners .
the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee . Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed inorder of their respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December , 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement is specifically provided that henceforth, "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category , "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines ofthe bank " . The workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers . The last date for respondingto the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . A written examination, followed by viva -voce in May , 1989 washeld. Aselected panel was prepared, as per clause 7 of the agreement, i.e. , settlement No. 1, the selected panel was tobe validupto December, 1991 , the workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-91 by the said letter it.is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17-11-87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into between the parties. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, " To all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments . " The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view ofthe enormity ofthe problem an extension of the currency ofthepanel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, " will be given another chance to appear for interview" .
5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in ID No. 222/2001 has filed the following claim statement . That the workman joined in the services of the management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services were terminated by oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997. The workman submits that he is erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of State Bank of India. He belongs to Scheduled Caste, he passed IX class . The qualification is VIII standardwhich is prescribed for the post of messenger. TheManagement of Bank has decided to give a chance to temprarily employed personnel found suitable for permanent appointment by waitlisting them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting them till such opportunity arises.
8. In fact, there is some confusion in the claim statement , but actually another panel was prepared. There were total five settlements , settlement dated 17-11-87 is the Ist settlement (Ex. M1 ) , settlement dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement (Ex . M2 ), settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex . M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 , is 4th settelement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement (Ex. M6). In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex. M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with it a question oftime before appointments or services are regularization inthe services ofthe bank . The workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope thatsooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
6. That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India-settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is , (A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975, (B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 . (C) (i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or ( ii ) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1-7-1975.
7. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee the said selection committee would determine the suitability ofthe said candidate for permanent appointment. Therefore , the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workman then prescribed certain
9. The Government of India issued circular No. F-3/3/104/87- IR, dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the Chief Executives of all public sector banks including theManagement herein were specifically instructed that until the problem ofexisting temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments. That some of the persons similarly situated like this Petitioner aggrievedby the inaction on the part of the Management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not ciearly 10774
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]
reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a face to unfair labour practice .
11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88 and 27-10-88 . The bank in the guise of extending the benefits ofthe circular of Government dated 16-8-90 stated in its counter affidavit as follows : " Government of india , vide its letter dated 16-8-1990 , issued guidelines to the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitlted to benefit of Section 25 -F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired , they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6 (h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days , the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days . As such , it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned . The approach paper also specify at para 6 (c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for thatpurpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1-1-1982 could be considered for re - employment in terms of the scheme . The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
focusing the vacancy position, file W.P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court A.P. It is specifically averred inthe said Writ Petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Honble High Court of A.P. by anorderdated 5-3-97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time . It also directed thebank to carryout the terms of the settlement before the expiry ofMarch, 1997. The High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement. In view of the directions grantedbytheHigh Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on thebasis ofthe agreement entered into on 17-1-1-87 under which the panelwas valid upto December, 1991 , and on the basisofa settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panel were made alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the panel was valid upto December , 1999. The other agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on thebasis of the settlement dated 27-10-1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the directionsgivenbythe High Court on 5-3-1997 in W.P. No. 4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties , the bank issued proceedings dated 25-3-1997, dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97. The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the workmen herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Honble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25-3-97, 27-3-97 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Petitioners therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18( 1 ) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service.
As couldbe seen from the above , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6 ( k ) of the approach paper , it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the points and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . This would mean that theGovernment of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise . As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days . As such , question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives. " 10. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9206/97, the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks , it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre . It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice . It is designed to, on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by thebank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
12. The workman submits that the bank also referred a further settlement dated 9-1-1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period . Therefore , their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the workman herein as it does not specify the termination of theemployees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/attenders/ sweepers etc. , even after the judgement of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein . It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circular issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Honble Court in Writ Petition. No. 4194/97 , dated 5-3-97 . In view of the circulars issued by Central Government the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9-1-1991. Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal , unjust , violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The workman submits that the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 and batchby an order dated 1-1-1998 . It is pertinent to mention that as a matter of fact the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings of fact :
"(1) That the candidates had appeared for written examination and a Viva Voce Test . They therefore, satisfied a procedure of objective criteria in theprocess of selection
(2) The life of the panels were admittedly extended by the bank beyond its initial life -span.
(3) Inspite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation of the services of the employees who were continued to be in the panel , the above workmen were continued to be engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997 , 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997.
(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive till allthe empanelled candidates were absorbed.
(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees are absorbed and regularized in the services of thebank.
(6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation of being regularized in the services ofthe bank.
(7) Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services ofthe bank, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the 2800 G1/05-27
10775 services of the workmen but to terminate their services even if they were otherwise eligible forregularization.
(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contrarytothe ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. V. Sundara- mani reported in AIR 1976 SC 1111 .
(9) The status of the workmen vis - a-vis the bank needed no probe.
(10) That theBipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealing with the question of temporary workmen pointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is not only violation of Bipartite Agreement of the Desai Award that after the said period, the status of the employees is that of regular employees .
(11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners , is totally right in contending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except to know whether they have been implemented or enforced . Therefore , it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or flouted by the Respondent bank in its true and real implications."
14. The workman submits that in W.P. No. 4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein they have complined about the non - impiementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement , the Court held that the members of the Union had been empanelled in the list , they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-87 asamended from time to time before the expiry of31-3-97.
15. Further , judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way theywill be referred to while referring the arguments . It is further averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the clause 10 of thestatement it is specifically mentioned that the workman. to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlemnts . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelledcandidates . The Management has indulged in 10776
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] unfair labour practices . The Management has committed unfair labour practice and terminated the services of candidates form 1-4-97 which is arbitrary , discriminatory , contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India.
depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches . It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments .
16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapseby a so - called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25-2-1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the workman after 31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec . 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India . This amounts to retrenchment without one months notice and taken in view of such notice . Thus , the main proceedings are issued in cleanable exercise of power , without jurisdiction, arbitrary , illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97, Ex. M5 does not appoint the workman and its own legal entity, the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the workman whose rights are being affected. Submitted that the Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its instructions dated 16-8-90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies . The Management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here. It is not pertinent to note/mention here that the Respondent Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June , 1997 , subsequentto the passing of impugned termination orders . After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates . It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination . It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even intemporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies . Hence , the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjut , illegal , violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management is directed to reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits .
17. Acounter was filed with the following averınents . Thatthe reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is respectfully submitted thatto tide over severe sub - ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies , exigencies , etc. , and also owing to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India /Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub - ordinate staff like messengers , sweepers , sweeper cum water boys , etc ..
18. Discussions were held and on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the ManagementBank under Sec . 2 (p ) read with Sec . 18( 1) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17-11-87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here . In the first settlement , itwas agreed that the temporary employees as categorised would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies whichare likelylikel to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17-11-1987 . This is the second settlement . A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the banks service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered . Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper . The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union . In respect oftemporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6 (h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1-1-82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or moredays , the bank by way of a further concessions entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered . Hence , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as 10777 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies . However, para 6 (k) ofthe approach papermade it clear that it is a one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 herein after referred as 4th settlement . And the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees , casual/daily wagers . It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual /daily wagers , they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only .
under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and term of the settlements are also binding on him/her . The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions ofthe terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is non- compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31-3-1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed . In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank . That the settlements are binding on the parties . The Petitioner is also bound under the terms of the said settlement . That settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the banks services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed inpermanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context . It is submitted that the period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term ofthe settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could notbe accommodated for want ofvacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization. That the Hon'ble High Court in WR No. 12964/94, held as follows, " It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Petitioners also . It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management. If the Petitioner has worked in the bank on part -time basis before 31-5-94 , that itselfwould not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post . The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable . However, it is poen to the Petitioner to claim any right which flowsfrom the settlement between the union and the bank Management. As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement is favour of the Petitioner has been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant thekind of reliefsought for by the Petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. "
20. If the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been 19. It is submitted that the administrative set up of theHyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlements the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone- wise separately for messengers and non- messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. , 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 . That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commission ( C) for implementation ofbi -partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank . It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper . A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec . 2(p ) read with Sec . 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 , which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement . That on 27-2-1997 a Memorandum of Understanding was also signed by the Federations affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non -messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30-7-1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels . The Petitioner who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. In fact, the case of the Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered 10778
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence, there is noquestion of any legitimate expectation being violated.
24. The Chief Manager ( Per & HRD ) . Sri A. Rama Rao deposed to the facts as stated in the counter, as MWI and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , Judgement , the appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP. In the cross examination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated. He denied that all should have been absorbed . He agreed that no notice or pay in lieu there off was given. Thatall these Petitioners were asked not to come . He denied thatthere are still number of vacancies . He does not know whetherMr.M. Lingam, claimant in ID No. 236/2001 working inBarkatpura branch and Mr. Ravi Kanth in ID No. 59/2002 working in Parishram Bhavan branch.
21. Similarly placed ex -employees filed WP No. 9206/ 1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions . Aggrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge . Thereafter the ex-temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP . Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequency as the same has already been set aside . The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec . 25 F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence , the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
22. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition . He further deposed that he worked for 93 days but he was given certificate only for 55 days before interview. That he worked between 1988-97 for 843 days . That as per the norms he also fits in category B and he speaks about the settlements and he further deposed that on 18-11-93 , 800 contract labourers were made permanent by the bank . By then, their existing panels were still not completed. That till dated the bank is still continuing with some persons who are form the panel by making pick and choose method and it is also claimed by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C ) that some of these employees are still working . In Ex. W10 itself if was mentioned that still temporary employees were continuing against permanent vacancies and sweepers were not being appointed on regular basis , canteen employees were being used for messengerial work , ex - temporary workers are still being used for performing messengerial work.
25. Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners . Mr. Prasada Rao , Mr. Prabhakar. Mr. Vikaas etc. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalf of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao , Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and they were given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services of the respondent by way of settlements . Instead they were removed from serviceby oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the claimants ,while engaging third parties on temporary basis , apart from re- engaging some of the claimants on temporary basis as messengers/non - messengers . The said action of the respondent is high handed, unilateral , arbitrary and colourable exercise of power apart from being amounts to unfair labour practice . It is an admitted case of the respondent that it has 805 branches all over the State whereas the Respondent has 827 branches . That it consists of four modules, Hyderabad, Vijyawada , Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi . That the counsel is appearing for 100 claimants for Hyderabad module . Like wise they are appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing . All these claimants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions of the Central Office and Local Head Office . In order to settle the issue of temporary employees and to streamline the same these settlements were entered into in pursuance of the decision takenby the Respondent to give a chance for absorption. There are five settlements , one Memorandum of Understanding, one conciliation proceedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination . One example may be taken of a Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who worked both in messenger cadre and non -messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days . The break - up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988, which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank . hebelongs to SCcommunity . He has passed 9th class, though the qualification for the post of messenger is 8th class . That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the settlement they were made toworkwith artificial breaks . Though they were empanelled and given a hope that their cases will be considered for absorption . The same was not considered . On the other hand their services were orally terminated on 31-3-1997 asking them . not to attend duties from 1-4-97 . Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered into between the bank and in 23. In the cross examination he deposed that the Branch Manager, Local Head Office Branch, State Bank of India , was known to his father who was a Mali in the bank. After introducing him to the Branch Manager he requested him for providing work to the Petitioner as a temporary messenger . Accordingly , he was given appointment as messenger on temporary basis in 1988 for 55 days and later he had worked as messenger on temporary basis now and then . He was not sponsored by any employment exchange . That he used to work depending on the availability of work inthe branch. That he applied for appointment as messenger inresponse to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1991. He was called for interview and his name was included in the panel of temporary messengers in the year 1992. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel . That he is not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days was given appointment in the bank . He did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service. That he appeared for interview as per the settlements and the settlements expired on 31-3-97.
10779
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
before this Court . That the ultimate object of Industrial Adjudication has been received by all as one of revolutionary import which admits its task not on purely theoretical , abstract , academic grounds adhearing to any dogmas, or applying abstract principles mechanically or under any sub - consciousness pressures pre - conceived notions , theories or ' isms ' but since to evolve working principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner . The interest of proper judicial enquiry including the collection, collation and analysis of relevant facts . Therefore, it becomes highly significant in industrial matters. The Supreme Court right from Bharath Banks case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest Airports Authority case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance of the ignorance ofthe working class and important of their rights restating principles of social justice. The present trend of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests of not only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are so wedded that they cannot be separated in all contexts and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to servive in this world. As observed by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Association of Austrialia Vs. State of Australia which was also quoted in the State of Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case " in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in ... " .
the last settlement it is specially mentioned that the non- messengerial posts shall be filled in before 31-3-1997 before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse . The Government of India had issued a circular dated 16-8-90 wherein it is specifically stated that the concerned authorities have to follow. the procedure in the approach paper for regularization who are on the rolls of the bank. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments . Inspite of the clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issue oftemporary employees before passing impunged oral orders on the other hand, they are engaging third parties and some ofthe claimants are still working on temporary basis . In fact he has given the list of atleast 46 candidates who are before this Court still working in Hyderabad module, Vijayawada module there are as many as 26 candidates working, in Tirupathi module 43 are working, even in Visakhapatnam module four areworking. Before the 5th settlement take place there was a conciliationproceeding wherein it was specifically agreed, as regards for filling of messengers posts as already beenordered, the remainder number will be filled before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of an understanding thatmay be reached after ascertaining correct procedure with regard to the number of messenger posts to be created in terms of settlement . Another joint committee will be constituted to review existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . " And having agreedthat coolly dispensed them by oral order on 31-3-1997. The question that there are no vacancies is false. In fact , there are number of vacancies in all the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly , new persons were engaged by the Respondent apart from engaging some of the claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997. In order to show that there are vacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis . Sample copies of proceedings of the bank which show that some of the claimants were re-engaged after 1-4-1997 is also submitted with a separate statement who were engaged after their oral termination and who are continuing till today. In fact, instead of entering into a fresh agreement as settled before the conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all cannons of justice . The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao , Sr. Advocate and further more arguments have been advanced by him and several Judgements were cited which will be dealt in due course.
27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way of life for everyone in Bharat Republic. The poor workmen and common men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right to work and right to adequate means of livelihood in just and humane conditions of work, to living wage , a decent standard of life , education and leisure . Article 43 (A) 43 Constitution Amendment Act , 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry .He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore , in interpreting the constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to build up continuity of socio , economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the Law should constantly need the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order. Therefore , the concepts engrafted in the Statute require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violence to the language . Then he further argues and reiterates the facts of the settlements which need not be repeated here .He further argues that the Memorandum of Understanding is not correct , because the last settlement doesnot provide for lapsing of the empanelled candidates . the bank is obliged for implementation of the empanelled candidates and not for lapsing the panels. That in the case ofall the applicants with respect to whom that the principles of fair play , equity and consciousness and justice is 26. Sri S. Prasada Rao , Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a boon to the industrial development which aims at (a) Investigation and settlement ofIndustrial Disputes, (b) to keep social justice as a main criteria, (c) Progress of Industry , and (d) Harmony and cordial relations . He submits that in the case of Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1342 , it was held that, " Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction togrant interim relief also . " The applicants are employees of the State Bank of India and they have worked for a periodwhich is noted in the list of cases which are pending 10780
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] required. The workers have fundamental right to live under Articles 14 , 15 and 16 which can neither waived nor taken away. Since many of the applicants are jobless and have worked for longer periods , upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived of their livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered. That the State Bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. , A.P. Shops & Establishments Act. Sec . 2A(2) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners . These arguments need not be repeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India
He submits that it was a legitimate expectation of these employees . No doubt, one may not have a right but Courts have recognized that in such cases like these cases a legitimate expectation was created by the bank by taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 and we are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the conciliation officer that a further settlement may be entered into after 31-3-97 all of a sudden a Memorandum of Understanding is entered into and thousands of people are given a good- bye. All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered. That about 35000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected . It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there will be more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered, they will fall short of total vacancies .
28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikaas , Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short, the State Bank of India has committed the following illegalities ; 1. unfair labour practice, vitiated by colourable exercise of power, 2. impugned oral orders of termination without authority on 31-3-97, 3. the exercise of the said power is violative of article 14 and Sec . 19( 2) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, 4. the purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as if it's back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements they have created legitimate expectations of absorption to these poor workmen who have been running around since 1975 , the order not to engage is a non - speaking order. Further several of these persons although were terminated arestill working, if there is no work how these persons are working? The argument that due to computerization lesser staff is required does not hold good because the work of attenders could only be done by robots which have not yet come in India, hence , waterboys, sweepers and for odd work, still the services of the attenders are required . Thosc who were made to understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after all the so - called Memorandum of Uridertaking is to defeat the purpose of settlements wherein the effected parties are not even consulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec . 23 of the Contract Act .
29. 1 now refer to the cases cited by various Advocates . The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao , AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101
wherein a full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal of a permanent employee without assigning any reason, their Lordships held , is arbitrary unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy. He also relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571 , this dealt with the rule empowering the Government corporation to terminate services of its permanent employees by giving notice or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violative of Articles 14 , 39( a) and 41. He also relies on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248 , their Lordships held , that an agreement can be challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised even by a person who had earlier consented to the agreement. They further held that the illegal contract , cannot constitute and effect and accord satisfaction . He also relies on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that . " We have no doubt that the precedents on the point , the principles of industrial law, the constitutional sympathy of Part IV and the sound rules of statutory construction converge to the same point that when a notice intimating termination of an award or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is set for fresh negotiations or industrial adjudication and until either effort ripens into a fresh set of conditions of service the previous award or settlement does regulate the relations between the employer and employees . " He also relied on 1999 ( 5 ) ALD 1992 (D.B. ) . General Manager , State Bank of Hyderabad and another Vs. P. Ramulu, wherein their Lordships referred to the circular of the Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approach paper in the recruitment as well as in absorption of temporary employees as follows. " For the staff which is presently on the rolls of the Banks their services will be regularized in terms of the Approach Paper. For the current requirement banks may utilize their existing panel of temporary employees and in case these employees were not taken from the employment exchanges the Banks whold be required to approach the DGE & T directly seeking exemption. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is full resolved no Bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments . " In that case para 6, all employees who had put in 90 or more days after the cut off date i.e. , 1-1-982 will only be eligible for considering the scheme. The Respondent in the Writ Petition has put in more than 90 days before the said out off date. Their Lordsltips held that as per the scheme one time opportunity each a person who had completed 90 days of temporary service as on 1-1-1982 and also after 1-1-1982 shall be regularized by empanelling him for the post.He also referred to Supreme Court employees . Welfare Association Vs. Union of India wherein it was held , that it is well settled principle of law that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under article 136 of the Constitution , by such disınissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisaged by article 141 of the Constitution. He also relied on 1997 (6) Supreme Court cases page564, which is to the same effect . He also relied on 2003 (4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their Lordships held, it is well settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reason that order whoul not constitute a binding precedent. He also relied on 2003 Supreme Court 10781 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
case page 231 which reiterate the same . He also relied on AIR 2002 Supreme Court page 3088 wherein their Lordships held, " the High Court and all other courts in the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court , but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility to find out the ratio of the decision and ascertain the law, if any , so declared from a careful reading of decision concerned and only thereafter proceed to apply appropriately. " He also relied on 2003 (7) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein it was held, "Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case , the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided . Statements whichare not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative . The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into the facts , it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice . Precedents sub-silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all , nor every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statment having the weight of authority. " He also relies on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 . Supplementary IV Supreme Court cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. State ofU.P. and Others ; wherein, their Lordships held, " since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the Writ Petition that 40 per cent of the total number of post had not been filled by promotion , in as much as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents . " He therefore , submits that the Petitioners have alleged in the petiton that there were about 1500 vacancies and it has not been controverted, hence, this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has been admitted by the bank.
overtime wages paid. Finding of the Industrial Tribunal that workman has worked 240 days in a calendar year is legal and proper . " He also relied on 1995 Supplementary (4) Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordships directed regularization of services of the Petitioners who. had worked for three years including the break till today, shall not be terminated and shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as and when they arise . He also relied on 1991 supplementary (2) SCC page 363 wherein it was held, the change of service rules cannot be made in the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to the change . He also relied on 1986 , Supreme Court page 954 wherein it was held , " such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise then in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec. 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen any who are not parties in the settlement . " He also relied on 1993 ( 1 ) SCC page 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held as follows : " In contractual sphere as in all other State actions , the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non - arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ' fairplay in action ' . Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities , with this element forming anecessary component of the decision - making process in all State actions . To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bonafides ofthe decision in a given case . The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness . Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic , but provides for control of its exercise byjudicial review. [Para 8 page 91 ] . "
He also relied on the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 (4) Supreme Court cases page 118, wherein their Lordships held if for any reason, an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. He also relied on 2001 (1 ) LLJ wherein their Lordships held that, " so far as the work -charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualification , ifany, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there 30. He also relies on LLJ 2004 February page 227 , wherein it was held, " the Respondent was working as a part-time sweeper in the organization of the Petitioner . After fifteen years of service , the Respondent was terminated from service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part-time employee also falls withinthe defintion of workman under Section 2 (s) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore , awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . The High Court also retreated the findings of the Labour Court and stated that as long as the ingredients of Sec. 2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee has been appointed as a regular, permanent/ temporary or daily wages , casual or part -time. " He also relied on LLJ 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ page 323 wherein the High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the bus driver on an average worked for 20 days in a month but was paid wages for one month. Average working hours 10-12 hours and no 10782
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
determined not according to the claimants' perception but in larger public interest . " He also relied on 19977 SCC 592 wherein it was held that the selected industries (Respondents) with which the agreements were entered into by the State Govemment legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice . The doctrine of "legitimate expectation has beenjudicially recognized by the Supreme Court. The doctrine of " legitimate expectation operates in the domain ofpublic law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right . He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 wherein it is held that-the law must therefore be now taken to be well - settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of article 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a stature or statutory rule or rules of orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right , just and fair not arbitrary. fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice is calculatedto securejustice or to put it negatively , to prevent miscarriage ofjustice , it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi -judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. Therefore , fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must bejust , fair and reasonable . The manner of exercise of power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformitywith the principles of natural justice . Article 21 clubs life with liberty , dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence .When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice , it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates . Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness . It is , thereby, conclusively held by this court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable . He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein it was observed" the right to life includes right to livelihood . Therefore cannot hand on to the fancies of the individuals in authority . The employment is not a bounty from them nor can it servival be at their mercy . Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income the right to work becomes as much fundamental . Fundamental rights can ill - afford to be consigned to the limbo ofundefined premises and uncertain application . That will be mockery of them.
is regular need for his services . In such a situation , it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person . " He also relied on Judgment of the High Court of Patna reported in 2003 III LLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed, " All said, the claim of such persons who have remained in the employment of the State for long periods, those who have spent the golden period of their lives in the service of the State, those who with the passage of the time have become eligible for appointment elsewhere cannot be ignored altogether. " He also relied on 1995 (2 ) Supreme Court Cases 326where the Full Bench of the Supreme Court held, " In situation where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passedby a public authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation . The expression which is said to have originated from the Judgement of Lord Denning in Schmidt Vs. Secy . of State for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong KongVs. Ng Yuen Shiu Privy Council applied this principle where expectations where " based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of, the public authority " and observed, " Accordingly ' legitimate expectations' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights , provided they have some reasonable basis . A person may have a legitimate expectation ofbeing treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment . " He also relied on 1998 (7) Supreme Court Cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has it genesis in the field of administrative law . The Government and its Departments , in administrating the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intentionyor intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion. The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively . Continuing their Lordships further held, though the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fairplay in administrative action, it may, in a given situation, be enforced as a substantive right . The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court hits some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b ) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either ( i ) he had in the past been permitted by the decision -maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment ; or ( ii ) he has received assurance from the decision - maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn . Indian scenario in the field of legitimate expectation is not different. The question whether the expectation and the claim is reasonable or legitimate , is a question of fact in each case . This question had to be
Mr. Vikas , appearing for various Petitioners cited variousjudgements sonie of them are 19987 SCC page 804 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staff of Income Tax Department some of them [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
working from 8 years , directions issued to pay such workmen at the rate equivalent to minimum pay in thepay scale of the regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption. He also relied on AIR 1990 Supreine Court page 2228 where in it was held that the Kerala Water Supply and Civil Water Authority shall immediately regularize the services of Public Health Department employees as per its resolution dated 30-1-1987 without waiting for the State Government approval . They also directed those who have put in less than one year service age bar may be waved etc. Several more citations he filed about regularisation . He also relied on 1996 I Service Law Reporter Supreme Court of India page 56 wherein it was held, workman in the employment in the State of Forest Department for 5 to 6 year and in each year they worked for a period ranging 100 to 330 days workmen employed under the schemes at hand been so done . To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularize them amounts to unfair labour practice and various other judgements and further added to his arguments that by further arguing that these cases are the most fit for regularization as some of them are working from 1975 .
Mr. Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs TN Jaya Ram wherein it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned single judge held that the Petitioner had not worked continuously for a period 30 days . The learned single judge relied on Category Cof the settlement to arrive at the said conclusion . Their Lordships allowed the Writ Apppeal on the ground, in view of the fact that "the Petitioner falls short of the required 30 days by 4 days , the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity inthe employment of the bank" .
Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate , Shri Prabhakar Rao , Advocate on behalf of Shri Ramachandra Rao . Advocate and Shri Prasad, Advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners who have been unceremoniously dismissed on 1-4-1997 and some of them are still continuing and it is not only a question on industrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioners who worked since more than two decades.
It is argued by the Learned Counsel for Responde Shri BG Ravinder Reddy , Advocate and Smt . Lalita Kumari , Advocate that the hon'ble CGIT -cum- Labour Court is fully empowered to decide the disputes which are pending before it in the LCIDs and ID . That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the branches for short periods atthe instance of concerned Branch Manager who had no jurisdiction to appoint them . They are not employees of the State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure . The daily wagers /casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited . That the Petitioners were engaged by the concerned branch managers to meet the exigencies ofwork at intermittent intervals and they cannot be termed as employees of the bank on temporary basis in 2800 G1/05-28
10783 any identified post or vacancy. That the Petitioners have no statutory right to seek any relief tinder the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioners have not put in continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act . It is to be examined whether they standa chance for absorption as per the settlements . That the Petitioners failed to implead the All India SBI Staff Federation asparty to the dispute before this court to seek interpretation of the settlements. As such, the cases are bad for non -joinder of necessary party. That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancies are less than 100 each year . The SBI has absorbed Messengers andNon-messengers totalling to inore than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgement that the settlement are repugnant to Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the Memorandum of Understanding and the Theory of Legitimate Expectations has no place in the settlements. That in terms of the 5 settlements , the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive upto 31st March, 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Administrative instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 as there were no vacancies . That the question of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz, ifon any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointment are made on adhoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if their services are required by the Bank . In any case , backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could never be effected.
They also relied on several cases , in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Corut held that the mere inclusion of a candidates name in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected . Some vacancies remaining unfilled after process of selection finally closed- candidate not appointed-No discrimination. They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post . They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 684 Syndicate Bank Vs. Sankarpal wherein it was held that if a waiting list is for specific period the waitlisted candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses . They also relied on 1997 4 SCC 283 Sanjay Vs. Union of India where the Hon'ble. Supreme Court held that waitlisted candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies . He also relied on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 where it was held- Stop gap appointees or temporary appointees do not have any right for continuous or for regularization .
Smt. Lalitha Kumari, Advocate for Respondent relied on 2004 Vol . IV SLT page 947 which was a Judgement from Madras High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment held in violation of mandatory provisions of statues ignoring minimum education 10784
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] qualifications , wholly illegal . Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality .
reference to the board of settlement, to a court for enquiry , to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication..
It is also his apprehension genuinely expressed that driving the Petitioners to such forums for such disputes could be nothing less than pushing the hapless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry mount of the wild life ."
But both of them mainly relied on the Judgement of Hon'bleHigh Court of Orissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 in which it was held that only those casual workers who were in the waiting list of the barık (panels ) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies of the bank . As the select list came to an end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgement of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Suprente Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP (CC) 3082/99 .
Be that may be so . The above Judgement was set aside by writ appeals by division bench holding that the matter has to be dealt with and settled by the parties under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court . Against which a Special Leave Petitions were filed which were dismissed .
i
He further argued that even those who have completed 240 days also cannot claim regularization as the very entry was irregular and they got any right it is through the agreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Supreme Court held that any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds . Such regularization is jeopardizes the larger public interests. So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance .And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is an all India agreement and the Hon'ble SChas dismissed the SLP on Merits, hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Petitions may be dismissed.
The position now is that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 those who have completed 240 days in a year has some right as notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation . But all of them entered into settlements , no doubt , these persons are not members of the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation . But those who have worked even for 30 days in a calendar year or 70 days in 36 calendar months and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements entered into by All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements . But for the settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year others do not have any right under the ID Act . And this is a all India problem and unfortunately for the Petitioners the same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex . M6 herein , was discussed by the Orissa High Court in OJC No 9039 of 1997 (WP) and batch , which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Wherein it was held " the currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the impugned decisions/ settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997 . It is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have not been fixed . We do not think itnecessary to go into this hypothetical questions . Against which SLP was filed in the Hon'ble SC which dismissed saying the SLP is dismissed on merits . In fact all these references or 2 ( A) (2 ) are about their termination. For example the reference is " Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of India , Local Head Office . Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non - Messenger, State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled ? " Actually if they had any grievence that the bank had agreed vide minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-1995 , vide Ex . M5. they should have approached conciliation officer raising a dispute that no joint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . As the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa also stated in the end of the judgeinent , it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated , the same canbe questioned before the appropriate from/ authority. The reference here is whether termination is justified or not .
As stated in the beginning, these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 2005. To suin up the entire facts in a nut shell , the entry of these persons was as casual employees . Seeing the enornity of the situation the SBI and all India SBI staff federation entered into various agreements . The candidates were called for interview and were empanelled . The last agreement was dated 30-7-1996 (Ex . M6 ) which was to lapse on31-3-1997. Then there was a Memorandum ofunderstandingdt . 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary employees , daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997 . There was an conciliation dated 9-6-1995 vide Ex . M5 wherein before the conciliation officer it was agreed that another joint committee will be constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come into effectfrom 1-4-97. No suchjoint committee was constituted nor any fresh settlement came into effect from 1-4-1997 . Carrot was dingled before the workers for number of years creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good -bye to all the employees on 31-3-1997 . Their hopes were further raised by the Judgement of the High Court which held " the Petitioners/employees who were on duty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deemed to be on duty and shall be entitled to all the benefits of such a post and they shall be immediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some supernumerary posts within 3 nonths from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to which they were entitled as on that date , till they are absorbed " . In fact the Hon'ble single judge stated in the Judgement which 1 quote " Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , Learned Sr. Counsel appearning for the Petitioners have never controverted such a factual and legal position . Such a dispute in any forın existing and even apprehended definitely could be a subject of 10785
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons , their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of persons involved and the great expectations raised but justice has to be rendered as per law . Therefore in view of the Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits when the SLP was dismissed on merits , I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri Anil Kumar and 48 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Beforeparting with the case, I feel it apt to direct the Respondent "which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India " to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary daily wages / casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities of the expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with mercy. I was constrained to follow the settled law position , but my conscience prompted me to issue the above directions , which I hope and trust will be honoured by the Respondent bank . While so considering, the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable grounds as the above category employees have spent long time with the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization of their services .
As Ihave to follow the settled law & the position in which 1 found myself while delivering this award it prompted me to describe the condition of these petitioners as depicted in the poem of Faiz Ahmed Faiz quoted at the beginning of the Award .
Typed by LDC to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of May , 2005 .
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence
Documents marked for Petitioners LCID 13 of 2004
WWI : T Srinivas Rao
Ex . WI : Service Certificate
LCID 18 of 2003
WWI : D. Ratna Prakesh
Ex . W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex W 2 : Service Certificate
Ex W3: Service Certificate
Ex W 4: Service Certificate
Ex W 5 : Service Certificate
ExW 6: Emp. exchange card
Ex W7: Study Certificate
Ex W 8: Transfer Certificate
Ex W 9 : Empanel list
Ex W 10: Interview call letter
Ex W 11 : Stay order
ExW 12 : 1992 empanel list
Ex W 13 : Notice to respondent
LCID 21 of 2003
WW1 : S. Anil
Ex. W 1: Service Certificate
Ex W2: Service Certificate
ExW3: Service Certificate
ExW4: Service Certificate
ExW5: Transfer Certificate
ExW6 : Caste Certificate
ExW7: Emp . exchange card
ExW 8: Interview call letter
Stay order ExW9:
ExW 10: 1992 empanel list
Ex W 11 : Notice to respondent
LCID 22 of 2003
WW1 : C. Koteswara Rao
EW1 : Service Certificate
Ex W2: Service Certificate
ExW3: Caste Certificate
Ex W4 : Transfer Certificate
ExW5 : Interview call letter
ExW6: stay order
Ex W 7: 1992 empanel list
Ex W 8: Notice to the respondent
LCID 23 of 2003
WW1 : Y. Venkaiah
ExW1 : Service Certificate
ExW2 : Service Certificate
ExW3 : Service Certificate
Ex W 4: Service Certificate
ExW 5 : Service Certificate
Ex W6 : Transfer Certificate
ExW7: Caste Certificate
Ex W8 : Empanel list
ExW 9 : Employment card
Ex W 10: Interview call letter
Ex W 11 : Stay order
Ex W 12: 1992- empanel list
Ex W 13 : Notice copy
LCID 32 of 2003
WW1 : S. Raja Ratnam
ExW 1 : Service Certificate
ExW-2: Service Certificate
ExW3: Service Certificate
ExW 4: Caste Certificate
ExW5: Study Certificate
ExW6: Transfer Certificate
Ex W 7 : Employment card
ExW8 : Interview call letter
ExW 9: Stay order
Ex W 10 : 1992 empanel list
Ex W 11 : Petitioner's empanel list
Ex W 12: Copy of Notice to respondent
LCID 33 of 2003
WW 1 : K. Vijay Babu 10786
ExW 1 : Service Certificate ExW 2: Service Certificate ExW3 : Service Certificate ExW4 : Service Certificate ExW5 : Service Certificate ExW 6 : Service Certificate ExW7 : Service Certificate Ex W 8 : Marks Memo
Ex W 9 : Transfer Certificate Ex W 10 : Caste Certificate
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Ex W 11 : 1992 cmpanel list
Ex W 12 : Notice to Respondent
LCID 44 of 2003
WWI : G. Prakasha Rao
ExW1: Service Certificate
Ex W2: Empl . exchange card
ExW3: Transfer Certificate
Ex W 4: Caste Certificate
ExW 5: Interview call letter
ExW6:
Stay order
ExW 11 : Driving Certificate ExW 12: Employment card ExW 13: Interview call letter Ex W 14 : Stay order
Ex W 15 : 1992 empanel list Ex W 16: Notice to respondent LCID 35 of 2003
WW1 : J. Dass
Ex W1 : Service Certificate Ex W7: 1992 empanel list
Ex W 8 : Notice to Respondent
LCID 47 of 2003
WW1: Y. Nagavenkata Subba Rao
Ex W 1: Service Certificate
ExW 2: Notice to respondent for employment
Ex W3: Acknowledgement card for Ex . W2
LCID 48 of 2003
WW1 : G. Adam
ExW 2 : Service Certificate ExW3 : Transfer Certificate ExW 4: Caste Certificate ExW 5 : Empanel list
Ex W6 : Employment card ExW7 : Interview call-letter ExW 8: Stay order
Ex W 9 : 1992 empanel list Ex W 10: Notice to respondent LCID 37 of 2003
WW1 : T. Narasimha Rao ExW 1: Service Certificate Ex W 2: Service Certificate Ex W3 : Service Certificate ExW4: Employment card ExW 5: Transfer Certificate ExW6: Empanel list
Ex W7: Interview call letter Ex W 8: Stay order
Ex W 9 : 1992 empanel list Ex W 10 : Notice to respondent LCID 42 of 2003
WW1 : K. Ramesh Babu ExW1 : Service Certificate Ex W2: Service Certificate ExW3 : Service Certificate ExW4: Service Certificate ExW 5 : Transfer Certificate ExW 6 : Caste Certificate Ex W7 : Xth Marks Memo ExW8 : Empanel list
ExW 9 : Interview call letter ExW 10 : Stay order
ExW 1: Service Certificate
Ex W2 : Notice to respondent for employment
Ex W3 : Acknowledgement card for Ex . W2
LCID 82 of 2003
WW1: Kattopogu Simon
ExW1: Service Certificate
ExW 2: Service Certificate
ExW3 : Service Certificate
ExW4: Service Certificate
ExW5: Service Certificate
ExW 6: Service Certificate
Ex W 7 : Service Certificate
Ex W8: Letter of respondent
Ex W 9 : Interview call letter
ExW 10 : Order in WP No. 7838/1995
Ex W 11: Notification of the bank panel
Ex W 12: Appointment letter of 80 members of 2nd panel ExW 13 : Transfer Certificate
LCID 88 of 2003
:
WW1 : M. Ramesh
Ex W1 : Service Certificate
Ex W 2: Notification of the bank
ExW3 : Empanel list
LCID 89 of 2003
WW1 : G. Srinivas Rao
ExW 1 : Service Certificate
ExW 2 : Notification of the bank
LCID 101 of 2003
WW1 : Ch . Pardesi
Ex W 1 : Notification of the bank
Ex W2: Empanel list
Exs W3 to W 9 are Service Certificates
Ex W 10 : Lapse circular [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Ex. W 11 : Paper Advertisement Ex. W 12 : Second Empanel list Ex. W 13: Transfer Certificate Ex. W 14: Caste Certificate
Ex. W 15: Emp . Registration Card LCID 102 of 2003
WW1 : S. Narasimha Rao
Ex. W 1: Notification of the Bank Ex. W 2: Interview Call Letter Ex. W3 : Empanel List
Ex. W4: Service Certificate Ex. W 5: Service Certificate Ex. W 6 : Service Certificate Ex.W 7: Service Certificate Ex. W 8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 9: Lapse Circular
Ex W 10 : Paper Advertisement Ex. W 11: Second Empanel List Ex. W 12 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W 13: Emp . Registration Card LCID 103 of 2003
WW1 : V.B. Sundar Rao
Ex. W 1 : Notification of the Bank Ex. W 2: Service Certificate Ex. W 3 : Service Certificate Ex. W 4: Lapse Circular
Ex. W 5 : Paper Advertisement Ex. W 6 : Second Panel List Ex. W 7 : Transfer Certificate Ex. W 8 : Caste Certificate
LCID 104 of 2003
WW1 : P. Thomas
Ex. W 1 : Notification of the Bank Ex. W 2: Interview Call Letter Ex. W 3 Empanel List
Ex. W4: Service Certificate Ex. W5: Service Certificate Ex. W.6: Service Certificate Ex. W 7 : Lapse Circular
Ex. W & Paper Advertisement Ex. W 9: Second Panel
Ex. W 10: Transfer Certificate Ex. W 11: Caste Certificate
Ex. W 12 : Emp. Registration Card Ex. W 13 : SSC Marks Memo LCID 111 of 2003
WW1 : T. Sai Venu
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate Ex. W 2 : Service Certificate Ex. W 3: Service Certificate Ex. W 4: Service Certificate Ex. W 5: Caste Certificate
10787
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Ex. W6: Emp. Exchange Card
Ex. W 7 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W 8 : Marks Memo
Ex. W9 : Service Particulars
LCID 113 of 2003
WW1 : AUma Meheswar Rao
Ex. W 1 : Study Certificate
Ex. W 2: Service Certificate
Ex. W 3 : Emp. Exchange Card
Ex. W4 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W 5 : Marks Memo
Ex. W 6 : Service Particulars
Ex. W7: Letter of Absorption
Ex. W 8 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 9 : Application for Interview
LCID 115 of 2003
WW1 : M. Satyanarayana
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Notification of the Bank
LCID 116 of 2003
WW1 : C. Ram Babu
Ex. W 1: Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Notification of the Bank
LCID 117 of 2003
WW1 : M. Venkateshwar Rao
Ex. W 1: Service Certificate
Ex . W 2: Notification of the Bank
LCID 118 of 2003
WW1 : M. Raja Rao
Ex. W 1: Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Notification of the Bank
LCID 119 of 2003
WW1: T. Venkata Swamy
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Notification of the Bank
120 of 2003 LCID
WW1 : Ch . SS Shoban Babu
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 2: Notification of the Bank
LCID 121 of 2003
WW1 : Bhramaramba
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex . W 2 : Notification of the Bank
LCID 122 of 2003
WW1 : B. Srinivas Rao
Ex. W 1: Service Certificate
Ex. W 2 : Notification of the Bank
LCID 130 of 2003
WW1: K. Rama Swamy
Ex. W 1: Service Certificate
Ex. W 2: Service Certificate
Ex. W3: Service Certificate 10788
LCID 131 of 2003
WWI: K. Rama Swamy
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex . W 2 : Service Certificate
Ex . W 3 : Service Certificate
LCID 132 of 2003
WW1 : M. Mahendra Man
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W 2: Service Certificate
Ex. W 3 : Service Certificate
LCID 146 of 2002
WW1 : P. Joseph
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 2: Service Certificate
Ex. W 3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 4: Service Certificate
Ex. W 5: Service Certificate
Ex . W 6: Transfer Certificate
Ex. W 7: Caste Certificate
LCID 148 of 2002
WWI : M. Royala Babu
Ex . W 1: Service Certificate
Ex. W 2: Study Certificate
Ex. W3 : Employment Card
Ex. W 4 : Empanel List
Ex . W 5: Caste Certificate
Ex . W 6 : SSC Marks Memo
Ex . W 7 : VII Marks Memo
Ex. W 8 : Interview Call Letter
Ex. W9 : Stay order
Ex. W 10: 1992 Empanel List
Ex. W 11 : Notice
Ex. W 12 : Postal acknowledgements LCID 149 of 2002
WWI : M.J. Prashanth Rao
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex . W 2: Service Certificate
Ex . W 3 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W 4: Transfer Certificate
Ex. W 5 : Physicalyl Handicapped Certificate Ex. W 6 : Empanel List
Ex. W 7 : Interview Call Letter
Ex. W 8 : Stay Order
Ex. W 9 : 1992 Empanel List
LCID 150 of 2002
WWI : V.Babu Rao
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex . W 2: Service Certificate
Ex. W 3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 4: Service Certificate
Ex. W 5: Caste Certificate
Ex. W 6: Transfer Certificate
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) Ex . W 7 : Employment Card
Ex. W 8 : Interview Call Letter
Ex. W 9 : Stay Order
Ex . W 10: 1992 Empanel List
LCID 151 of 2003
WW1 : V. Subba Rao
LCID 152 of 2002
WW1 : K. Venkateshwar Rao
Ex . W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 5 : Transfer Certificate
Ex. W 6 : Interview Call Letter
Ex . W 7 : Marks Memo
Ex. W 8 : Employment Card
Ex . W 9 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W 10 : Interview Call Letter
Ex. W 11 : Stay Order
Ex. W 12 : 1992 Empanel List
LCID 152 of 2003
WW1 : M. Purnachandar Rao
Ex W1: Service Certificate
Ex. W 2 : Notification of the Bank
Ex . W 3: Service Certificate
LCID 153 of 2003
WWI : P. Sudhakar Rao
Ex . W 1 : Service Certificate
LCID 154 of 2003
WW1 : G. Bhaskar Rao
Ex . WI : Service Certificate
LCID 155 of 2003
WW1 : P. Jayaraj
Ex . WI : Service Certificate
LCID 156 of 2003
WW1 : Manikya Rao
Ex. W 1 : Service Certificate
Ex . W 2: Emp. Exchange Card
Ex . W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex . W 4 : Income Certificate
Ex. W 5 : Cast Certificate
LCID 157 of 2003
WW1 : M. Babu Rao
Ex. W 1 : Interview Call Letter
Ex. W 2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 3 : Emp. Exchange Card
Ex. W 4: Service Certificate
Ex. W 5 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 6 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 7 : Service Certificate
Ex. W 8 : Caste Certificate
Ex. W 9 : Transfer Certificate 10789
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
LCID 176 of 2003
WW1 : G. Venkaiah
ExW1: Study Certificate
ExW2 : Service Certificate
ExW3: Service Certificate
ExW 4 : Caste Certificate
LCID 177 of 2003
WW1 : T. Prasada Rao
ExW1 : Study Certificate
ExW2: Service Certificate
ExW3 : Caste Certificate
LCID 194 of 2003
WW1 : N. Pulla Rao
Ex W1 : Notification of the Bank
ExW2: Empanel List
ExW3 : Service Certificate
ExW.4: Service Certificate
ExW 5: Lapse Circular
ExW6: Paper Notification of theBank
ExW7 : Second Panel
ExW8 : Transfer Certificate
Ex W 9 : Emp . Registration Card
Documents marked by Management (inall the48 cases)
Ex. M1: Settlement dated 17-11-1987
Ex. M2 : Settlement dated 16-7-1988
Ex. M3: Settlement dated 27-10-1988
Ex. M4 : Settlement dated 9-1-1991
Ex. M5: Minutes of Conciliation Proceedings dt. 9-6-1995 Ex. M6: Settlement dated 30-7-1996
Ex .M7 : Memorandum of Understanding dt . 27-2-1997 Ex.M8: Particulars of 1989 Messenger Panel Ex. M9: Particulars of 1989 Non -Messenger Panel Ex. M10: Particulars of 1992 General Attendent Panel Ex. M11 : Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in Writ Appeal No. 86/98 and batchdt. 1-5-1998 Ex. M12: Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP 11886-11888/98 dt. 10-8-1998
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT :
E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. LLB. , Presiding Officer Dated the 17th May 2005
LC 11 of 2003
Between: C. Srinivasa Rao
And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central Office, Mumbai R2: CGM, SB1, Bank Street , Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager, SBI, Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI, Addanki
LC 12 of 2003
Between: B. Subramanyam
And R1 : Chairman, SBI, Central Office, Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager, SBI , Tirupathi
R4: BM, SBI, Addanki
LC 13 of 2003
Between:G. Subbaiah
And R1: Chairman , SBI, Central Office , Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4: BM. SBI, Paruchuru , Prakasham District LC 14 of 2003
Between: A. Channaiah
And R1 : Chairman, SBI, Central Office, Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI, Addanki
LC 15 of 2003
Between : J.V. Ch . Subba Rao
And RI : Chairman, SBI , Central Office , Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI, Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI , Markapur
LC 16 of 2003
Between : L. Jakriah
And R1: Chairman, SBI , Central Office . Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager, SBI, Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI , Pokuru
LC 17 of 2003
Between: J. Srinivasa Rao
And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central Office , Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4: BM,SBI , Addanki
LC 19 of 2004
Between : A. Narsimhulu
And R1 : CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad R2: AGM, SBI , Zonal Office Tirupathi
LC 19 of 2003
Between: M.C.
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office, Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street , Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI, Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI , Kandukuru 10790
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
LC20 of 2004
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]
LC30 of 2003
Between: M. Nalappa
Between: G. Lingaiah
And R1 : CGM, SBI Bank Street , Hyderabad R2: AGM, SBI Zonal Office , Tirupathi LC 21 of 2004
Between : A. Sidappa
And RI: CGM , SBI Bank Street , Hyderabad And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM , SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI , Kandukar
LC 31 of 2003
Between : J. Rana Rao
R2: AGM, SBI Zonal Office , Tirupathi LC 22 of 2004
Between : M. Zilani Basha
And RI : CGM , SBI Bank Street , Hyderabad R2: AGM, SBI, Zonal Office , Tirupathi LC 24 of 2003
Between: G. Issac
And RI : Chairman, SBI, Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM , SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI , Addanki
LC 34 of 2003
Between : Jyothi Rosiah
And RI: Chairman, SBI, Central Office , Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI Bank Street, Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi R4 : BM, SBI , Podih
LC 25 of 2003
Between: S.K. Kaleshah
And R1 : Chairman, SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM, SBI , Bank Street, Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4: BM, SBI, Addanki
LC 36 of 2003
Between : Anjenailulu
And RI : Chairman , SBI, Central Office , Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI Bank Street , Hyderabad R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi R4 : BM, SBI , Kandukur
LC 26 of 2003
Between : Ch . Prabhakar
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM, SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4 : BM, SBI , Ongole
LC 38 of 2003
Between: M. Ayyala Reddy
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office, Mumbai R2: CGM , SBI Bank Street, Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi R4 : BM, SBI , Kandukur
LC 27 of 2003
Between : T. Akka Rao
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street, Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager , SB1 , Tirupathi
R4 : BM , SBI , Kandukuru
LC 39 of 2003
Between: M. Anjaiah
And R1: Chairman, SBI , Central Office , Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI Bank Street, Hyderabad R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi R4 : BM, SBI , Addanki
LC 28 of 2003
Between : J. Narsinga Rao
And R1: Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Muinbai R2: CGM,SBI Bank Street , Hyderabad R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi R4 : BM , SBI , Kandukur
LC 29 of 2003
Between : M. Yohosluna
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office ,Muinbai R2: CGM ,SBI Bank Street , Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi R4 : BM , SBI , Addanki
And R1 : Chairman , SB1 , Central Office, Mumbai
R2: CGM , SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4: BM , SBI , Addanki
:
LC 40 of 2003
Between: Y. Musalaiah
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM, SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4: BM , SBI , Pokuru
LC 41 of 2003
Between: Nagabhushana Sarma
And R1 : Chairman , SBI , Central Office , Mumbai
R2: CGM , SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3: Regional Manager , SBI , Tirupathi
R4 : BM , SBI , Cumbum [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
10791
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
LC 43 of 2003
Between : S. Devadas
And R1 : Chairman, SBI, Central Office,Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street, Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager, SBI, Tirupathi R4: BM, SBI, Kondepi
LC 45 of 2003
Between : N.V. Narasimham
And R1 : Chairman, SBI, Central Office, Mumbai R2: CGM, SBI, Bank Street, Hyderabad R3: Regional Manager , SBI, Tirupathi R4 : BM, SBI, Valitivaripalem
LC 46 of 2003
Between : Y. Raju
And R1 : The Manager , SBI , Pedaraveedu, Prakasham R2 : AGM, SBI , Zonal Office , Tirupathi R3: CGM , SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad LC 95 of 2003
Between: NapaDanamma
And R1 : CGM, SBI (Personnel ) L.H.O. Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 96 of 2003
Between : K. Prabhakar Rao
And R1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 97 of 2003
Between : K. Riazzuddin
And R1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street , Hyderabad
LC98 of 2003
Between : C. Subrahmanyam
And R1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 99 of 2003
Between : K. B. Tulasiram
And R1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street,Hyderabad
LC 100 of 2003
Sadu China Mala Kondaiah
Between :
And R1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 114 of 2003
Between P. Venkata Ravi
And R1 : AGM, SBI, Tirupathi
LC 139 of 2003
Between Y Sam Sonaiah
:
And RI
CGM. SBI . (Personnel) , LHO , Bank Street . Hyderabad
2800 G1/05-29
LC 140 of 2003
Between : P. Sanjeevaiah
AndR1 : CGM, SBI, (Personnel), LHO , Bank Street,Hyderabad
LC 141 of 2003
Between : B. NageshwaraRao
AndR1 : CGM, SBI, (Personnel) , LHO. Bank Street,Hyderabad
LC 142 of 2003
D. Ramakrishnaiah
Between :
And R1 :
LC 143 of 2003
T. Manohar Babu
Between :
AndR1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 144 of 2003
Between : N. Krishaiah
AndRI : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ), LHO , Bank Street , Hyderabad
LC 145 of 2003
:
Between
T. Yesudas
AndRI : CGM, SBI, (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street,Hyderabad
LC 146 of 2003
M. Pakkirappa
Between :
And R1 : CGM, SBI, (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 147 of 2003
Between : M. Ramudu
AndR1 : CGM, SBI, (Personnel) , LHO. Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 158 of 2003
N. Venkata Ramana
Between :
AndRl : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) . LHO. Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 159 of 2003
Between : P. Gangamma
And R1 : CGM, SBI , ( Personnel ) , LHO , Bank Street.Hyderabad
LC 160 of 2003
Between : M. Manohar
AndR1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 161 of 2003
Between : G. Chinna Venkataiah
AndR1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel) , LHO, Bank Street, Hyderabad
LC 183 of 2003
Between : A. Balaraju
AndR1 : CGM, SBI, (Personnel) , LHO , Bank Street, Hyderabad 10792
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] LC 189 of 2003
Between : N.Munuswamy
These cases remind me of a poem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and I find no better way than to start my award by quoting the entire poem ofFaiz,
And R1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ), LHO , Bank $treet, Hyderabad
LC 190 of 2003
Between : B. Manohar
"Humility I've learnt, sympathy for the poor, Learnt the meaning of despair , suffering and pain; learnt to comprehend the miseries of the oppressed, the meaning of cold sighs, of pallid faces.
AndR1 : CGM, SBI , (Personnel ) , LHO, Bank Street. Hyderabad
Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to cry,
LC 2009 of 2002
Between : J. Prasad Rao
Inwhose eyes tears , bitterly shed, fall asleep , And those destitute upon whose morsels swoop down
AndR1 : Chairman, SBI, Central Office, Mumbai
R2
CGM,SBI , Bank Street , Hyderabad
R3 : Regional Manager, SBI , Tirupathi
the vultures hovering above, posed on their wings Whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of the labourer,
R4 : BM, SBI , Markapur
APPEARANCES
and on the highways flows the blood of the poor , a sort of fire upsurges in my bosom and I lose all hold over my heart . "
For the Petitioner : S/Shri C. Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, S. Prasad Rao , Advocates
Forthe Respondent : S/Shri B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Sint . B. Lalita Kumari , Advocates
As I stated supra , these cases have got a chequered history and instead of myself narrating the same , I think it would be better to write down what he stated in his claim statement of this particular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statements in all the cases filed by the Petitioners .
AWARD
TheGovernment of India, Mintstry of Labour by its order No. L - 12012/ 126/ 2001 - IR (B. I) dated 18-9-2001 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofIndia, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non- Messenger , STATE BANK OF INDIA, w.e.f. 31-3-1997is justified or not ? If not , what relief the applicant is entitled?"
5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in ID No. 222/ 2001 has filed the following claim statement . That the workman joined in the services of the Management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in 1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services were terminatedby oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997 . The workman submits that he is erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of State Bank of India . He belongs to Scheduled Caste , he passed IX class . The qualification is VIII standard which is prescribed for the post of messenger . The Management of Bank has decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel found suitable for permanent appointment by waitlisting them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting them till such opportunity arises .
6. That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India- settlement one . under this settlement three categories of employee were listed. That is , A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975 , B ) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 . C) ( i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or ( ii ) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1-7-1975 .
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 222 /2t001 and notices were issued to the parties . The Government of India has referred about 500 such references and 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 , about 250 Petitioners have filed cases directly under Section2 (A) ( 2 ) of the ID Act. It will notbe possible or practicable to answer every case separately. As the main issues involved are one and the same. I am of the opinion that all of them can be decided in groups by giving common awards , this group which I am now dealing pertains to Tirupathi Zone & this reference and 53 other 2 (A) (2) Petitions a common award is passed .
4. To begin with I am quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975. 1 have not only to consider merely the technical aspects , powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference but I will also have to see viewing it as a human problem .
7. The persons who satisfied in all the above + categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee the said selection committee would determine the suitability ofthe said candidate for permanent appointment . Therefore, the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workman then prescribed certain the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying 10793 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1, 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlistedby a selection committee. Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December , 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement is specifically provided that henceforth, " there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre", except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, " from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines ofthe bank " , the workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers . The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . A written examination followed by viva - voce in May , 1989 was held. A selected panel was prepared, as per clause 7 of the agreement , i.e. , settlement No. 1 , the selected panel was to be validupto December, 1991 , the workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-1991 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreeement dated 17-11-87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into between the parties . In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, " to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments . The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96 , circular made it clear that inview ofthe enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel , eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, " will be given another chance to appear for interview" .
focussing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Honble High Court of A.P. It is specifically averred in the said Writ Petition that the Management of thebankhad failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Honble High Court ofA.P. byanorder dated 5-3-97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time . It also directed thebank to carryout the terms of the settlement before the expiry of March , 1997. The High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement . In view of the directions grantedby theHigh Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17-11-87 under which the panel was valid upto December , 1991 , and on the basis of a settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the plane was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27-10-1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis ofthe said reasonable expectation . Unfortunately, contrary to the directions given by the High Court on 5-3-1997 in W.P. No. 4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered intobetween the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25-3-1997 , dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97 . The said order was followed by the Management . Aggrieved by the said action the workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and theAssistant General Manager (Respondents 3,4 and 5 therein) on 25-3-97, 27-3-97 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non -continuance of the Petitioners therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18 (1 ) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service .
8. In fact, there is some confusion in the claim statement , but actually another panel was prepared. There were total five settlements , settlement dated 17-11-87 is the 1st settlement (Ex.M1 ) , settlement dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement (Ex . M2) , settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex.M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement (Ex. M6) . In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex. M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with its a question oftime before appointments or services are regularized in the services ofthe bank. The workman was working with thebank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank . He isthereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9206/97, the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre. It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged . Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to , on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank . A reading of the counter affidavit would sitow that the bank would opines the being just fair and 9. The Government of India issued circular No. F-3/ 3/104/87 - IR, dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the Chief Executives of all public sector banks incuding the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved , no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments . That some of the persons similarly situated likethis Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Management of the bank in not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly 10794
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice.
11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88 and 27-10-88 . The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Govemment dated 16-8-90 stated in its counter affidavit as follows...." Government of India , vide its letter dated 16-8-1990 , issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25 - F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union . In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less . a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6 (h ) , it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days , the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days . As such , it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned . The approach paper also specify at para 6 ( c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for thatpurpose temporary employees worked in the bank on orafter 1-1-1982 could be considered for re - employment in terms of the scheme . The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
As could be seen from the above , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies .
Itisfurther submitted that at para 6(k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise As such , it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days . As such , question ofviolation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives" .
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 12. The workman submits that the bank also referred a further settlement dated 9-1-1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect that the panel of temporary employees and the panel ofdaily wage employees will be operated to a particular period . Therefore , their cases will not be considered . The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the workmen herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact, there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers / attenders/ sweepers etc. , even after the judgement of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein . It is submitted in spite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4194/97 , dated 5-3-97 . In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9-1-1991 . Hence , the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust , violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India .
13. The workman submits that the Honble High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 and batch by an order dated 1-1-1998 . It is pertinentto mention that as a matter of fact the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings of fact:
( 1 ) That the candidates had appeared for written examination and a Viva Voce Test. They . therefore , satisfied a procedure of objective criteria in the process of selection .
(2) The life ofthe panels were admittedly extended by the bank beyond its initial life -span .
(3) In spite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation of the services of the employees who were continued to be in the panel , the above workmen were continued to be engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997 . 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 .
(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive till all the empanelled candidates were absorbed.
(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees arc absorbed and regularized in the services of thebank .
(6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation of being regularized in the services of the bank.
(7) Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services ofthe bank, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the 10795 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
services of the workmen but to terminate their services even if they were otherwise eligible for regularization.
among the empanelled candidates . The Management has indulged in unfair labour practices . The Management has committed unfair labour practice and terminated the services of candidates form 1-4-97 which is arbitrary, disciminatory , contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India.
(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contraryto the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. V. Sundara Mani reported in AIR 1976 SC 1111 .
(9) The status of the workmen vis -a-vis the bank needed no probe..
(10) That theBipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealing with the question of temporary workmenpointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of 3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is not only violation of Bipartite Agreement of the Desai Award that after the said period, the status of the employees is that of regular employees.
(11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , the Learned Counsel forthe Petitioners, is totally right incontending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except toknowwhether they have been implemented or enforced . Therefore, it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or flouted by the Respondent bank in its true and real implications ."
14. The workman submits that in W.P. No. 4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein they have complained about the non - implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement , the Court held that the members ofthe union had been empanelled in the list , they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31-3-97.
16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so -called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25-9-1997, that the action of terminating such employees like the workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which can not be allowed to be perpetuated . That the discontinuance of the workman after 31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment . It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec . 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justiceguaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one months notice and taken in view of such notice . Thus , themain proceedings are issued in cleanable exercise of power, without jurisdiction , arbitrary , illegal and therefore liable to be quashed . That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97, Ex. M5 does not appoint the workman and it's own legal entity, the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the workman whose rights are being affected. Submitted that the Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its ' instructions dated 16-8-90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies . The Management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here . It is not pertinentertinent to note/mention here thatthe Respondent Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June , 1997 , subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders . After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates . It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination . It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies . Hence , the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjust, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and hence , the Management is directed to reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits .
17. A counter was filed with the following averments . That the reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is respectfully submitted that to tide over severe sub- ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave 15. Further, judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way they willbe referred to while referring the arguments . It isfurther averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the clause 10 of the statement it is specifically mentioned that the workmen to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlements . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from 10796
THE GAZETTEOF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] vacancies , exigencies , etc. , and also owing to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/ ReserveBank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub -ordinate staff like messengers , sweepers , sweeper cum water boys, etc. , depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches. It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its ' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than240days oftemporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments .
envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days , the bank by way of a further concessions entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered . Hence , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies. However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period , in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 herein after referred as 4th settlement. And the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees , casual /daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/ daily wagers , they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
18. Discussions were held and on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management Bank under Sec . 2(p ) read with Sec. 18( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17-11-87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed an 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above , it need not be repeated here . In the first settlement , it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorised would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank'sservice against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17-11-1987. This is the second settlement. A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the banks service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper . The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 daysof service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6 (h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1-1-82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines
19. It is submitted that the administrative set up ofthe Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices ( Zones ) at Hyderabad , Vijayawada , Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh . In Terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagres denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption . These panels were prepared zone -wise separately for messengers and non - messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. , 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 . That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) for impleınentation of bi -partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank . It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March , 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper . A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec . 2 (p ) read with Sec . 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 , which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement . That on 27-2-1997 a Memorandum of Understanding was also signed by the Federation's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non - messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly . It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30-7-1996 both [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
10797
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitionerhas been denied by the bank Management. Therefore, I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant thekind of relief sought for by the Petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs ."
20. If the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry , which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also toArticles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence, there is no question of any legitimate expectation beingviolated.
21. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No. 9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions .Aggrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was field and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge . Thereafter the ex - temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP . Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside . The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever . The question of operation of Section 25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts . Hence , the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
22.. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition . He further deposed that he worked for 93 days but he was given certificate only for 55 days before interview . That he worked between 1988-97 for 843 days . That as per the norms he also fits in category B and he speaks about the settlements and he further deposed that on 18-11-93, 8100 contract labourers were made permanent by the bank . By then , their existing panels were still not completed . That till date the bank is still continuing with some persons who are from the panel by making pick and choose method and it is also claimed by Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) that some of these einployees are still working . In Ex . W10 itself it was mentioned that still temporary employees were continuing against permanent vacancies and sweepers were not being appointed on regular basis , canteen employees were being used for messengerial work, ex - temporary workers are still being used for performing messengerial work .
the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997 . That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels . The Petitioner who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. In fact, the case of the Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/ her . The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlement . That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is non- compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements . These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31-3-1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank . That the settlements are binding on the parties . The Petitioner is also bound under the terms of the said settlement . The settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context . It is submitted that he period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law . These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization . That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 12964/94, held as follows , " It is needless to state that the settleinent arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is the majority union and the bank Management isbinding on the Petitioners also . It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management . If the Petitioner had worked in the bank on part -time basis before 31-5-94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on perinanent basis against a full time cadre post . The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable . However, it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management . As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has
23. In the cross examination he deposed that the Branch Manager, Local Head Office branch , State Bank of India , was known to his father who was a Mali in the bank. After introducing him to the Branch Manager he requested him for providing work to the Petitioner as a temporary messenger . Accordingly , he was given 10798
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] appointment as tmessenger on temporary basis in 1988 for 55 days and later he had worked as messenger on temporary basis now and then . He was not sponsored by any employment exchange . That he used to work depending on the availability of work in the branch . That he applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1991 . Hewas called for interview and his name was included in the panel of temporary messengers in the year 1992 . Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel . That he is not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days was given appointment in the bank. He did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service . That he appeared for interview as per the settlements and the settlements expired on 31-3-97 .
24. The ChiefManager (Per & HRD ) , Sri A. Rama Rao deposed to the facts as stated in the counter , as MW 1 and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , Judgement, the appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP . In the cross examination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated . He denied that all should have been absorbed . He agreed that no notice or pay in lieu there off was given . That all these Petitioners were asked not to come . He denied that there are still number of vacancies . He does not know whether Mr. M. Lingam , claimant in ID No. 236/2001 working in Barkatpura branch and Mr. Ravi Kanth in ID No. 59/2001 working in Parishram Bhavan branch .
25. Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners , Mr. Prasada Rao , Mr. Prabhakar, Mr. Vikaas etc.. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalf of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao , Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and they were given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services of the Respondent by way of settlements . Instead they were removed from service by oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the claimants , while engaging third parties on temporary basis , apart from re - engaging some of the claimants on temporary basis as messengers/ non - messengers . The said action of the Respondent is high -handed, unilateral , arbitrary and colourable exercise of power apart from being amounts to unfair labour practice. It is an admitted case of the Respondent that it has 805 branches all over the State whereas the Respondent has 827 branches . That it consists of four modules , Hyderabad , Vijayawada , Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi . That the counsel is appearing for 100 claimants for Hyderabad module : Like wise they are appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing. All these claimants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions of the Central Office and Local Head Office . In order to settle the issue of
temporary employees and to streamline the same thesc settlements were entered into in pursuance of the decision taken by the Respondent to give a chance for absorption . There are five settlements , one Memorandum ofUnderstanding , one conciliation proceedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination. One example may be taken of a Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who worked both in messenger cadre and non - messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days . The break - up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988 , which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank . He belongs to SC community. He has passed 9th class , though the qualification for the post of messenger is 8th class . That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the sellements they were made to work with artificial breaks . Though they were empanelled and given a hope that their cases will be considered for absorption . The same was not considered. On the other hand their services were orally terminated on 31-3-1997 asking them not to attend duties from 1-4-97 . Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered into between the bank and in the last settlement it is specifically mentioned that the non - messengerial posts shall be filled in before 31-3-1997 before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse . The Government of India had issued a circular dated 16-8-90 wherein it is specifically stated that the concerned authorities have to follow the procedure in the approach paper for regularisation who are on the rolls of the bank. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments . In spite of the clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issuc oftemporary employees before passing impugned oral orders on the other hand, they are engaging third parties and some of the claimants are still working on temporary basis. In fact he has given the list of atleast 46 candidates who are before this Court still working in Hyderabad module , Vijayawada module there are as many as 26 candiates working, in Tirupathi module 43 are working , even in Visakhapatnam module four are working . Before the 5th settlement take place there was a conciliation proceedings wherein it was specifically agreed , " as regards for filling of messsengers posts as already been ordered , the remainder number will be filled before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of an understanding that may be reached after ascertaining correct procedure with regard to the number of messenger posts to be created in terms of settlement. Another joint committee will be constituted to reveiw existing norms and réach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . " And having agreed that coolly dispensed them by oral order on 31-3-1997 . The question that there are no vacancies is false . In fact , there are number of vacancies in all the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly , new persons were engaged by the Respondent apart from engaging some of the claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997 . In order to show that there are vacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 10799 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis. Sample copies ofproceedings of the bank which show that some of the claimants were reengaged after 1-4-97 is also submitted with a separate statement who were engaged after their oral termination and who are continuing till today. In fact , instead of entering into a fresh agreement as settled before the conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all cannons ofjustice . The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao , Sr. Advocate and further more arguments have been advanced by him and several Judgements were cited which will be dealt in due course .
towork andright to adequate means of livelihood injust and humane conditions of work, to living wage , a decent standard of life, education and leisure . Article 43 (A) 43 Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry. He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore , in interpreting the constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to build up continuity of socio, economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the Law should constantly meet the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order . Therefore, the concepts engrafted in the Statute require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violence to the language . Then he further argues and reiterates the facts ofthe settlements which need not be repeated here . He further argues that the Memorandum of Understanding is not correct , because the last settlement does not provide for lapsing of the impanelled candidates the bank is obliged for implementation of the empalled candidates and not for lapsing the panels . That in the case of all the applicants with respect to whom that the principles offair play, equity and consciousness and justice is required. The workers have fundamental right to live under Article 14, 15 & 16 which can neither waived nor taken away . Since many of the applicants arejobless and have worked for longer periods, upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived of their livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered. That the State Bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. A.P. Shops & Establishment Act . Sec. 2A(2) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners . These arguments need not be repeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India in..... he submits that it was a legitimate expectation of these employees . No doubt one may not have a right but Courts have recognised that in such cases like these cases a legitimate expectation was created by the bank by taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 and we are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the conciliation officer that a further settlement may be entered in to after 31-3-97 all of a sudden a memorandum ofUnderstanding is entered into and thousands of people are given a good bye . All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered. That about 35000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected . It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there will be more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered, they will fall short of total vacancies .
26. Sri S. Prasada Rao , Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is a boon to the industrial Development which aims at (a) Investigation and settlement of Industrial Disputes , (b) to keep social justice as a main criteria, (c) Progress of Industry and (d) Harmony and cordial relations .. He submits that in the case of Management of Hotel Imperial , New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1342, it was held that, " Industrial Tribunal would havejurisdiction togrant interim relief also. " The applicants are employees ofthe State Bank and they have worked for a period which isnoted in the list of cases which are pending before this Court. That the ultimate object of Industrial Adjudication has been received by all as one of revolutionary import which admits its task not on purely theoretical , abstract , academic grounds adhearing to any dogmas , or applying abstract principles mechanically or under any sub- consciousness pressures preconceived notions , theories or' isms' but since to evolve working principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner. The interest ofproper judicial enquiry including the collection, collation and analysis of relevant facts . Therefore , it becomes highly significant in industrial matters. The Supreme Court right from Bharath Banks case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest Airports Authority case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance of the ignorance of the working class and important of their rights restating principles of social justice . The present trend ofLabour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests of not only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are so wedded that they cannot be separated in all contexts and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to survive in this world. Asobserved by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Association of Australia Vs. State of Australia which was also quoted in the State ofBombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case " in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in..... " .
28. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Vikaas , Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short, the State Bank of India has committed the following illegalities: 1. Unfair labour practice . vitiated by colourable exercise ofpower , 2. impugned oral orders oftermination without authority on 31-3-97, 3. the exercise of the saidpower is violative of article 14and Sec. 19(2) of 27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way oflife for everyone in Bharat Republic. The poor workmen and common men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right
2800 G1/05-30 10800
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , 4. The purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as if it's a back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements they have created legitimate expectation of absorption to these poor workman who have been running around since 1975. The order not to engage is a non- speaking order. Further several of these persons although were terminated are still working , if there is no work how these persons are working? The argument that due to computerization lesser staff is required does not hold good because the work of attenders could only be done by robots which have not yet come in India, hence , waterboys , sweepers and for odd work , still the services of the attenders are required . Those who were made to understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after all the so -called Memorandum of Understanding is to defeat the purpose of settlements wherein the effected parties are not even consulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec . 23 of the Contract Act .
126 may utilise their existing panel of temporary employees and in case these employees were not taken from the employment exchanges the Banks would be required to approach the DGE & Tdirectly seeking exemption. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolvedno Bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments . " In that case para 6, all employees who had put in90 ormore days after the cut offdate i.e. 1-1-1982 will only be eligible for considering the scheme. The Respondent in the Writ Petition has put in more than 90 days before the said cut offdate. Their Lordships held that asper the scheme one time opportunity each a person who had completed 90 days of temporary service as on 1-1-1982 andalso after 1-1-1982 shall be regularised by empanelling him for the post. He also referred to Supreme Court employees Welfare Association Vs. Union ofIndia wherein it washeld, that it is well settled principle of law thatwhen a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisaged by article 141 of the Constitution . He also reliedon 1997 (6) Supreme Court cases pages 564, which is to the same effect . He also relied on 2003 (4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their Lordships held, it is well settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reason that order would not constitute a binding precedent. He also relied on 2003 Supreme Court cases page231 which reiterate the same . He also relied on AIR 2002 Supreme Court, page 3088 wherein their Lordships held, " the High Court and all other courts in the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court, but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility to find out the ratio of the decision and ascertain the law, if any, so declared from a careful reading of decision concerned and only thereafter proceed to apply appropriately. He also relied on 2003 (7) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein it was held. " Therefore , while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority ofa precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as other redicta and are not authoritative . The task of finding the principle is fraught will difficulty as without an investigation into the facts , it cannot be assumed where a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio andwithout argument are of no moment. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all, nor every passing expression of a Judge. However eminent , can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority. " He also relies on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme in 1993 Supplementary IV Supreme Court cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. state of UP and others wherein their Lordships held, " since no dispute was 29. I now refer to the cases cited by various vocates . The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao . AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein a full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal of a permanent employee without assigning any reason, their Lordships held, is arbitrary, unfair unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy. He aslo relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571 , this dealt with the rule empowering the Government corporation to terminate services of its permanent employees by giving natice or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violence of Article 14, 39(a) and 41. He also relies on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248, their Lordships held, that an agreement can be challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised even by a personwho had earlier consented to the agreement . They further held that the illegal contract, cannot constitute and effect and accord satisfaction. He also relies on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that, "We have, no doubt that the precedents on the point, the principles ofindustrial law, the constitutional sympathy of Part IV and the sound rules of statutory construction converge to the same point that when a notice intimating termination of an award or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is set for fresh negotiations or industrial adjudication and until etther effortripens into a fresh set of conditions of service the previous award or settlement does regulate the relations between the employer and the employees . He also relied on 1999(5) ALD 1992 (D.B.) , General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad and another Vs. P. Ramulu, wherein their Lordships referred to the circular of the Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approach paper in the recruitment as well as in absorption of temporary employees as follows: " For the staff which is presently on the rolls of the Banks their services will be regularised in terms of theApproach paper. For the current requirement banks 10801 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (1) ]
raised on behalfof respondents 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the Writ Petition that40per cent ofthe total mumber ofpostshad not been filled by promotion in as much as the said everments had not been controverted the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents. " He therefore, submits that the Petitioners have alleged in the petition that there were about 1500 vacancies and it hasnot been controverted, hence, this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has beenadmittedby the bank.
expectation in every etizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision-making process in all State aetions . To satisfy this requirement ofnon arbitrariness in a state aétion, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations ofthe persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power mely amount to an abuse or excess ofpower apart from affecting the bonafides of the decision in a given ease. The decision to made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule oflaw does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise ofpower as it is unrealistte, bui provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. [Para 8 page 91]".
a He also relied on the full bench decision of the Hon'bleSupremeCourt in 1992 (4) Supreme Court cases page118, whereintheir Lordshipe held iffor any reason , anadhoc ortemporary employee iscontinuedfor afairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy ofthe State.He also relied on 2001 (1) LLJwherein their Lordships held that, "sofar as thework- charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort mustmust be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, ifany, prescirbedfor the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continuedfor a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular heed for his services.In such a situation , it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularisation . While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathyfor person."He also relied on Judgement of the High Court ofPatna reported in 2003 IIILLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed, "All soid, the claim ofsuch persons who have remained in the employment of the State for long periods, those who have sperit the golden period of their lives in the service ofthe State, those who with the passage ofthe time have become eligible for appoifitment elsewhere samot be ignored altogether. " He also relied on1995 (2) SupremeSupreme Court cases page 370where the full bench of the SupremeCourt held, "In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or thelytobe affected by the order passed by a public uthority the affected or likely toto bebe affected by the orderpassedbyapublic authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate cxpectation . The expression which is said to have originated from the Judgement of Lord Dorming in Behind Va. Seey. of Manefor HomeAffairs isnow well established in motie law. In AttorneyGeneral of Hong Kong Vs. Ng Yuen Shiu Frivy Council applied ime principlewhere expectations were " based upon some statement or undertalang by or on behalfof, the public authority" and observed ; "Accordingly legitimate expectations' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond forceable legal rights, 30.Heaslo relies on LLJ2004 February page227, wherein itwasheld, "the Respondent was working as a part-time sweeper in the organisation of the Petitioner. After fifteen years of service, the Respondent was terminatedfrom service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part-time employee alsofallswithin the definition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, awarded reinstatement with continuity ofservice andfull backwages. The High Court also retreated the findings of the labour Court and stated that as long as the ingredients of Sec . 2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee has been appointed as a regular, permanent/temporary or daily wages , casual or part- time. He alsorelied on LLJ 1995(1) LLJ page 323wherein theHigh Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the bus driver on an average workedfor 20 days in a month but was paid wages for one month Average working hours 10 to 12 hours and no overtime wages paid. Findings of the Industrial Tribunal that workman has worked 240 days in calandar year is legal and proper. " He also relied on 1995 Supplementary (4) of Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordships directed regularisation of services of the Petitioners who had worked for three years including the break till today, shall to be terminated and shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as andwhen they arise. He also relied on 1991 supplementary (2) SCC Page 363 wherein it was held, the change ofservice rules cannot be made in the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to the change. He also relied on 1986 Supreme Court page 954wherein it was held, " such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise then in the course ofconciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec. 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen anywho are not porties in the settlement. " He also relied on 1993 (1) SCC poge 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held as follows : "In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State andall its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significantfacet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action' . Due observance of this obligation as a part ofgood administration raises a reasonable or legitimate 10802
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
isdifficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi- judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. Therefore, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must bejust,fair and reasonable. The manner ofexercise ofpower and its impact onthe rights ofthe person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article 21 clubes lifewith liberty, dignity ofperson with means oflivelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness andprocessualjustice , it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities ofdefence . Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its souid and allergic to discriminatory disctates . Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness. It is, thereby, conclusively held by this court that the principles of natural justice are part of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable . He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 where in it was observed" the right to life inclueds right to liveliohood. Therefore cannot hand on to the fancies of the individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can it servival be at their mercy . Income is thefoundation of manyfundamental rights and whenwork is the sole source ofincome the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications . That will be mockeryofthem.
Mr. Vikas , appearing for various Petitioner cited various Judgements some of them are 1998 7 SCC page 8t ) 4 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staff of income tax Department some of them working from 8 years , directions issued to pay such workmen at the rate equivalent to minimura pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption . He also relied onAIR 1990 Supreme Court page 2228 where in it was held that the Kerala water supply and civil water authority shall immediately regularize the services of public health Department employees as per its resolution dated 30-1-1987 without waiting for the State Government approval . They also directed those who have put in less that one year service age bar may be waved ete . Several more citations he filed about regularisation. He also relied on 1996 1 Scrvice law reporter Supreme Court of INDIA page 56 where in it was held , workman in the employment in the state of forest Department for 5 to 6 year and in cach ycar they worked for a period ranging lit) to 330 days . workmen employed under the schemes at hand had been sodone . To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularize them amounts to unfair labour practice and that these cases are the most fit for regularization as some ofthem are working from 1975.
provided they have some reasonable basis . A person may have a legitimate expectation ofbeing treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment. Healso relied on 1998 (7) Supreme Court cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has it genisis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its Departments , in administrating the affairs ofthe country, are expected to honour their statements ofpolicy or intention and treat the citizenswith full personal consideration without any iota ofabuse ofdiscretion. The policy statements cannot bedisregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Continuing their Lordships further held, though the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fairplay in administrative action , itmay, in a given situation , be enforced as a substantive right. The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked ifthe decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations ofthat person which are enforceabie by or against him in private law; or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (i) he had in the postbeen permitted by the decision-maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he hasbeengiven an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving himfirst an opportunity ofadvancing reasons for contending that it should notbe withdrawn . Indian scenario in the field of legitimate expectation is not different. The question whether the expectation and the claim is reasonable or legitimate, is a question offact in each case . This question had to be determined not according to the claimants ' perception but in larger public interest. " He also relied on 19977 SCC 592 wherein it was held that the selected industries (Respondents) with which the agreements were entered into by the State Government legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any speciol reason not to adhere ta such practice. The doctrine of "legitimate expectatian " has been judicially recognized by the Supreme Court . The doctrine of " legitimate expectation" aperates in the domain ofpublic law and in an appropriate case , constitutes a substantive and enforceable right. He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 where in it is held that the law must therefore be now taken to be well settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person oflivelihood must meet the challenge ofArticle 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil ofarticle 14 and the procedure prescribed by a stature or statutary rule or rules or arders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would hove to answer the requirement ofArticle 14. So it must be right, just andfair not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial function and an administrative function far the purpase of principles ofnatural justice is calculated to securejustice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice , it
Mr. Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs TN Jaya Ram where in it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned single judge held that the Petitioner had not 10803 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
got to be strictly avoided . There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure ofrecruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could never be effected.
worked continuously for a period 30 days . The learned single judge relied on category C ofthe settlement to arrive at the said conclusion. Their Lordships allowed the Writ appeal on the ground, in view of the fact "that the Petitioner falls short ofthe required 30 days by 4 days, the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity in the employment ofthe bank" .
Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate , Shri Prabhakar Rao, advocate on behalf of Shri Ramachandra Rao , Advocate and Shri Prasad , advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners on 1-4-1997 and some ofthem are still continuing and it is not only a question on industrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioner who worked since more than two decades .
Theyalso relied on several cases , in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere inclusion of a candidates name in the merit listdoes not confer any right to be selected . Some vacancies remainingunfilled after process of selection finally closed- candidate not appointed-No discrimination. They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection , they do not acquire any right to the post. They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 584 Syndicate Bank Vs Sankarpal where in it was held that if a waiting list isforspecific period the wait listed candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses. They also relied on 1997 4 SCC 283 Sanjay Vs. Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wait listed candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies . He also relied onAIR 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 where it washeld-Stop gap appointees or Temporary appointees do not have any right for continuous or for regularization.
Smt . Lalita Kumari , advocate for Respondent relied on 2004 Vol . IV SLTpage 947 which was a Judgement from MadrasHigh Court where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment held in violation of mandatory provisions of statutes ignoring minimum education qualifications , wholly illegal . Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality.
Butboth of them mainly relied on the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 in which itwas held that only those casual workers who were in the waiting list of the bank (panels) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies of the bank. As the select list came to an end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgement of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP (CC) 3082/99 .
He further argued that even those who have completed 240 days also cannot claim regularization as the very entry was irregular and they got any right it is through the agreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Supreme Court heldthat any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds. Such regularization isjeopardizes the larger public interests . So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance . And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is an all India agreement and the Hon'ble SC has dismissed the SLP on merits , hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly , the Petitions maybedismissed.
As stated in the beginning, these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 2005. To sum up the entire facts in a nut shell, the entry of these persons was as casual employees . Seeing the enormity of the situation the SBI and All India SB1 staff It is argued by the Learned Counsel for Respondent Shri BG Ravinder Reddy, Advocate and Smt . LalitaKumari, Advocate that the Hon'ble CGIT-cum -Labour Court is fully empowered to decide the disputes which are pending before. it in the LCIDs and ID . That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the branches for short periods atthe instance of concerned Branch Manager who had no jurisdiction to appoint them . They are not employees of the State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure . The daily wagers/casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited. That the Petitioners were engaged by the concerned branch Managers to meet the exigencies ofwork at intermittent intervals and they cannot be termed as employees of the bank on temporary basis in any identified post or vacancy . That the Petitioners have no statutory right to seek any relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . The Petitioners have not put in continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act. It is to be examined whether they stand a chance for absorption as per the settlements . That the Petitioners failed to implead the All India SBI Staff Federation as party to the dispute before this court to seek interpretation of the settlements . As such, the cases are bad for non -joinder of necessary party . That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancies are less than 100 each year . The SBI has absorbed messengers and non-messengers totaling to more than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgement that the settlement are repugnant to Sec. 23 of the Indian Countract Act and the Memorandum of Understanding and the Theory of Legitimate Expectations has no place in the settlements . That interms ofthe 5 settlements, the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive upto 31st March 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Administrative instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 as there were no vacancies . That the question of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz . , if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointment are made on adhoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if their services are required by the Bank. In any case, backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have 11804
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
which was to lapse on 31-3-1997 where in it was held the currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the inmpugned decisions/ settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997 . It is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have not been fixed . We do not think it necesssary to go into this hypothetical questions . Against which SLP was filed in the Hon'ble SC which dismissed saying the SLP is dismissed on merits . In fact all these references or 2(A)(2) are about their termination . For example the reference is" Whether the action of the management ofState Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services ofSri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary Non-Messenger , State Bank Of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not? If not, what reliefthe applicant is entitled ? " Actually if they had any grievance that the bank had agreed vide minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-1995 , vide Ex.M5 , they should have approached conciliation officer raising a dispute that no joint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . As the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa also stated in the end of the Judgement, it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated , the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/ authority. The reference here is whether termination isjustified or not .
federation entered into various agreements. The candidates were called for interview and were empanelled . The last agreement was dated 30-7-1996 (Ex. M6) which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Then there was a memorandum of understanding dt 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary employees , daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997. There was an conciliation dated 9-6-1995 vide Ex.M5 wherein before the conciliation officer it was agreed that anotherjoint committee will be constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-97 . No such joint committee was constituted nor any fresh settelement came into effect from 1-4-1997 . Carrot was dingled before the workers for number of years creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good-bye to all the employees on 31-3-1997 . Their hopes were further raised by the Judgement of the High Court which held "the Petitioners/ employees who were on duty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deemed to be on duty and shall be entitled to all the benefits of such a post and they shall be inunediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some supernumerary posts within 3 months from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to which they were entitled as on that date , till they are absorbed" . In fact the Hon'ble single judge stated in the Judgement which I quote " Mr. S Ramachandra Rao , Learned Sr Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have never controverted such a factual and legal position. Such a dispute in any form existing and even apprehended definitely could be a subject of reference to the board of settlement to a court for enquiry , to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication " It is also his apprehension genuinely expressed that driving the Petitioners to such forums for such disputes could be nothing less than pushing the hapless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry mount of the wild life" .
I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons , their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of persons involved and the great expectations raised but justice has to be rendered as per law . Therefore in view of the Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits when the SLP was dismissed on merits , I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri Anil Kumar and 53 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Be thatmay be so. The above Judgement was set a side bywrit appeals by division bench holding that the matter has to be dealt with and settled by the parties under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court . Against which a Special Leave Percitions were filed which were dismissed.
Before parting with the case, I feel it apt to direct the Respondent "which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India" to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary daily wages / casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities of the expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with merecy . I was constrained to follow the settled law position, but my conscience prompted me to issue the above directions, which I hope and trust will be honoured by the Respondent bank . While so considering the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable grounds as the above category employees have spent long time with the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization of their services .
As I have to follow the settled law & the position in which I found myself while delivering this award it prompted meto describe the condition of these petitioners as depicted in the poem of Faiz Ahmed Fiaz quoted at the beginning of theAward.
The position now is that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 those who have completed 240 days in a year has some right as notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. But all of them entered into settlements , no doubt, these persons are not members of the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation . But those who have worked even for 30 days'in a calendar year or 70 days in36 calendar months and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements entered into by All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements. but for the settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year others do not have any right under the ID Act And this is a all India problem and unfortunately for the Petitioners the same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex.M6 herein, was discussed by the OrissaHigh Court in OJC No 9039 of 1997 (WP ) and batch,
Typed by LDC ( o my dictation, corrected and prompounced by me on this the 17th day of May 2005 . E. ISMAIL , PresidingOfficer 16805
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Documents marked for Petitioners LC 11 of 2003
WW 1 : C Srinivasa Rao
Ex-W1 : Interview Call Letter
Ex-W2 : School Certificate
Ex-W3Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Judgment in WP No. 4194/97
LC 12 of 2003
WW 1 : B. Subramanyam
Ex-W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W2 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W4 : Application of WWI to Respondent LC 13 of 2003
WW 1 : G. Subbaiah
Ex-W1 : Notification of the bank
Ex- W2 : Legal Notice
Ex-W3 Postal acknowledgement
Ex-W4 : Postal acknowledgement
Ex-W 5 : Postal acknowledgement
Ex-W6 : Interview Call Letter
LC 14 of 2003
WW1 . A Channaiah
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex-W4 Interview Call Letter
LC 15 of 2003
WW1 JV Ch Subba Rao
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Salary Certificate
Ex-W4 Salary Certificate
Ex-W 5 Service Certificate
Ex-W6 : Service Certificate
Ex-W7 : SSC Certificate
LC 16 of 2003
WW 1 LJakriah
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W3 : Caste Certificate
LC 17 of 2003
WW 1 : J Srinivasa Rao
Ex-W1 : Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W4 : Service Certificate
Ex-W 5 : Caste Certificate
Ex-W 6 : Study Certificate
LC 18 of 2004
WW1 A. Narsimhulu
Ex-W 1 to W11 are Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Ex . W12 SSC Marks Memo
Ex -W3 Ex. W13 paper notification
Ex-W 4 , Ex . W14 & 15 : letters of respondent to WW1 Ex-W 5 , Ex. W16 is empanel list
Ex-W 6 , Ex. W17 Letter of empanelment
LC 19 of 2003
WW 1 MCV Ragavulu
Ex-W1 : Nativity Certificate
Ex-W2 Conduct Certificate
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W 5 : Service Certificate
LC 20 of 2004
WW 1 : M. Nalappa
Ex-W1 : Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Letter dt 28-5-2001 of Zonal office
Ex-W 5 Service Certificate
Ex-W6 : Service Certificate
Ex-W7 : Service Certificate
Ex-W 8 : Marks Memo of SSC
Ex-W 9 : Paper. Notification of the bank
Ex-W 10 : Empanel List
LC 21 of 2004
A. Sidappa WW1
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W 4 Service Certificate
Ex-W 5 Service Certificate
Ex-W6 : Service Certificate
Ex-W7 : Service Certificate
Ex-W 8 : Marks Memo of SSC
Ex-W9 Paper Notification of the bank
LC 22 of 2004
WW1 M: Zilani Basha
Ex-W1 : Letter dt 28-5-2001 of Zonal office
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W 5 : Service Certificate
Ex-W6 : Service Certificate
Ex-W7 : Service Certificate
Ex-W 8 : Marks Memo of SSC
Ex-W9 : Paper Notification of the bank
LC 24 of 2003
WW1 G. Issac
LC 25 of 2003
WW1 : S.K. Kaleshah
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Nativity Certificate
Ex-W3 : Transfer Certificate
LC 26 of 2003
WW 1 : Ch. Prabhakar
Ex-W1 Service Certificate 10806
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Ex-W2 Employment card
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Appointment order
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Caste Certificate
LC39 of 2003
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
WW1 M Anjaiah
LC 27 of 2003
Ex-W1 : Service Certificate
WW 1 : TAkka Rao
Ex-W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W1 Caste Certificate
Ex-W3 Caste Certificate
Ex-W2 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W4 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W 5 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W6 Conduct Certificate
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W6 Service Certificate
Ex-W7 Nativity Certificate
LC 28 of 2003
LC 40 of 2003
WW1 JNarsinga Rao
WW1 Y Musalajah
Ex-W 1 Service Certificate
Ex- W1 Study Record
Ex-W2 Caste Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 Community Certificate
Ex-W5 Caste Certificate
LC 41 of 2003
LC 29 of 2003
WW1 Nagabhushana Sarma
WW1 M Yohoshuna
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex- W1 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Caste Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 Transfer Certificate
LC 30 of 2003
Ex-W5 Interview Call Letter
LC 43 of 2003
G Lingaiah WW1
Ex-W1: Service Certificate
WW 1 : S Devadas
Ex-W2 Caste Certificate
Ex-W1 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W2 Income Certificate
LC 31 of 2003
Ex-W3 Caste Certificate
WW 1 : J Rama Rao
Ex-W4 Conduct Certificate
Ex-W1 Interview Call Letter
LC 45 of 2003
Ex-W2 Appointment Letter
WW 1 : NV Narasmham
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W1 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 Community Certificate Ex-W5 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W2 Nativity Certificate
Ex-W6 Empanel list
Ex- W3 Service Certiticate
LC 34 of 2003
LC 46 of 2003
WW 1 : Jyothi Rosiah
WWI
Y Raju
Ex-W1 Interview Call Letter
Ex-WI Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W3 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 Caste, Nativity, Birth Certificate
Ex-W4 Empanel List
Ex-W5 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 Community Certificate
LC 36 of 2003
Ex-W6 : Representation of WWI to Respondent WW 1 : Anjenaiulu
Interview call Letter Ex-W7
Ex-W1 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W8 Appointment Order
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
LC 95 of 2003
Ex-W3 : Physically Handicapped Certificate
Ex-W4 Transfer Certificate
WW 1 : Napa Danaınma
LC 38 of 2003
Ex-W1 Interview Call Letter
WW 1 : M Ayyala Reddy
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex- W1 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Caste Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Ex-W5 : Record Sheet upto 5th Standard Ex-W6 : Caste Certificate
LC 96 of 2003
WW1 K-PrabhakarRao
10807
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
Ex-W2 : Interview Call Letter
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Study Certificate
Ex-W5 : Caste, Nativity, Birth Certificate
LC140 of2003
Ex-W1 Caste Certificate
WW1. P Sanjeevaiah
Ex-W2 : Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 : Service Certificate
LC 97 of 2003
WW 1 : K Riazzuddin
Ex-W1 : Service Particulars
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 Conduct Certificate
Ex-W5 : SSC Marks Memo
Ex-W6 : Empanel List
LC 98 of 2003
: C. Subrahmanyam WW 1
Service Certificate Ex-W1
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Service Certificate
Ex-W4 : Service Certificate
Ex-W5 Absorption Letter
Ex-W6 : Caste Certificate
Ex-W7 : SSC Marks Memo
Ex-W8 : Transfer Certificate
LC 99 of 2003
WW1 : K.B. Tulasiram
Ex-W1 : Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Letter of Absorption of Service Ex-W3 : School Certificate
Ex-W4 Caste Certificate
LC 100 of 2003
WW I : Sat Chins Mala Kondaiah Ex-W1 İnterview Call Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-WS : Service Certificate
Ex-W6 Caste Certificate
LC 141 of 2003
WW 1 : B. Nageshwar Rao
Ex -W1 : Service Certificate
Ex -W2: Nativity Certificate
Ex -W3: Caste Certificate
LC 142 of 2003
DRamakrishnaiah WW1
Ex-W1 Absorption Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W5 : Caste Certificate
LC 143 of 2003
WW1 T Manohar Babu
Ex-W1 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-WS : Service Certificate
Ex-W6 : Marks Memo of SSC
Ex-W7 Service Certificate
LC 144 of 2003
WWI
N Krishaiah
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Study Certificate
Ex-W4 Nativity Certificate
Ex-W5 : Caste Certificate
LC 114 of 2003
WW1 P.Venkata Ravi
Ex-W1 : Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Interview Call Letter
Ex-W3 Empanel List
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W6 : Service Particulars
LC 139 of 2003
WW 1 : Y Sam Sonaiah
Ex-W1 Absorption Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 Service Certificate
Ex-W6 Service Certificate
Ex-W7 Service Certificate
Ex-W8 : Service Certificate
Ex-W9 Service Certificate
Ex-W 10 : Service Certificate
Ex-W11 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W 12: SSC Marks Memo
Ex-W 13 : Conduct Certificate
Ex-W 14: BC Certificate by MRO
Ex-W 15 : Caste Certificate
LC 145 of 2003
WW 1 : T Yesudas
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
2800 GI/05-31
Ex-W1 Marks Memo 10808
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9. 1927
Ex-W2 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W3 : Caste Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 Service Certificate
LC 146 of 2003
WW 1 : M Pakkirappa
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 Absorption Letter
Ex-W6 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W7 Caste Certificate
LC 147 of 2003'
WW1 M Ramudu
Ex-W1 Reminder Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W5 Caste Certificate
LC 158 of 2003
WW1 N Venkata Ramana
Ex-W1 Absorption Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate & Conduct Certificate Ex-W5 Service Certificate
Ex-W6 Caste Certificate
Ex-W7 IX Pass Certificate
LC 159 of 2003
WW1 PGangamma
Ex-W1 Interview call letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 Caste Certificate
LC 160 of 2003
WW 1 : M Manphar
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Transfer Certificate
Ex-W5 SSC Marks Memo
Ex-W6 : Caste Certificate
LC 161 of 2003
WW 1 : G Chinna Venkataiah
Ex-W1 Absorption Letter
Ex-W2 : Telegram
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W6 Caste Certificate
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] LC 183 of 2003
WW1 A Balaraju
Ex-WI Interview call letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Empanel list
Ex-W5 Service Certificate
LC 189 of 2003
WW1 N Munuswamy
Ex-W1 Absorption Letter
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W6 SSC Marks Memo
Ex-W7 Caste Certificate
LC 190 of 2003
WW 1 : B Manohar
Ex- W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Caste Certificate
Ex-W3 Service Certificate
Ex-W4 Transfer Certificate
LC 209 of 2002
WW 1 : J Prasad Rao
Ex-W1 Service Certificate
Ex-W2 Service Certificate
Ex-W3 Interview call letter
Ex-W4 Service Certificate
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
Ex-W6 Marks Memo
Ex-W7 Caste Certificate
Documents markedby Management ( in all the 150 cases ) Ex. M1 Settlement dated 17-11-1987
Ex. M2 Settlement dated 16-7-1988
Ex . M3 Settlement dated 27-10-1988
Ex. M4 Settlement dated 9-1-1991
Ex. M5 Minutes of Conciliation Proceedingsdt . 9-6-1995 Ex. M6 Settlement dated 30-7-1996
Ex . M7 Memorandum of Understanding dt 27-2-1997 Ex . M8 Particulars of 1989 Messenger Panel
Ex . M9 Particulars of 1989 Non-Messenger Panel Ex . M10 : Particulars of 1992 General Attendent Panel Ex. M11 : Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WritAppeal No. 86/98 and batch dt. 1-5-1998 .
Ex. M12: Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in SLP 11886-11888 /98 dt 10-8-1998 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
10809
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
ANNEXURE
IN TH CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
Present:
Shri E. ISMAIL, B.Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer
Dated the 17th May, 2005
LCID No: 20/2002
Between : T. AppaRao
S/o Lakshumuna And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II, ZonalOffice, Representedby its DeputyGeneral Manager, Visakhapatnam
LCİD No : 22/2002
Between : K. Srinivasa Rao S/o Surya Rao
And
State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II, ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LCID No : 26/2002
Between:M. Simhachalam S/o Satyanarayana
And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II, ZonalOffice, Representedby its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LCID No: 27/2002
Between: B Srinivasa Rao
S/o Late Satya Rao
And
StateBank of India Personnel Section, Region II, ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 37/2002
Between: TKrishna
S/o Ramayya
And
State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II, ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LCID No : 38/2002
Between:G Venkata Ramana
S/oGopalakrishna And
State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 39/2002
Between: V. Venkata Ramana S/o Appanna
And
State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , Zonal Office, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 40/2002
Between: B. Venkata Rao S/o Sinhachalam
And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , ZonalOffice, Representedby its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LCID No : 41/2002
Between: Jagannadha Rao S/o Late Appa Rao And
State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II, ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LCID No : 42/2002
Between: M.V. Ramana Murthy S/o Late Sanyasilingam
And State Bank of India Personnel Section . Region II , ZonalOffice, Representedby its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No: 43/2002.
Between :B. V.S. Rajula Subba Rao S/o Dalayya
And
StateBank of India Personnel Section, Region II, Zonal Office, 10810
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii )]
LC ID No : 50/2002
Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
Between: S. Neelayya
LC ID No : 44/2002
S/ o Mallayya
Between: K Srinivasa Rao
And
S/o Ramu
State Bank of India
And
Personnel Section , Region II , Zonal Office, Represented by its Deputy General Manager , Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 51/2002
State Bank of India Personnel Section Region II , ZonalOffice, Representedby its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
Between: R. Suryanarayana
LCID No : 45/2002
S/ o Suryanarayana
Between: R. Vasudeva Rao
S/o Narayana Das
And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No: 54/2002
And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , Zonal Office, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 46/2002
Between: T. Somayya
Between: D. Appala Raju S/ o Narayana Rao
S/o Surayya And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , Zonal Office , Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
And State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , Zonal Office. Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 55/2002
LC ID No : 47/2002
Between: K. Gowrinaidu S/o Adinarayana
Between : T. Srinivasa Rao S/oRamamurthy And
And
State Bank of India Personnel Section, Region II , Zonal Office , Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
State Bank of India Personnel Section , Region 11 . Zonal Office . Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 60/2002
LC ID No : 48/2002
Between: 1. Suri Appa Rao
Between: K Jagadeswara Rao S/o Jagga Rao
So Late Appalaswamy
;
And State Bank of India Personnel Section , Region II , Zonal Office , Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
And State Bank of India Personnel Section , Region II . Zonal Office. Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
LC ID No : 92/2002
EC ID No : 49/2002
Between : K. Madhu Sudhana Rao
S/o Satyanarayana
Between: M. Ravi Kumar S/o Late Narayana And State Bank of India Personnel Section . Region II , ZonalOffice, Represented by its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam
And State Bank of India Personnel Section . Region II , Zonal Office , Representedby its Deputy General Manager, Visakhapatnam 10811 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Appearances for all 23 cases :
whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of the labourer,
ForthePetitioner : S/Shri SSR Raju &
GMangaRao, Advocates
and on the highways flows the blood of the poor. a sort of fire upsurges in my bosom and I lose all hold over my heart . "
For the Respondent : Shri M. Ramdas& D. J. Murthy, Advocates .
AWARD
As I stated supra, these cases have got a chequered historyand instead of myself narrating the same. I think itwould be better to write down what he stated in his claim statement ofthis particular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statements in all the cases filed by the Petitioners .
The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L- 12012/ 126/2001 - IR (B.I ) dated 18-9-2001 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether The action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non-Messenger, STATE BANK OF INDIA w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? Ifnot, what relief the applicant is entitled?"
5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in ID No. 222/ 2001 has filed the following claim statement . That the workman joined in the services of the Management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in 1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over aperiod of about 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services wereterminated by oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997. The workman submits that he is erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of State Bank of India . He belongs to Scheduled Caste , he passed IX class . The qualification is VIII standard which is prescribed for the post of messenger. The Management of Bank has decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel found suitable for permanent appointment by waitlisting them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting them till such opportunity arises .
The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 222/2001 and notices were issued to the parties . The Government of India has referred about 500 such references and 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 andM/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others, about 250 Petitioners have filed cases directly under Section 2 (A) (2 ) of the ID Act. It will not be possible or practicable to answer every case separately. As the main issues involved are one and the same . I am of the opinion that all of them can be decided in groups by giving common awards , this group which I am now dealing pertains to Visakhapatnam Zone and this reference and 23 other 2(A) ( 2 ) Petitions a common award is passed.
6. That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was rcached betweenAll India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India-settlement one, under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is, (A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or legs after 1-7-1975, (B ) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 . ( C ) ( i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or ( ii ) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1-7-1975 .
4. To begin with I am quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975. I have not only to consider merely the technical aspects , powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference but I will also have to see viewing it as a human problem. These cases remind me of a poem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and 1 find no better way than to start my award by quoting the entire poem ofFaiz,
"Humility I've learnt , sympathy for the poor, learnt the meaning of despair , suffering and pain; learnt to comprehend the miseries ofthe oppressed,
the meaning of cold sighs , of pallied faces.
Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to cry,
In whose eyes tears, bitterly shed, fall asleep. And those destitute upon whose morsels swoop down,
7. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee the said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent appointment . Therefore , the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workman then prescribed certain the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committce . Clausc 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement is specifically provided that henceforth , " there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre " . except on a restrictive basis in the specified category. "from amongst empanelled candidates as per cxisting guidelines of the bank " . The workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft.
the vultures hovering above, poised on their wings 10812
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]
settlement as amended from time to time . It was directed the bank to carryout the terms of the settlement before the expiry ofMarch , 1997 .
a notification was issued in the newspapers . The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . Awritten examination followed by viva -voce in May. 1989 was held . A sclected panel was prepared , as per clause 7 of the agreement, i.e.. scitlement No. 1. the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991 . The workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms ofthe agreement dated 17-11-87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into between the partics. In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, " to all cligible temporary employees for permanent appointments " . The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arisc during the years 1995-96 , circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel , eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the carlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview".
The High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement. I view of the directions granted by the High Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select par's prepared on the basis ofthe agreement entered into on 17-11-87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991 , and on the basis of a settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the plane was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and onthe basis of the settlement dated 27-10-1998 whereby the panels were made alive utpo 31-3-1997 were under the bona fide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation . Unfortunately, contrary to the directions given by the High Court on 5-3-1997 in W.P. No.4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered into between the partics , the bank issued proceedings dated 25-3-1997. dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue thetemporary employces those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97 . The said order was followed by the Management . Aggrieved by the said action the workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High ' Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager ( Respondents 3 , 4 and 5 therein ) on 25-3-97, 27-3-97 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non - continuance of the Petitioners therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section 2 ( p ) and 18( 1 ) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service .
8. In fact , there is some confusion in the claint statement, but actually another panel was prepared . There were total five settlements , settlement dated 17-11-87 is the 1st settlement (Ex. MI ) , settlenient dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement ( Ex. M2 ) . settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex. M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement ( Ex , M6 ) . In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex . ,M5 . That due to all these sculentents which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with its a question of time before appointments or services are regularized in the services of the bank . The workman was working with the bank of temporary basis was under the bona fide hope that sooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere . It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India .
9. The Government of India issued circular No. F. -3/3/ 104/87 - IR, dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the Chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved , no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments . That some of the persons similarly situated like this Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Management of the bank in not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position . filed W.P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. It is specifically averred in the said Writ Petition that the Management of the bank had failedto implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. by an order dated 5-3-97 directed the bank to implement the
10. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9206/97 , the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks , it cmployed temporary employees in subordinate cadre . It is pertinent to mentioned that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged . Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice . It is designed to, on the one hand . keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facct of unfair labour practice .
10813
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88 and 27-10-88 . The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16-8-90 stated in its counter affidavit as follows: "Government of India, vide its letter dated 16-8-1990, issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down inthe approachpaper.
12. The workman submits that the bank also referred a further settlement dated 9-1-1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will beoperated to a particular period. Therefore their cases willnotbe considered . The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action . It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services ofthetemporary employees who are working in the bank services like the workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees . In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers / attenders/sweepers etc. even after the judgement of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issued by Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4194/97 dated 5-3-97: Inview of the circulars issued by the Central Government the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9-1-1991 . Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal , unjust , violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The workman submits that the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 andbatch by an order dated 1-1-1998 . It is pertinent to mention that as a matter of fact the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings of fact:
"(1 ) That the candidates had apeared for written examination and a Viva Voce Test . They, therefore , satisfied a procedure of objective criteria in the process of selection.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25 - F maybe decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired. They could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6 (h) , it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days , the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days. As such, it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned . The approach paper also specify at para 6 (c ) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1-1-1982 couldbe considered for re- employment in terms of the scheme . The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
(2) The life of the panels were admittedly extended by the bank beyond its initial life- span.
Ascouldbe seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.
(3) Inspite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation of the services of the employees who were continued to be in the panel, the above , workmen were continued to be engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997, 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997.
(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive till all the empanelled candidates were absorbed.
Itis further submitted that at para 6 (k ) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . This would mean that the Government of India guidelines would cover onlythose persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise . As such , it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days . As such , question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives" .
(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees are absorbed and regularized in the services ofthebank.
10814
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] (6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation ofbeing regularized in the services of the bank.
(7) Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services of the bank, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the services of the workmen but to terminate their services even if they were otherwise eligible for regularization.
(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. V. SundraMani reported in AIR 1976- SC1111 .
is further averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the clause 10 of the stalements it is specifically mentioned that the workman to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlements . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled candidates. The Management has indulged in unfair labour practices . The Management has committed unfair labour practice and terminated the services of candidates from 1-4-97 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India.
(9) The status of the workmen vis - a-vis the bank needed no probe.
(10) That theBipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealing with the question of temporary workmen pointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of 3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is not only violation of Bipartite Agreement of the Desai Award that after the said period , the status of the employees is that of regular employees .
(11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , the Learned Counsel for thePetitioners , is totally right in contending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except to know whether they have been implemented or enforced. Therefore , it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or floutedby the Respondent bank in its true and real implications".
14. The workman submits that in W.P. No. 4194/ 97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein theyhave complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members ofthe unionhad been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31-3-97.
15. Further, judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way theywillbe referred to while referring the arguments . It
16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so -called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25-2-1997 , that the action of terminating such employees like the workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which can not be allowed to be perpetuated . That the dis- continuance of the workman after 31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec . 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India . This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice . Thus . the main proceedings are issued in cleanable exercise of power, withoutjurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97 , Ex . M5 does not appoint the workman and it's own legal entity , the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywheretobrought to the notice of the workman whose rights are being affected . Submitted that the Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its' instructions dated 16-8-1990 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies . The Management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here . It is not pertinent to note/mention here thatthe Respondent Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June , 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders . After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating the Management refused to engage these candidates . It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies . Hence , the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services 10815 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
of the workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjust, illegal , violative of principles of natural justice and hence , the Management is directed to reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits .
17. A counter was filed with the following averments . That the reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is respectfully submitted that to tide cover severe sub- ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies , exigencies , etc. , and also owning to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/ Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub - ordinate staff like messengers , sweepers , sweeper-cum- water boys , etc. , depending on the availability ofof work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches . It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority ofthe employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement withthe representative union . In para 6 (h ) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1-1-82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days.and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability ofthe vacancies . However, para 6 (k ) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 hereinafter referred as 4th settlement. And the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees , casual /daily wagers . It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect oftemporary employees and in respect ofcasual/ daily wagers, they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
19. It is submitted that the administrative set up ofthe Hyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices ( Zones ) at Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. In terms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption . These panels were prepared zone-wise separately for messengers and non- messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) for implementation ofbipartite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank . It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March , 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec . 2 (p) read with Sec . 18( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957 , which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on- 27-2-1997 a Memorandum ofUnderstanding was also signed by the Federation's affiliate and the bank Management 18. Discussions were held and on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec . 2(p ) read with Sec. 18 ( 1 ) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules , 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17-11-87 which may be herein after referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above , it need not be repeated here . In the first settlement , it was agreed that the temporary cmployees as categorised would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17-11-1987 . This is the second settlement . A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the banks' service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employces in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper . The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec . 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 may be decided by entering into a
2800 GI/05-32 10816
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]
Management . If the Petitioner had worked in the bank on part - time basis before 31-5-94 , that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post . The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable . However, it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management . As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitioner has been denied by the bank Management . Therefore , I do not find any ground , let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind of relief sought for the Petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs . "
20. If the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence, there is no question of any legitimate expectation being violated.
21. Similarly placed ex- employees filed WP No. 9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions . Aggrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex - temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside . The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. The question of operation of Sec . 25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts . Hence , the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
22. The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition . He further deposed that he worked for 229 days between 1984-91 .
recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned. It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non -messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management Bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30-7-1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers / casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997 . That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels . The Petitioner who has put in an aggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek adirection to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/law except under the settlement entered into thereon. In fact , the case of the Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and terms ofthe settlements are also binding on him/ her. The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlenient . That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is non- compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31-3-1997 . That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management bank. That the settlements are binding on the parties . The Petitioner is also bound under the terms of the said settlement . The settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear . The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise . The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context. It is submitted that the period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannoi modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization . That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 12964/94 , held as follows . " It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is the Majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Petitioners also . It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's
23. In the cross examination he deposed that his employment was need based and he was interviewed and empanelled as per settlements reached between the Management and Employees Association . He accepted that no juniors were appointed on regular basis and he did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service. Thathe appeared for interview as per the settlements and the settlements expired on 31-3-97 .
i 10817 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
24. The Chief Manager ( Per & HRD) . Sri CRM Sastry deposed to the facts as stated in the counter, as MWI and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P.. Judgement , the appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP. In the cross -cxamination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated. He denied that all should have been absorbed . He agreed that no notice or pay in licu there- of was given . That all these Petitioners were asked not to come . He denied that there are still number of vacancies .
from 1-4-97 . Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered intobetween the bank and in the last settlement it isspecifically mentioned that the non-messengerial posts shallbe filled in before 31-3-1997 before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse . The Government of India had issued a circular dated 16-8-90 wherein it is specifically stated that the concerned authorities have to follow the procedure intein the approach paper for regularization who are on the rolls of the bank. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved , no bank will be permittedto make any temporary appointments . In spite of the clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issue of temporary employees before passing impugned oral orders on the other hand, they are engaging third parties and some of the claimants are still working on temporary basis . In fact he has given the list ofat least 4 candidates who are before this Court still working in Hyderabad module, Vijayawada module there are as many as 26 candidates working, in Tirupathi module 43 are working, even in Visakhapatnam module four are working. Before the 5th settlement take place there was a conciliationproceeding wherein it was specifically agreed "as regards for filling of messengers posts as already been ordered, the remainder number will be filled before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of an understanding that may be reached after ascertaining correct procedure with regard to the number of messenger posts to be created in terms ofsettlement . Another joint committee will be constituted to review existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . " And having agreed that coolly dispensed them by oral order on 31-3-1997 , the question that there are no vacancies is false. In fact, there are number of vacancies in all the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly, new persons were engaged by the respondent apart from engaging some of the claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997. In order to show that there are vacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis . Sample copies of proceedings of the bank which show that some of the claimants were reengaged after 1-4-97 is also sumbitted with a separate statement who were engaged aftertheir oral termination and who are continuing till today. In fact, instead of entering into a fresh agreement as settled before the conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all cannons of justice . The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao . Sr. Advocate and further more arguments have been advanced by him and serveral Judgements were cited whichwill be dealt in due course .
26. Sri S. Prasada Rao , Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 is a boon to the industrial development which aims at ( a) Investigation and settlemont of Industrial Disputes, (b ) to keep social justice as a main criteria, (c) Progress of Industry and ( d) Harmony and cordial relations . He submits that in the case of Management of Hotel Imperial , New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers Union AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1342, it was held that, " Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdication to grant interim relief also. " The applicants 25. Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners , Mr. Prasada Rao , Mr. Prabhakar, Mr. Vikaas . Mr. SSN Raju etc. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalf of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao. Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and they were given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services of the Respondent by way of settlements. Instead they were removed from service by oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the claimants, while engaging third parties on temporary basis . apart from reengaging some of the claimants on temporary basis as messengers/ non - messengers . The said action of the Respodnent is high - handed, unilateral, arbitrary and colourable exercise of power apart from being amounts to unfair labour practice. It is an admitted case of the Respondent that it has 805 branches all over the State whereas the Respondent has 827 branches . That it consists of four modules . Hyderabad. Vijayawada . Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi . That the counsel is appearing for 100 claimants for Hyderabad module . Likewise they are appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing. All these claimants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions of the Central Office and Local Head Office . In order to settle the issue of temporary employees and to streamline the same these settlements were entered into in pursuance of the decision taken by the Respondent to give a chance for absorption . There are five settlements , one Memorandum of Understanding, one conciliation proceedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination. One example may be taken ofa Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who worked both in messenger cadre and non - messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days. The break- up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988 , which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank . He belongs to SC community. He has passed 9th class , though the qualification for the post of messenger is 8th class . That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the settlements they were made to work with artificial breaks . Though they were empanelled and given a hope that their cases will be considered for absorption . The same was not considered. On the other hand their services were orally terminated on 31-3-1997 asking them not to attend duties 10818
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]
thebank is obliged for implementation of the empanelled candidates and not for lapsing the panels. That in the case ofall the applicants with respect to whom that the principles of fair play, equity and consciousness and justice is required . The workers have fundamental right to live under Articles 14 , 15 and 16 which can neither waived nor taken away. Since many of the applicants are jobless and have worked for longer periods , upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived oftheir livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered. That the State Bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. , A. P. Shops and Establishments Act . Sec. 2A(2 ) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners . These arguments need not be repeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India in........He submits that it was a legitimate expectation of these employees . No doubt , one may not have a right but Courts have recognized that in such cases like these cases a legitimate expectation was created by the bank by taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 and we are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the conciliation officer that a further settlement may be entered into after 31-3-1997 all of a sudden a Memorandum of Understanding is entered into and thousands of people are given a good-bye. All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered . That abou : 35000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected . It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there will be more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered, they will fall short of total vacancies .
are employees of the State Bank of India and they have worked for a period which is noted in the list of cases which are pending before this Court . That the ultimate object of Industrial Adjudication has been received by all asone of revolutionary import which admits its task not on purely theoretical , abstract , academic grounds adhering to any dogmas , or applying abstract principles mechanically or under any sub -consciousness pressures preconceived notions , theories or ' isms ' but since to evolveworking principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner. The interest of proper judicial enquiry including the collection , collation and analysis of relevant facts. Therefore , it becomes highly significant in industrial matters . The Supreme Court right from Bharath Banks Case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest AirportsAuthority Case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance ofthe ignorance of the working class and important of their rights restating principles of social justice . The present trend ofLabour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests of not only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are so wedded that they cannot be separated inall contexts and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to survive in this world. As observed by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Association of Australia Vs. State of Australia which was also quoted in the State of Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case " in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in...." .
28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikaas, Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short , the State Bank of India has committed the following illegalities : 1. unfair labour practice , vitiated by colourable exercise of power, 2. impugned oral orders of termination without authority on 31-3-97, 3. the exercise of the said power is violative of article 14 and Sec . 19 ( 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , 4. the purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as if it's a back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements they have created legitimate expectations of absorption to these poor workmen who have been running around since 1975 , the order not to engage is a non - speaking order. Further several ofthese persons although were terminated are still working, if there is no work how these persons are working? The argument that due to computerization lesser staff is required does not hold good because the work of attenders could only be done by robots which have not yetcome in India , hence , waterboys , sweepers and for odd work, still the services of the attenders are required. Those who were made to understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after all the so-called Memorandum of Understanding is to defeat thepurpose of settlements wherein the effected parties are not even consulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec . 23 of the Contract Act .
27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way of life for everyone in Bharat Republic . The poor workmen and common men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right to work and right to adequate means of livelihood in just and humane conditions of work, to living wage , a decent standard of life, education and leisure . Article 43 (A) 43 ConstitutionAmendment Act, 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of Undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry. He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore , in interpreting the Constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to build up continuity of socio , economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the Law should constantly meet the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order . Therefore , the concepts engrafted in the Statute require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violence to the language . Then the further argues and reiterates the facts of the settlements which need not be repeated here. He further argues that the Memorandum of Understanding is not correct, because the last settlement does notprovide for lapsing of the empanelled candidates , 10819
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927.
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
Lordships held, it is well settled lawthat in case where SLP isdismissed without assigning any reason that order would not constitute a binding precedent . He also relied on 2003 Supreme Court cases page 231 which reiterate the same. He also relied onAIR2002 Supreme Court page 3088 wherein their Lordships held, "the High Court and all other courts inthe countrywere no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court, but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility to find out the ratioofthedecision and ascertain the law, ifany, so declared from a careful reading of decision concerned and only thereafter proceed to apply appropriately. " He also refied on2003 (7) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein it was held, "Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. Adecision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case inwhich it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements whichare not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished asobiter dictaand are not authoritative . The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into the facts, it cannot be assumed whether asimilar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without argumentare ofno moment . Mere casual expressions carry noweight at all , nor every passing expression ofa Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority. " He also relies on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 Supplementary IV Supreme Court cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. State ofU.P. and Others, wherein their Lordships held, "since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the Writ Petition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion, in as much as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments had been admitted by respondents. " He therefore, submits that the Petitioners have alleged in the petition that there were about 1500 vacancies and it has not beca controverted, hence, this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has been admitted by the bank.
30. He also relies on LLJ 2004 February page 227, wherein it was held. "the Respondent was working as a part time sweeper in the organization ofthe Petitioner. After fifteen; years of service, the Respondent was terminated from service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part-time employee also falls within the definition of workman under Section 2( s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . TheHigh Court also retreated the findings of the LabourCourt and stated that as long as the ingredients Sec. 2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee hasbeenappointed as a regular, permanent/temporary or dailywages, casual or part-time. " He also relied on LLJ 29. I now refer to the cases cited by various Advocates . The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao . AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein a full bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal of a permanent employee without assigning any reason , their Lordships held, is arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy. He also relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571, this dealt with the rule empowering the Government corporation to terminate services of its permanent employees by giving notice or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violative of Article 14, 39(a) and 41. He also relies on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248, their Lordships held, that an agreement canbe challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised even by a person who had earlier consented to the agreement. They further held that the illegal contract , cannot constitute and effect and accord satisfaction. He also relies on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that, "We have , no doubt that the percedents on the point , the principles of industrial law, the constitutional sympathy ofPart IV and the sound rules of statutory construction converge to the same point that when a notice intimating termination ofan award or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is set for fresh negotiations or industrial adjudication and until either effort ripens into a fesh set of conditions ofservice the previous award or settlement does regulate the relations between the employer and the employees. " He also relied on 1999(5 ) ALD 1992 (D.B. ), GeneralManager, State Bank of Hyderabad and another vs. P. Ramulu, wherein their Lordships referred to the circular of the Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approach paper in the recruitment as well as in absorption of temporary employees asfollows: " For the staff which is presently on the rolls of theBanks their services will be regularized in terms of the Approach Paper. For the current requirement banks may utilize their existing panel of temporary employees and in case these employees were not taken from the employment exchanges the Banks would be required to approach the DGE and T directly seeking exemption . Until the problem ofexisting temporary employees is fully resolved no Bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments. " In that case para 6, all employees who had put in 90 or more days after the cut off date i.e. , 1-1-1982 will only be eligible for considering the scheme. The Respondent in the Writ Petition has put in more than 90 days before the said cut offdate. Their Lordships held that as per the scheme one time opportunity each a person who had completed 90 daysof temporary service as on 1-1-1982 and also after 1-1-1982 shall be regularized by empanelling him for the post.He also referred to Supreme Court employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India wherein it was held, that it iswell settled principle of law that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisaged by article 141 of the Constitution. He also relied on 1997 (6) Supreme Court cases page 564, which is to the same effect. He also relied on 2003(4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their 10820
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ page 323 wherein the High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the bus driver on an average worked for 20 days in a month but was paid wages for one month . Average working hours 10 to 12 hours and no overtime wages paid, Finding ofthe Industrial Tribunal that workman has worked 240 days in a calendar year is legal and proper." He also relied on 1995 Supplementary(4) Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordships directed regularization of services ofthe Petitioners who had worked for three years including the break till today, shall not be terminatedand shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as andwhen they arise. He also relied on 1991 supplementary (2) SSC page 363 wherein it was held, the change of service rules cannot bemade in the prejudice ofan employee who was in service prior to the change . He also relied on 1986 Supreme Court page 954 wherein it was held, " such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise then in the course of conciliation proceedings isbinding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec. 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen anywho are not parties in the settlement . " He also relied on 1993 ( 1 ) SCCpage 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held as follows : " In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State andall its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution ofwhich non- arbitrariness is a significant facet . There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ' fairplay in action ' . Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizento be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming necessary component of the decision -making process in all State actions . To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action , it is , therefore, necessaryto consider andgive due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bona fidesfides of the decision in a given case. The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on thegroundofarbitrariness . Rules oflaw does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, as it is unrealistic, but provides for control ofits exercise byjudicial review. [Para 8 page 91 ] "
He also relied on the full bench decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in 1992 (4 ) Supreme Court cases page 118, wherein their Lordships held iffor any reason, an ad hoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory andhis appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy ofthe State. He also relied on 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ wherein their Lordships held that, " so far as the work- charged employees and casual labour are concerned , the effort must beto regularizerize them as far as possible and as early as
possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications , if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. Ifa casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services . In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization . While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person . " He also relied on Judgement of the High Court of Patna reported in 2003 III LLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed, " All said, the claim of such persons who have remained in the employment ofthe State for long periods , those who have spent the golden period of their lives in the service ofthe State, those who with the passage of the time have become eligible for appointment elsewhere cannot be ignored altogether ." He also relied on 1995 (2 ) Supreme Court cases page 326 where the full bench of the Supreme Court held, " In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation . The expression which is said to have originated from the Judgement of Lord Denning in Schmidt Vs. Secy. ofState for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong Vs. Ng Yuen Shiu Privy Council applied this principle where expectations were " based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of, the public authority " and observed: "Accordingly ' legitimate expectations ' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights , provided they have some reasonable basis . A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right inprivate law to receive such treatment . " He also relied on 1998 ( 7 ) Supreme Court cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held , the doctrine of legitimate expectation has it genesis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its Departments , in administrating the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion . The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Continuing their Lordships further held , though the doctine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fairplay in administrative action , it may, in a given situation, be enforced as a substantive right . The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law ; or (b ) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either ( i ) he had in the past been permitted by the decision - maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment ; or ( ii ) he has received assurance from the decision - maker that it will not 10821 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Mr. Vikas, appearing for various Petitioner cited various Judgements some ofthem are 19987 SCC page804 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staffof income tax Department some of them working from 8 years , directions issued to pay such workmen at the rate equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption. He also relied onAIR 1990 Supreme Court page 2228 where in itwas held that the Kerala water supply and civil water authority shall immediately regularize the services of Public Health Department employees as per its resolution dated 30-1-1987 without waiting for the State Government approval. They also directed those who have put in less that one year service age bar may be waved etc. Several morecitations he filed about regularisation . He also relied on 1996 I Service law reporter Supreme Court of India page56where in it was held, workman in the employment in the state of Forest Department for 5 to 6 year and in each year theyworked for a period ranging 100 to 330 days, workmenemployed under the schemes at hand had been so done.To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularizethem amounts to unfair labour practice and various other judgements and further added to his arguments that by further arguing that these cases are the most fit for regularization as some ofthem are working from 1975.
Mr.Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs T.N. Jaya Ram where in it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned single judge held that the Petitioner had not worked continuously for a period 30 days . The learned singlejudge relied on category C ofthe settlement to arrive at the said conclusion . Their lordships allowed the Writ Appeal on the ground , in view of the fact that the Petitioner falls short of the required 30 days by 4 days, the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity inthe employment ofthe bank" .
Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate, Shri Prabhakar Rao, advocate on behalf of Shri Ramchandra Rao, Advocate and Shri Prasad, advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners who have been unceremoniously dismissed on 1-4-1997 and some ofthem are still continuing and it is not only a question on industrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioners who worked since more than two decades.
It isargued by the Learned Counsel for Respondent Shri Ram Das , Shri B.G. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate, and Smt . Lalita Kumari , Advocate that the Hon'ble CGIT-cum- Labour Court is fully empowered to decide the disputes which are pending before it in the LCIDs and IDs. That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the branches for short periods at the instance of concerned BranchManager who had no jurisdiction to appoint them. They are not employees ofthe State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure. The daily wagers/casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited. That thePetitioners were engaged by the concerned branch managers to meet the exigencies of work at intermittent intervals and they cannot be termed as employees of the be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should notbe withdrawn . Indian scenario in the field of legitimate expectation is not different. The question whether the expectation andthe claim is reasonable or legitimate, isa question of fact in each case. This question had to be determined not according to the claimants ' perceptionbut in larger public interest. " He also relied on 1997 7 SCC 592 where in it was held that-the selected industries (Respondents ) with which the agreements were entered into by the State Government legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice . The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has beenjudicially recognizedby the Supreme Court . The doctrine of" legitimate expectation" operates in the domain of public law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right. He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 where in it is held that the law must therefore be now taken to be well-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a stature or statutoryrule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequeneces would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right , just and fair not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial functin and an administrative function for the purpose ofprinciples of natural justice is calculated to securejustice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi -judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply toboth . Therefore, fair play inaction requires that the procedure adopted must be just , fairand reasonable . The manner ofexercise of power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article 21 clbes life with liberty , dignity of person with means of livelihoodwithout which the glorious content of dignity of personwouldbe reduced to animal existence . When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality equalitarian in its sould and allergic to discriminatory dictates . Equality is the antihests of arbitrariness . It is, conclusively held by this court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable . He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 where in it was observed " the right to life includes right to livelihood . Therefore cannot hand on to the fancies of the individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can it servival be at their marcy. Income is the foundation ofmany fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income the right to workbocomes as much fundamental, Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo ofundefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be mockery ofthem.
10822
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] bank ontemporary basis in any identified post or vacancy.
Butboth of them mainly relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 in which itwas held that only those casual workers who were in the waiting list of the bank (panels) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies ofthe bank. As the select list came to an end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgment of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP ( CC) 3082/99 .
He further argued that even those who have completed 240 days also cannot claim regularization as the veryentrywas irregular and they got any right it is through the agreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds. Such regularization isjeopardizes the larger public interests. So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance. And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is an all India agreement and theHon'ble Suprem Court has dismissed the SLP on merits, hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Petitions may be dismissed .
That the Petitioners have no statutory right to seek any reliefunder the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . The Petitioners have not put in continuous service of240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act . It is to be examined whether they stand a chance for absorption asper the settlements . That the Petitioners failed to implead the All India SBI Staff Federation as party to the dispute before this courtto seek interpretation of the settlements . As such, the cases are bad for non -joinder of necessary party. That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancies are less than 100 each year . The SBI has absorbed messengers and Non -messengers totalling to more than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgement that the settlementare repugnant to Sec. 23 of the Indian ContractAct and the Memorandum of Understanding and the Theory ofLegitimate Expectations has no place in the settlements . That in terms of the 5 settlements , the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive upto 31st March , 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Administrative instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 as there were no vacancies . That thequestion of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz . , if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointment are made on adhoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if their services are required by the Bank . In any case, backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment ofan employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could never be effected.
They also relied on several cases , in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere inclusion of a candidates name in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected . Some vacancies remaining unfilled after process ofselection finally closed- candidate not appointed-No discrimination . They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 584 Syndicate Bank Vs. Sankarpal wherein it was held that if a waiting list isfor specific period the wait listed candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses . They also relied on 1997 + SCC 283 Sanjay Vs Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wait listed candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies . He also relied on AIR 992 Supreme Court page 20710 where it was held - Stop gap appointees or Temporary appointees do not have any right for continuous or for regularization .
As stated in the beginning, these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 2005. To sum up the entire facts in a nut shell , the entry of these persons was as casual employees . Seeing the enormity of the situation the SBI and All India SBI staff federation entered into various agreements . The candidates were called for interview and were empanelled. The last agreement was dated 30-7-1996 which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Then there was a Memorandum ofunderstanding dt 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary emplyees , daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997 . There was a conciliation dated 9-6-1995 wherein before the conciliation officer it was agreed that another joint committee wilt be constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997. No such joint committee was constituted nor any fresh settlement came into effect from 1-4-1997 . Carrot was dingled before the workers for number of years creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good -bye to all the cmployees on 31-3-1997 Their hopes were further raised by the Judgment of the High Court which held " the Petitioners /employees who were on duty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deem to be on duty and shall be entiled to all the benefits of such a post and they shall be immediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some suprernumery posts within 3 months from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to which they were entitled as on that date , till they are absorbed" . Infact the Hon'ble single judge stated in the Judgment which 1 quote " Mr. S Ramachandra Rao , Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have never controverted such factual and legal position . Such a dispute in any form existing and even apprehended definitely could be a subject of reference to the board of settlement , to a court for enquiry, to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.......... " It is also his apprehernision genuinely expressed that driving the Petitioners to such forums for Smt . Lalitha Kumari , Advocate for Respondent relied on 2104 Vol . IV SLT page 947 which was a judgment from Madras High Court where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment held in violation of mandatory provisions of statutes ignoring minimum education qualifications , wholly illegal . Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality.
10823 भारत की राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
such disputes could be nothing less then pushing the hapless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry moufti ofthewild life".
the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits when the SLP was dismissed on merits , I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri P Anil Kumar and 23 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Be that may be so . The above Judgement was set aside by writ appeals by division bench holding thethat the matter has tobedealt with and settled by the parties under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court . Against which a Special Leave Petitions were filed which were disthissed.
Beforeparting with the case, I feel it apt to direct the Respondent "which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India" to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary daily wages/ casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities ofthe expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with mercy. I was constrained to follow the settled law position, but my conscience prompted me to issue the above directions , which I hope and trust will be honoured by the Respondent bank. While so considering, the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable grounds as the above category employees have spent long time with the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization of their services.
As Ihave to follow the settled law & the position in which I found myselfwhile delivering this award it prompted me to describe the condition ofthese petitioners as depicted inthe poem of Faiz Ahmed Faiz quated at the beginning of theAward.
Typed by LDC to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me on is the 17th day of May, 2005.
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
Appendix ofEvidence Documents marked for Petitioner LC ID No.: 20/2002
Peritioner Evidence- WWI : T Appa Rao
Ex. W1: Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex. W3: Notification of the bank
Ex. W4: Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/o Finance
Ex. W5 : Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4
Ex.W6: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer ( IR) , SBI , Bombay dt. 30-11-87.
LC ID No.: 22/2002
Petitioner Evidence - WWI : K Srinivasa Rao
Ex . W1 to W9 are Service Certificate
Ex. W10 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex.W11 : Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/o Finance , Govt. of
India dt. 16-8-1990
Ex.W12: Reply letter of ChiefOfficer ( IR) to Ex . W11
Ex.W13: Letter ofDesk Officer , M/o Labour, Govt . of India toChiefOfficer (IR), SBI, Bombay dt. 30-11-87
LC ID No.: 26/2002
The position now is that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 those who have completed 240 days in a year has some right as notice of notice pay and retrenchment compensation. But all of them entered into settlements , no doubt, these persons are not members of the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation . But those who have worked even for 30 days in a calendar year or70 days in 36 calendar thonthis and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements entered into byAll India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements . But forthe settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year others dỡ hột have any right under the ID Act. And this is a all India problem and unfortunately for thePetitioners the same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex. M6 herein, was discussed by the Orissa High Court in OJC No: 9039 of 1997 (WP) and batch, which was to lapse on 31-3-1997 . Where in it was held " the currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the impugned decisions/settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997. 11 is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have riot been fixed. We do not think it necessary to go into this hypothetical questions....... ".Against which SLP was filed in the Hon'ble SC which dismissed saying the SLP is dismissed onmerits. In fact , all these reference or 2 (A) (2) are about their termination. For example the reference is "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local HeadOffice . Hyderabad in terminating the services ofSti P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non - Messenger, State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 isjustified or not? Ifnot , what relief the applicant is entitled? " . Actually if they had ahy grievance that the bank had agreed vide minutes of conciliationproceedings dated 9-6-1995 , vide Ex. M5 , they should have approached conciliation officer raising a dispute that no joint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come intoeffect from 1-4-1997. As the Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa also stated in the end of the Judgement, it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated, the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/authority. The reference here iswhether termination is justified or not .
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : M Simhachalam
Ex. WI: Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W4 : Letter of Under Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex.W5 :Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4 I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of person involved and the great expectations raised but justice has to be rendered as per law. Therefore in view of the Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by
2800 G1/05-33 10824
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
LC ID No.: 41/2002
Ex. W6: Letter of Desk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI, Bombay dt . 30-11-87
Petitioner Evidence -WW1 : K Jagannadha Rao
LC ID No.: 27/2002
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Petitioner Evidence- WW1 : B Srinivasa Rao
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex . W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Letter of Under Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4: Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex . W4 Ex. W3 : Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex. W4: Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4
Ex. W5: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. of India to Chief Officer (IR), SBI, Bombaydt . 30-11-87
Ex. W5: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI, Bombaydt. 30-11-87
LC ID No.: 42/2002
LC ID No.: 37/2002
Petitioner Evidence- WW1 : TKrishna
Petitioner Evidence -WWI : M Venkata Ramana
Ex .W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Letter of Under Secretary, M/o Finance
Ex. W4: Notification of the bank
Ex. W4: Reply letter of Chief Officer (IR) to Ex. W4 Ex. W5 : Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex. W6: Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex . W4
Ex. W5 : Letter of Desk Officer, M/o Labour , Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI , Bombay dt . 30-11-87
Ex. W7 : Letter ofDesk Officer, M/ o Labour , Govt. of India toChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI , Bombay dt . 30-11-87
LC ID No.: 43/2002
LC ID No.: 38/2002
Petitioner Evidence- WW1 : GVenkata Rangana
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : B Venkata Govinda Rajula Subba Rao
Ex . WI: Service Certificate
Ex . W1: Service Certificate
Ex . W2 : Service Certificate
Ex . W2: Service Certificate
Ex.W3: Service Certificate
Ex.W3: Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W4 : Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex .W5: Letter of Under Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex. W5 : Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex . W4 Ex . W6.: Reply letter of Chief Officer (IR) to Ex. W4
Ex. W6 : Letter of Desk Officer , M/o Labour, Govt . of India to Chief Officer ( IR) , SB1 , Bombay dt. 30-11-87
Ex. W7 : Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer ( IR) , SBI, Bombay dt. 30-11-87
LC ID No.: 39/2002
LC ID No.: 44/2002
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : VVenkata Ramana
Petitioner Evidence - WW1 : K Srinivasa Rao
Ex. WI: Service Certificate
Ex. WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex. W3: Letter of Under Secretary, M/o Finance
Ex . W3 : Letter of Under Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex. W4: Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4
:
Ex. W4: Reply letter of Chief Officer ( IR) to Ex. W4 Ex . W5 : Letter of Desk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer( IR) , SBI , Bombay dt . 30-11-87
Ex. W5 : Letter of Desk Officer , M/ o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer( IR) , SBI , Bombay dt. 30-11-87
LCID No.: 40/2002
LC ID No.: 45/2002
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : B Venkata Rao
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : R Vasudeva Rao
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex . WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4: Service Certificate
Ex. W4 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Notification of the bank
Ex. W5 : Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance
Ex. W6 : Letter of Under Secretary, M/o Finance
Ex.W6: Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4
Ex. W7: Reply letter of Chief Officer (IR) to Ex. W4 Ex. W7: Letter of Desk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. of India to Chief Officer ( IR), SBI , Bombay dt . 30-11-87
Ex. W8: Letter of Desk Officer , M/o Labour, Govt . of India to ChiefOfficer( IR) , SBI , Bombaydt . 30-11-87 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) .]
10825
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
LC ID No.:46/2002,
Ex. W2: Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance PetitionerEvidence-WW1: DAppalaRaju
Ex. W3 :Replyletter ofChief Officer (IR) to Ex.W4 Ex. W1 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex.W4: Letter ofDesk Officer,M/o Labour, Govt . of India toChiefOfficer(IR) , SBI, Bombay dt . 30-11-87 Ex. W2: Letter of Under Secretary, M/oFinance
LC ID No.: 54/2002
Ex. W3 :Replyletter ofChiefOfficer (IR) toEx.W4
PetitionerEvidence-WWI : T Somayya
Ex. W4: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. of India to ChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI, Bombay dt. 30-11-87
Ex. Wlto W7 : Service Certificate
LC ID No.: 47/2002
Ex. W8 : Notification of the bank
PetitionerEvidence-WW1 : KGowri Naidu
Ex. W9 . Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex.W10: Reply letter of Chief Officer ( IR) to Ex.W4 Ex .W2 : Service Certificate
Ex. W3: Notification ofthebank
Ex. W11 : Letter ofDesk Officer , M/o Labour, Govt. of India toChiefOfficer(IR), SBI, Bombay dt.30-11-87 Ex. W4: Letter ofUnder Secretary,M/ o Finance
LCID No: 55/2002
Ex.W5: Reply letter ofChiefOfficer (IR) toEx. W4
PetitionerEvidence-WW1: TSrinivasaRao
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex.W6 : Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. of India to ChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI , Bombaydt. 30-11-87
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
LC ID No.:48/2002
Ex.W3 : Service Certificate
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : TSuri AppaRao
Ex.W4: Service Cerificate
Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/o Finance Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex.W6:Replyletter ofChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex.W4 Ex. W3: Service Certificate
Ex. W4: Notification of the bank
Ex. W7: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. ofIndia toChiefOfficer (IR), SBI, Bombay dt . 30-11-87 Ex. W5 : Letter of Under Secretary,M/o Finance
LCID No.: 60/2002
Ex.W6: Reply letter ofChiefOfficer (IR) toEx. W4
PetitionerEvidence-WW1 : K Jagadeswara Rao
Ex. W1: ServiceCertificate
Ex. W7: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/ o Labour, Govt. of India toChiefOfficer ( IR) , SBI, Bombay dt .30-11-87
Ex. W2: Service Certificate
LC ID No.:49/2002
Petitioner Evidence-WWI : KMadhusudhan Rao
Ex.W3: Letter ofU ider Secretary, M/o Finance Ex. W1 : Service Certificate
Ex. W4 :Reply letter of ChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4 Ex. W2: Service Certificate
Ex.W5: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. ofIndia toChiefOfficer(IR), SBI, Bombay dt. 30-11-87 Ex.W3: Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance
LC ID No.: 91/2002
Ex.W4:Replyletter ofChiefOfficer (IR) toEx.W4
Petitioner Evidence-WW1 : M- Ravi Kumar
Ex.WI : Service Certificate
Ex. W5 : Letter ofDeak Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. ofIndia toChiefOfficer (IR), SBI, Bombay dt . 30-11-87
Ex.W2: Service Certificate
LC ID No.: 50/2002
Ex.W3: Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/ o Finance PetitionerEvidence-WW1 : S Neelayya
Ex.W4: Replyletter ofChiefOfficer (IR) to Ex. W4 Ex. W1: Service Certificate
Ex. W5: Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. of India Ex. W2: Service Certificate
toChiefOfficer (IR) , SBI , Bombay dt. 30-11-87 Ex. W3 : ServiceCertificate
Ex. W4: Letter ofUnder Secretary, M/o Finance
Documents marked for Respondent (in all 23 cases):
Ex.W5: Reply letter ofChiefOfficer (IR) toEx.W4
Management Evidence
Ex.W6; Letter ofDesk Officer, M/o Labour, Govt. of India to ChiefOfficer ( IR) , SBI, Bombay dt . 30-11-87
MWI : CRM Sastry, Chief Manager (Per & HRD) , SBI , Visakhapatnam
LC ID No.: 51/2002
PetitionerEvidence-WW1 : R Suryanarayana
Ex.Ml : 5 Settlements reached between All India SBI Staff Federation and Management of State Bank of India.
Ex. W1: Service Certificate 10826
[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ]
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9, 1927
ANNEXURE
IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD PRESENT:
Shri E. ISMAIL, B.Sc. LL.B. , Presiding Officer
Dated the 17th May, 2005
LC24 of 2004
Between: R. Sree RamaMurthy
AndR1 : The AGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC25 of 2004
Between:B.Ganga Raju
And R1 : TheAGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC28 of 2002
Between : B. Devudu
AndR1 : TheBranch Manager, SBI , Sabhavaram LC52 of 2002
Between: B. Saraswati
AndR1): The Branch Manager , SBI, Seethammadhara
LC53 of 2002
Between : PV Ramu
AndR1 : The CGM, SBI, LHO , Hyderabad R2: The DGM, SBI, Zonal Office ,Visakhapatnam LC 56 of 2002
Between: K. Appa Rao
AndRI : TheGeneral Manager, SBI , Hyderabad LC59 of 2002
Between: B. Lakshmana Rao
AndR1 : The CGM, SBI , LHO , Hyderabad R2: The GM, SBI , Zonal Office , Visakhapatnam LC 59 of 2004
Between: E. Sunder Kumar
AndRI : The AGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam
LC60 of 2004
Between : S. Madhusudhan Reddy
AndR1 : TheAGM, SBI , Zonal Office ,
Visakhapatnam
LC69 of 2003
Between: Surya Prakash Rao
And R1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office , Visakhapatnam
LC 70 of 2003
Between:Hari
And R1 : The DGM, SBI, Zonal Office , Visakhapatnam
LC 71 of 2003
Between: G. Ramesh Reddy
AndR1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam
LC 72 of 2003
Between: KLazar
And R1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC80 of 2003
Between:G. Sriniwas
AndR1: The DGM, SBI , ZonalOffice,
Visakhapatnam
LC81 of 2003
Between:ANarasingaRao
AndR1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam LC 85 of 2003
Between : A. Atchuta Rao
And R1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam LC 86 of 2003
Between: Y Suri Appa Rao
And R1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam LC 87 of 2003
Between: B. Chithiyya
And R1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam
LC90 of 2003
Between: G. Semhachalam
And R1: The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam LC 91 of 2003
Between: G. V. Ramachandra Rao
And R1: The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office,
Visakhapatnam
LC 92 of 2003
Between :G. Mohan Rao
And R1: The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC93 of 2003
Between : J. Subba Rao
And RI: The DGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC 94 of 2003
Between: Adapaka Arraji
And R1 : The DGM, SBI , Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam [ भाग II- ग्रखण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]
LC 123 of 2003
Between: I.Nagaraju
AndR1: TheDGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC124of2003
Between:K. Gowri
AndR1: The DGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC 150 of 2003
Between: M. Venkata Rao
And R1 : The AGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
LC 195 of2003
Between:M. SankaraRao
AndR1: The AGM, SBI, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam
APPEARANCES:
For the Petitioner: S/Shri Vikas, C.Vijaya SekharReddy, D. Subramanyam, Advocates .
For the Respondent : Shri Ramdas & Shri Jagannadha Murty, Advocates.
AWARD
TheGovernment of India , Ministry ofLabour by its OrderNo. L- 12012/ 126/2001 - IR(B.1 ) dated 18-9-2001 referred the following dispute under section 10( 1 )(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman . The reference is,
SCHEDULE
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non -Messenger, STATE BANK OF INDIA w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not what relief the applicant is entitled?" The reference is numbered in this tribunal as I.D. No. 222/2001 and notices were issued to the parties. The Government ofIndia has referred about 500 such references and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989dated 3-8-1985 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others , about 250 Petitioners have filed cases directly under section 2 (A) (2 ) of the ID Act. It will not be possible or practicable to answer evey case separately. As the main issues involved are one and the same, I am ofthe opinion that all ofthem can be decided in groups by giving common awards, this group which I am now dealing pertains to Visakhapatnam Zone and this reference and27 other 2 (A) (2 ) petitions a common award is passed.
4. To begin with I am quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975 , I have not only to consider merely the technical aspects powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference
10827
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
but Iwill also have to see viewing it as a human problem. These cases remind me of a poem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and I find no better way than to start my award byquoting the entire poem ofFaiz.
"Humility I've learnt, sympathy for the poor, learn the meaning ofdespair , suffering and pain; learnto comprehend the miseries ofthe oppressed, themeaning ofcold sighs , ofpallid faces.
Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to cry,
Inwhose eyes tears, bitterly shed, fall asleep , Andthose destitute upon whose morsels swoop down
the vultures hovering above , poised on their wings. Whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of the labourer,
and on the highways flows the blood of the poor, a sort of fire upsurges in my bosom
and I lose all hold over my heart ."
As I stated supra, these cases have got a checkered history and instead ofmyself narrating the same, I think it would bebetter towrite down what he stated in his claim statement ofthisparticular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statements in all the cases filed by the Petitioners.
5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in ID No. 222/ 2001 has filed the following claim statement . That the workman joined in the services of the Management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in 1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services wereterminated by oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997. The workman submits that he is erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of State Bank of India. He belongs to Scheduled Caste , he passed IX class . The qualification is VIII standard which is prescribed for the post of messenger. The Management of Bank has decided to give a chance to mporarily employed personnel found suitable for permanent appointment by waitlisting them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting them till such opportunity arises .
6. That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management ofState Bank of India-settlement one , under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is , (A) those who have completed 240 days in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975 , (B ) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 , (C) (i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or ( ii ) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1-7-1975.
7. The persons who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committeethe said selection committee would determine the suitability of the said candidate for permanent 10828
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] appointment . Therefore, the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workman then prescribed certain the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee . Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidatewould be wait listed in order oftheir respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement is specifically provided that henceforth, "there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre" , except on a restrictive basis inthe specified category, " from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines of the bank. " The workman further subntits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers. The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . A written examination followedby viva voce in May, 1989 was held . A selected panelwas prepared as per clause 7 of the agreement, i.e. settlement No. 1 the selected panel was to be valid upto December, 1991, the workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17-11-87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into betweenthe parties . In terms ofthe said agreement a chance was tobe given, "to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments . The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96 , circular made it clear that in view of the enormity of the problem an extension of the currency of the panel, eligible temporarywho have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview. "
appointments . That some ofthe persons similarly situated like this Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Management of the bank in not regularising their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position , filed W.P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. It is specifically averred in the said Writ Petition that the management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. by an order dated 2-3-97 directed the bank to implement the settlement as amended from time to time . It also directed the bank to carry out the terms settlement before the expiry of March, 1997. The High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement . In view of the directions grantedby theHigh Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of agreement entered into on 17-11-87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991 and on the basis of a settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panels weremade alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27-10-1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularisation and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation . Unfortunately, contrary to the directions given byby the High Court on 5-3-1997 in W.P. No. 4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties the bank issued proceedings dated 25-3-1997, dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97 . The said order was followed by the Management. Aggrieved by the said action the workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3 , 4 and 5 therein) on 25-3-97, 27-3-97 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non - continuance of the Petitioners therein in service by absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative ofSection 2 (p ) and 18( 1 ) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them in service .
8. In fact, there is some confusion in the claim statement, but actually another panel was prepared. There weretotal settlements , settlement dated 17-11-87 is the 1st settlement (Ex . M1 ) , settlement dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement (Ex. M2) , settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex . M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement (Ex. M6). In between there is , minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex. M5 . That due to all these settlements which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with its a question oftime before appointments or services are regularized inthe services of the bank. The workman was working with the bank on temporarybasis was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularised with bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere . It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope ofemployment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. The Government of India issued circular No. F -3 / 3/104/87- IR, dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the Chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted toto make any permanent
10. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed in writ Petition No. 9206/97 , the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks , it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre . It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged . Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to on the one hand , keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that beingjust fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice.
11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88 and 27-10-88 . The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16-8-90 stated in its counter affidavit as follows : "Government of India, vide its letter dated 16-8-1990 , issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. The Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banksmay followtheprovisions laid down in the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25 -F maybe decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days ofservice in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para 6(h), it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put intemporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporaryservice of 90 or more days, the bank by way of further concession entered into settlement even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days . As such, it could be seen that the settlements are more baneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify Para 6 ( c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for thatpurposetemporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1-1-1982 could be considered for re -employment in terms ofthe scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
Ascouldbe seen from the above , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability ofthe vacancies.
It is further submitted that at para 6 (k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workman covered by the settlement . This would mean that theGovernment of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specifiedthereinand not otherwise . As such, it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases
10829
of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days . As such, question of violation does not arise and in any casethosewere only broad guidelines and not directives." 12. The workman submits that the bank also referred a further settlement dated 9-1-1991 whereinthere is a clause to the effect that the panel of temporary employees and the panel ofdaily wage employees will be operated to a particular period . Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this settlement in their impugned action . It is subinitted that eventhe settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the workman herein as it does not specify the termination of theemployees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporarymessengers/attenders /sweepers etc. , even after thejudgement ofHon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workmanherein. It is submitted inspite ofengaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein in the services of the bank and consider theircases for absorption in view ofthe circulars issuedby Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4194/97 dated 5-3-97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon thesettlementdated 9-1-1991 . Hence, the impugnedaction of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The workman submits that the Hon'ble High Courtallowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 and batch by anorder dated 1-1-1998 . It is pertinent to mention that as a matter offact the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings of fact :
"(1) That the candidates had appeared for written examination and a Viva Voce Test. They, therefore, satisfied a procedure of objective criteria in theprocess of selection.
(2) The life ofthe panels were admittedly extended bythe bankbeyond its initial life span.
(3) Inspite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation ofthe services of the employees who were continued to be in the panel, the aboveworkmen were continued tobe engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997, 27-3-1997 and31-3-1997.
(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive tilf allthe empanelled candidates were absorbed.
(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees are absorbed and regularized in the services of thebank.
(6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation of beingregularized in the services ofof thethe bank.
(7) Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services 10830
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ofthebark, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the services of theworkmen but to terminate their services even ifthey were otherwise eligible for regularization.
should be made only from among the empanelled candidates. The Management has indulged in unfair labour practices . The Management has committed unfair labour practice and terminated the services of candidates from 1-4-97 which is arbitrary, discriminatory contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional Provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India.
(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contraryto the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. V. Sundara Mani reported in AIR 1976 $C 1111.
(9) The status of the workmen vis -a-vis the bank neededno probe.
(10) That the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealing with the question of temporary workmen pointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is not only violation of Bipartite Agreement of theDesai Award that after the said period, the status of the employees is that of regular employees.
(11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , the Learned Counsel forthePetitioners, is totally right in contending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except to know whether they have been implemented or enforced. Therefore , it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or flouted by the Respondent bank in its true and real implications."
14. The worknian submits that in the W.P. No. 4194/ 97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein they have complained about the non- implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list , they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which hasbeen reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of31-3-97.
16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so -called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25-2-1997 , that the action of terminating such employees like the workman by virtue ofan impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which can not be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the workman after 31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment . It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III ofthe Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one months notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus , the main proceedings are issued in Cleanable exercise ofpower, without jurisdiction , arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97, Ex. M5 does not appoint the workman and its own legal entity, the said Memorandum of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the workman whose rights are being affected . Submitted that the Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its ' instructions dated 16-8-90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies . The Management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here. It is not pertinentto note/mention here that the Respondent Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June, 1997 , subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders . After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates . It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even intemporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies. Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjust , illegal , violative of principles of natural justice and hence, the Management is directed to reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
17. Acounter was filed with the following averments . That the reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is respectfully submitted that to tide over severe sub -ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies , exigencies , etc. , and also owing to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the 15. Further , judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way theywill be referred to while referring the arguments. It is further averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India . He submitted that in the clause 10 of the statement it is specifically mentioned that the workman to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlements . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that 10831
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9,1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers , sweepers , sweeper -cum-water boys , etc. , depending on the availability ofwork on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches . It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% of the work force as its members espoused the cause oftemporary employees who have put in less than 240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments .
were also considered. Hence, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies . However, para 6(k) ofthe approach paper made it clear that it is a one time exercise in full and final settlement ofall the claims and disputes for the past period, in respect' of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 herein after referred as 4thsettlement.And the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers. It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect ofcasual/ daily wagers , they can be considered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
19. It is submitted that the administrative set up of theHyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones)at Hyderabad, Vijayawada , Visakhapatnam andTirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. Interms ofthe settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption . These panels were prepared zone- wise separately for messengers and non -messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. , 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 . That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) for implementation of Bipartite Settlement i1. respect of absorption of temporary employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived betweenthe Federation and the bank. It was agreed that itwould be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy ofthe conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived at and an agreement was signed between the Federation and the Management Bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec. 2(p) read with Sec. 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes ( Central) Rules , 1957 , which is herein after called as 5th settlement . That on 27-2-1997 a Memorandum of Understanding was also signed by the Federations affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned. It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989. panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from ful ! time non -messengerial staff in the usual manriër and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms of the settlement dated 30-7-1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997 . That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels . The Petitioner who has put in anaggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/ law except under the settlement entered into 18. Discussions were held and on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the Federation and the. Management bank under Sec . 2(p) read with Sec . 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17-11-87 which may be hereinafter referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above, it need not be repeated here . In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorised would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrived between the Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 inplace of 1987 to 1991 as contemplatedunder the first settlement dated 17-11-1987. This is the second settlement . A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered . Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelineswere issuedto implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months, and who are entitled to benefit of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of tenıporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however, if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para 6(h) it is mentioned that onlythose temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1-1-82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect ofemployees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days , the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975
2800 G1/05-34 10832
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence , there isno question of any legitimate expectation being violated.
21. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No. 9206/ 1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge . Thereafter the ex -temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India . The Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia also dismissed the SLP. Therefore, reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequences is the same has already been set aside . The observations made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever. The question of operation of Sec. 25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements ofHon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
22. The Pettioner examined himself as WWI and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition. He further deposed that he worked for 98 days but he was given certificate only for 55 days before interview. That he worked between 1988--97 for 843 days . That as per the norms he also fits in category P and he speaks about the settlements and he further deposed that on 18-11-93 , 800 contract labourers were made permanent by the bank . By then , their existing panels were still not completed. That till date the bank is still continuing with some persons who are from the panel by making pick and choose method and it is also claimed by Assisttant Labour Commissioner ( C ) that some of these employees are still working . In Ex . W10 itself it was mentioned that still temporary employees were continuing against permanent vacancies and sweepers were not being appointed on regular basis , canteen employees were being used for messengerial work , ex -temporary workers are still being used for performing messengerial work.
thereon. In fact, the case of the Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding onhim/her. The Management bank has not violated any of theprovisions ofthe terms of the said settlement. That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is non- compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements. These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31-3-1997 . That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed . In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may ariseupto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contraryto the settlements arrived between the State Bank ofIndia StaffFederation and the Management Bank. That the settlementsare binding on the parties . The Petitioner isalsobound under the terms of the said settlement . The settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed inpermanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context . It is submitted that the period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term ofthe settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights tobe considered for regularization . That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 12964/94, held as follows . It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India StateBank of India Staff Federation which is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Petitioners also . It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any of the terms of the settlement has been violated by thebank's Management . Ifthe Petitioner had worked in the bank onpart -time basis before 31-5-94 , that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the present petition is therefore , misconceived and not tenable . However, it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management . As already pointed out that it is not the grievance of the Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitioner has been deniedby the bank Management . Therefore , I do not find any ground , let alone substantial ground , to grant the kind ofrelief sought for by the Petitioner . Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs . "
23. In the cross examination he deposed that the Branch Manager, Local Head Office Branch. State Bank of India , was known to his father who was a Mali in the bank . After introducing him to the Branch Manager he requested him for providing work to the Petitioner as a temporary messenger . Accordingly, he was given appointment as messenger on temporary basis in 1988 for 55 days and later he had worked as messenger on temporary basis now and then . He was not sponsored by any employment exchange . That he used to work depending on the availability of work in the branch . That he applied for appointment as messenger response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1991. He was in terview and his name was included in the panel of temporary in the year 1992. Some of the temporary employees whose names were in panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of . That he is not having any documents to show that any number of days was given appointment in the bank . He did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service . That he 20. If the panels were not lapesed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry , which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 ofConstitution of India and deprive the chances 10833 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
appeared for interview as per the settlements and the settlements expired on 31-3-97.
24. The ChiefManager (Per & HRD) , Sri A. Rama Rao deposed to the facts as stated in the counter, as MW1 and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Judgment, the appeal to the hon'ble High Court and the SLP. In the cross examination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated. He denied that all should have been absorbed. He agreed that no notice or pay in lieu there off was given. That all these Petitioners were asked not to come . He denied that there are still number of vacancies . He does not know whether Mr. M. Lingam, claimant in ID No. 236/ 2001 working in Barkatpura Branch and Mr. Ravi Kanth in IDNo. 59/2001 working in Parishram Bhavan Branch.
settlements they were made to work with artificial breaks . Though they were empanelled and given a hope that their caseswill be considered for absorption. The same was not considered.On the other hand their services were orally terminated on 31-3-1997 asking them not to attend duties from 1-4-97 . Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered into between the bank and in the last settlement it is specifically mentioned that the non - messengerial posts shall be filled inbefore 31-3-1997 before the empanelled list isallowed to lapse. The Government of India had issued a circular dated 16-8-90 wherein it is specifically stated that the concerned authorities have to follow the procedure in theapproachpaper for regularization who are on the rolls of the bank . Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments. Inspite ofthe clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issue of temporary employees before passing impugned oral orders onthe other hand , they are engaging third parties and someofthe claimants are still working on temporary basis. In fact he has given the list of atleast 46 candidates who are before this Court still working Hyderabad module, Vijayawada module there are as many as 26 candidates working , in Tirupathi inodule 4 are working, even in Visakhapatnam module four are working . Before the 5th settlement take place there was a conciliation proceeding wherein it was specifically agreed , " as regards for filling of messengers posts as already been ordered , the remainder number will be called before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of att understanding that may be reached after ascertaining correct procedure with regard to the number of messenge posts to be created in term of settlement. Another Joint Committee will be constituted to review existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . " And having agreed that coolly dispensed them by oral order on 31-3-1997. The question that there are no vacancies is false . In fact, there are number ofvacancies in all the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly, new persons were engaged by the Respondent apart from engaging some of the claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997 . In order to show that there are vacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis. Sample copies ofproceedings ofthe bank which show that some of the claimants were re -engaged after 1-4-97 is also submitted with a separate statement who were engaged after their oral termination andwho are continuing till today. In fact, instead ofentering into a fresh agreement as settled before the Conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all cannons of justice. The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao , Sr. Advocate and further more arguments have been advanced by him and several Judgments were cited which will be dealt in due course.
26. Sri . S. Prasada Rao, Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is a boon to the industrial development which aims at (a) Investigation and settlement 25. Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners , Mr. Prasada Rao , Mr. Prabhakar, Mr. Vikaasetc. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalfof Sri S. Ramachandra Rao , Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and they were given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services of the Respondent by way of settlements . Instead they were removed from service by oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the claimants , while engaging third parties on temporary basis , apart from reengaging some of the claimants on temporary basis as messengers /non-messengers . The said action of the Respondent is high-handed, unilateral , arbitrary and colourable exercise of power apart from being amounts to unifair labour practice. It is an admitted case of the Respondent that it has 805 branches , allover the State whereas the Respondent has 827 branches. That it consists offour modules , Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi . That the counsel is appearing for 100 claimants for Hyderabad module. Like wise they are appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing . All these claimants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions of the Central Office and Local Head Office . In order to seek the issue of temporary employees and to streamline the same these settlements were entered into in pursuance of the decision taken by the Respondent to give a chance for absorption. There are five settlements , one Memorandum of Understanding , one conciliation proceedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination . One example may be taken of a Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who worked both in the messenger cadre and non -messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days . The break-up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988, which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank . He belongs to SC community. He has passed 9th class , though the qualification for the post of messenger is 8th class . That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the 10834
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]
engrafted in the Statute require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violence to the language . Then he furhter argues and reiterates the facts of the settlements which need not be repeated here . He further argues that theMemorandum of Understanding is not correct, because the last settlement does not provide for lapsing of the empannelled candidates , the bank is obliged for implementation of the empanelled candidates and not for lapsing the panels . That in the case of all applicants with respect to whom that the principles offair play, equity and consciousness and justice is required . The workers have fundamental right to live under Articles 14, 15 and 16 which can neither waived nor taken away. Since many of the applicants arejobless and have worked for longer periods, upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived of their livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered . That the State Bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. A.P. Shops and Establishments Act . Sec . 2A(2 ) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners . These arguments need not be repeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India in ...
He submits that it was a legitmate expectation of these employees . No doubt, one may not have a right but Courts have recognized that in such cases like these cases a legitmate expectation was created by the bank by taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 and we are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the Conciliation Officer that a further settlement may be enetered into after 31-3-97 all of a sudden a Memorandum ofUnderstanding is entered into and thousands of people are given a good -bye ? All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered. That about 35,000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected. It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there will be more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered , they will fall short of total vacancies .
of Industrial Disputes , (b) to keep social justice as a main criteria , (c) Progress of Industry and ( d) Harmony and cordial relations . He submits that the in case of Management of Hotel Imperial , New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1342, it was held that, " Industrial Tribunal would havejurisdiction togrant interim relief also . " The applicants are employees of the State Bank of India and they have worked for a period which is noted in the list of cases which are pending before this Court. That the ultimate object of Industrial Adjudication has been received by all as one of revolutionary report which admits its task not on purely theoretical abstract , academic grounds adhearing to any dogmas , or applying abstract principles , mechanically or under any sub - consciousness pressures preconceived notions , theories or ' isms ' but since to evolve working principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner. The interest of proper judicial enquiry including the collection , collation and analysis of relevant facts . Therefore , it becomes highly significant in industrial matters . The Supreme Court right from Bharath Banks case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest Airports Authority case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance of the ignorance ofthe working class and important of their rights restating principles of social justice. The present trend of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests of not only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are so wedded that they cannot be separated in all contexts and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to survive in this world. As observed by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Associations of Australia ' s . State of Australia which was also quoted in the State of Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in..... " .
27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way of life for everyone in Bharat Republic. The poor workmen and commen men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right to work and right to adequate means of livelihood injust and humane conditions of the work to living wage, a decent standard of life , education and leisure . Article 43 (A) 43rd- ConstitutionAmendment Act, 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry. He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore, in interpreting the constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 require to build up continuity of socio, economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equanty of opportunity and status and the law should constantly meet the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order . Therefore , the concepts
28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikaas , Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short, the State Bank of India has committed the following illegalities: ( 1 ) , unfair labour practice , vitiated by colourable exercise of power , (2 ) impugned oral orders oftermination without authority on 31-3-97, (3 ) . the exercise ofthe said power is violative of article 14 and Sec . 19 (2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( 4 ) . The purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as ifit's a back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30,000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements they have created legitimate expectations of absorption to these poor workmen who have been running around since 1975 , the order not to engage is a non- speaking order . Further several of these persons although were terminated are still working, if there is no work how these persons are working ? The arguments that due to computerization lesser staff is required does not hold good because the work of attenders could only be done by robots which have not yet come in India , hence , waterboys , 10835 भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
sweepers and for odd work, still the services of the attenders are required. Those who were made to understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after all the so- called Memorandum of Understanding is to defeat the purpose of settlements wherein the effected parties are not even consulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec. 23 of the Contract Act.
iswell settled principle of law that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisaged by article 141 of the Constitution. He also relied on 1997 ( 6) Supreme Court cases page 564, which is to the same effect . He also relied on 2003 (4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their Lordships held, it is well settled law that in case where'SLP isdismissed without assigning any reason that order would not constitute abinding precedent . He also relied on 2003 SupremeCourt case page 281 which reiterate the same. He also relied onAIR 2002 Supreme Court page 3088 wherein their Lordships held, "the High Court and all other courts in the the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court, but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility to find out the ratioofthe decision and ascertain the law, if any, so declared from acareful reading of decision concerned and onlythereafter proceed to apply appropriately. " He also relied on 2003 (7) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein it washeld, " Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. Adecision often takes its colour from the question involved in the case in which it is rendered . The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unncessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished asobiter dicta and are not authoritative . The task offinding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation intothe facts , it cannot be assumed whether asimilar direction must or ought to be made as a measure of social justice . Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment . Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all , nor every passing expression of a Judge , however eminent , can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority. " He also relies on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 Supplementary IV. Supreme Court Cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. State ofU.P. and Others, wherein their Lordships held, " since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the Writ Petition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion, in as much as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averments hadbeen admitted by respondents . " He therefore , submits thatthe Petitioners have alleged in the petition that there wereabout 1500 vacancies and it has not been controverted hence, this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has been admitted by the bank.
30.He also relies on LLJ 2004 February page 227 , wherein it was held, " the Respondents was working as a parttime sweeper in the organisation ofthe Petitioner. After fifteen years of service, the Respondent was terminated from service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part -time employee also falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore , awarded 29. I now refer to the cases cited by various Advocate The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein a Full Bench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal of a permanent employee without assigning any reason, their Lordships held , is arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy. He also relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571 , this dealt with the rule empowering the Government corporation to terminate services of its permanent employees by giving notice or payin lieu ofnotice period is opposed to public policy and violative ofArticles 14, 39(a) and 41. He also relies onAIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248, their Lordships held, that an agreement can be challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised eyen by a person who had earlier consented to the agreement. They further held that, the illegal contract , cannot consititute and effect and accord satisfaction. He also relies on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that . " We have no doubt that the precedents on the point, the principles of industrial law, the constitutional sympathy ofPart IV and the sound rules of statutory construction converge to the same point that when a notice intimating termination ofan award on or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is set for fresh or negotiations or industrial adjudication and until either effort ripens into a fresh set of conditions of service the previous award or settlement does regulate the relations between the employer and the employees. " He also relied on 1999 (5) ALD 1992 (D.B.) , General Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad and another vs. P Ramulu , wherein their Lordships referredto the circular ofthe Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approach paper in the recruitment as well as in absorption of temporary employees asfollows : " For the staffwhich is presently on the rolls of theBanks their services will be regularized in terms ofthe Approach Paper. For the current requirement banks may utilize their existing panel of temporary employees and in case these employees were not taken from the employment exchanges the Banks would be required to approach the DGE& T directly seeking exemption . Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved no Bank willbe permittedto make any temporary appointments . " In that case para 6, all employees who had put in 90 or more days after the cut off date i.e. 1-1-1982 will only be eligible for considering the scheme . The Respondent in the Writ Petition has put in more than 90 days before the said cut offdate . Their Lordships held that as per the scheme one time opportunity each a person who had completed 90 days of temporary service as on 1-1-1982 and also after 1-1-1982 shall be regularized by empanelling him for the post .He also referred to Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India wherein it was held, that it 10836
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . The High Court also retreated the findings of the Labour Court and stated that as long as the ingredients of Sec.2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee has been appointed as a regular, permanent/temporary or dailywages, casual or part -time . "He also relied on LLJ 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ page 323 wherein the High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the bus driver on an average worked for 20 days in a month but was paidwages for one month. Average working hours 10 to 12 hours and no overtime wages paid. Finding of the Industrial Tribunal thatworkman has worked 240 days in a calendar year is legal and proper. He also relied on 1995 Supplementary (4) Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordships directed regularization of services of the Petitioner who had worked for three years including the break till today, shall not be terminated and shall be observed in regular vacancies as and when they arise . He also relied on 1991 Supplementary ( 2) SCC page 363 wherein it was held, the change of service rules cannot be made in the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to the change. He also relied on 1986 Supreme Court page 954 wherein it was held," such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise then in the course of conciliationproceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec. 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen any who are not parties in the settlement. " He also relied on 1993 ( 1 ) SCC page 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held as follows: " In contractual sphere as in all other State actions , the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non- arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good . This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is fairplay in action' . Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities , with this element forming a necessary component of the decision- making process in all State actions . To satisfy this requirement of non - arbitrariness in a State action, it is , therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely tobe affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess , of power apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case . The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness. Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power, asitisunrealistic, but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. [Para 8 page 91 ] "
He also relied on the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 (4 ) Supreme Court cases page 118, wherein their Lordsship held if far any reason. an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified
according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory andhis appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy ofthe State . He als relied on 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ wherein their Lordships held that, " so far as the work-charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications , ifany, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services . In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person . " He also relied on Judgement of the High Court of Patna reported in 2003 III LLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed, " All said, the claim of such persons who have remained in the employment of the State for long periods , those who have spent the golden period of their lives in the service of the State, those who with the passage of the time have become eligible for appointment elsewhere cannot be ignored altogether. " He also relied on 1995 (2) Supreme Court cases page 326 where the full bench of the Supreme Court held, " In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation. The expression which is said to have originated from the Judgement of Lord Denning in Schmidts Vs. Secy, of State for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In AttorneyGeneral of Hong Kong Vs. Ng . Yuen Shiu Prevy Council applied this principles where expectations were , based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of the public authotiry " and observed :" Accordingly `legitimate expectations ' in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights , provided they have some reasonable basis . A person may have a legitimate expectation of being trea ina certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment ." He also relied on 1998 ( 7) Supreme Court cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has it genisis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its Departments . in administrating the affairs of the country are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion . The policy statement cannot be disregarded unfarily or applied selectively. Continuing their Lordships further held, though the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fairplay in administrative action , it may, in a given situation , be enforced as a substantive right . The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrieved cither ( a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either ( i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision- maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be treated 10837 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Income is the foundation ofmany fundamental rights and whenwork is the sole source of income the right towork becomes as much fundamental , Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications . That will be mockory ofthem.
Mr. Vikas, appearing for various Petitioner cited various Judgements some ofthem are 19987 SCC page 804 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staff of income- tax Department some of them working from 8 years, directions issued to pay such workmen atthe rate equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scale ofthe regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption. He also relied on AIR 1990 Supreme Courtpage 2228where in it was held that the Kerala Water Supplyand CivilWater Authority shall immediately regularize the services ofPublic Health Department employees as perits resolution dated 30-1-1987 without waiting for the StateGovernment approval. They also directed those who haveput in less than one year service age bar may be waved etc. Several more citations he filed about regularisation.He also relied on 1996 I Service Law Reporter Supreme Court of India page 56 where in it was held, workman in the employment in the State ofForest Department for 5to 6 year and in each year they worked for a period ranging 100 to330 days, workmen employed under the schemes'at hand had been so done . To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularize them amounts to unfair labour practice and various other judgements and further added to his arguments that by further arguing that these cases are the most fit for regularization as some ofthem are working from 1975.
Mr. Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs. TNJaya Ramwhere in it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned Single Judge held that the Petitioner had not worked continuously for a period 30 days . The learned Single Judge relied on category C of the settlement to arrive at the said conclusion. Their Lordships allowed the WritAppeal on the ground, in view of the fact "that the Petitioner falls short of the required 30 days by4 days , the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity inthe employment ofthe bank".
Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate , Shri Prabhakar Rao , Advovate on behalf of Shri Ramachandra Rao , Advocate and Shri Prasad, Advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners who have been unceremoniously dismissed on 1-4-1997 and some of them are still continuing and it is not only a question on industrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioners who worked since more than two decades .
It is argued by the Learned Counsel for Respondent ShriB. G. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate and Smt. Lalita Kumari , Advocate that the Hon'ble CGIT -cum-Labour Court is fully empowered todecide the disputes which are pending before it in the LCIDs and ID. That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the branches for short periods permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or ( ii ) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for ontendingthat it should not be withdrawn. Indian scenario inthe field oflegitimate expectation is not different. The question whether the expectation and the claim is reasonable or legitimate , is a question offact in each case. This question had to be determined not according to the claimants' perception but in larger public interest. " He also relied on 1997 7 SCC 592 wherein it was held that the selected industries ( Respondents ) with which the agreements were entered into by the State Government legitimately expect that the renewal clause should begiven effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice.Thedoctrine of"legitimate expectation " has been judicially recognized by the Supreme Court. The doctrine of" legitimate expectation " operates in the domain ofpublic law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right . He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 where in it is held that the law must therefore be now taken to be well - settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge ofArticle 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would haveto answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right, just and fair not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose of principles of natural justice is calculated to secure justice or too put it negatively; to prevent miscarriage ofjustice , it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi -judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both. Therefore, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in confirmity with the principles ofnatural justice .Article 21 culbes life with liberty, dignity ofperson with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence . When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in confirmity with the minimum fairness and processual justice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence. Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, equilitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory dictates . Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness . It is, thereby, conclusively held by this court that the principles of the natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable. He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 where in it was observed " the right to life includes right to livelihood" . Therefore cannot hand on to the fancies ofthe individuals in authority. The employment is not abounty from them nor can it survival be at their marcy.
10838
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9, 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]
also relied on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 where it was held-Stop gap appointees or Temporary appointees do nothave any right for continuous or for regularization .
Smt . Lalitha Kumari, Advocate for Respondent relied on 2004 Vol. IV SLT page 947 which was a Judgement from Madras High Court wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment held in violation of mandatory provisions of statutes ignoring minimum education qualifications , wholly illegal . Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality.
But both ofthem mainly relied on the Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 in which itwas held that only those casual workers who were in the waiting list of the bank (panels ) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies ofthe bank . As the select list cameto an end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgement of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP ( CC) 3082/99 .
He further argued that even those who have completed 240 days also cannot claim regularization as the very entry was irregular and they got any right it is through the agreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Supreme Court held that any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds . Such regularization is jeopardizes the larger public interests . So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance . And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is an all India agreement and the Hon ble SC has dismissed the SLP on merits , hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Petitions may be dismissed .
atthe instance of concerned Branch Manager who had no jurisdiction to appoint them. They are not employees of the State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure . The daily wagers/casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited . That the Petitioners were engaged by the concerned branch managers to meet the exigencies ofwork at intermittent intervals and they cannot betermed as employees of the bank on temporary basis in any identified post or vacancy. That the Petitioners have no statutory right to seek any relief under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . The Petitioners have not put incontinuous service of 240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act . It is to be examined whether they stand a chance for absorption as per the settlements . That the Petitioners failed to implead the All India SBI Staff Federation as party to the dispute before this court to seek interpretation of the settlements . As such, the cases are bad for non -joinder of necessary party. That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancies are less than 100 each year . The SBI has absorbed messengers and Non-messengers totaling to more than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgement that the settlement are repugnant to Seq. 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the Memorandum of Understanding and the Theory of Legitimate Expectations has no place in the settlement . That in terms of the 5 settlements , the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive up to 31st March 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Admininstrative instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 asthere were no vacancies . That the question of regularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz . , if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointment are made on ad hoc basis or daily wages basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if their services are required by the Bank. In any case, backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure ofrecruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry ofthe candidate could never be effected.
They also relied on several cases , in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thatthe mere inclusion of a candidate's name in the merit listdoes not confer any right to be selected. Some vacancies remaining unfilled after process of selection finally closed- candidate not appointed-No discrimination . They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection , theydo not acquire any right to the post. They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 584 Syndicate Bank Vs. Sankarpal where in it was held that if a waiting list isfor specific period the waitlisted candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses . They also relied on 1997 4 SCC 283 Sanjay Vs. Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wait listed candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies . He
As stated in the beginning, these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 2005. To sum up the entire facts in a nut shell, the entry of these persons was as causal employees . Seeing the enormity of the situation the SBI and All India SBI Staff federation entered into various agreements. The candidates were called for interview and were empanelled. The last agreement was dated 30-7-1996 (Ex . M6) which was to lapse on 31-3-1997 . Then there was a Memorandum of understandingdt . 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary employees, daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997 . There was an conciliation dated 9-6-1995 vide Ex .M5 wherein before the conciliation officer it was agreed thatanother joint committee will be constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-97 . No such joint committee was constituted nor any fresh settlement came into effect from 1-4-1997 . Carrot was dingled before the workers for number of years creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good-by to all the employees on 31-3-1997 . Their hopes were further raised by the Judgement of the High Court which held " the Petitioners /employees who were on duty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deemed to be on duty and shallbe entitled to all the benefits of such a post and they shall be immediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some supernumery posts within 3 months from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
which they were entitled as on that date , till they are absorbed" . In fact the Hon'ble single judge stated in the Judgement which I quote " Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have never controverted such a factual and legal position. Such a dispute in any form existing and even apprehetided definitely could be a subject to reference to the board of settlement, to a court for enquiry, to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication . ." It is also his apprehension genuinely expressed that driving the Petitioners to such forums for such disputes could be nothing less then pushing the hapless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry mount ofthe wild life. " Be that may be so . The above Judgement was set aside by writ appeals by division bench holding that the matter has to be dealt with and settled by the parties under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court . Against which a Special Leave Petitions were filed which were dismissed.
10839 ofthe Judgement, it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated, the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/ authority. The reference here is whether termination is justifiedor not.
I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons , their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of persons involved and the great expectations raised but has to be rendered as per law. Therefore in view ofthe Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Courton merits when the SLP was dismissed on merit , I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri Anil Kumar and 27 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
Before parting with the case, I feel it apt to direct the Respondent "which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India " to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary daily wages/ casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities of the expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with mercy. I was constrained to follow the settled law position, but my conscience prompted me to issue the above directions, which I hope and trustwillbe honoured by the Respondent bank. While so considering, the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable grounds as the above category employees have spent long timewith the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization oftheir services.
As I have to follow the settled law & the position in which I found myselfwhile delivering this award it prompted meto describe the condition ofthese petitioners as depicted in the poem ofFaiz Ahmed Faiz quoted at the beginning of theAward.
Typed by LDC to my dictation, correeted and pronounced by me on this the 17th day ofMay 2005.
E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Documents marked for Petitioners LC 24 of 2004
WW1 : R. SreeRama Murthy
Ex. -WI : Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Service Certificate
Ex-W3; Service Certificate
Ex-W4: Service Certificate
Ex-W5: Service Certificate
Ex-W6: Service Certificate
Ex-W7 : SSC Marks Memo
LC25 of 2004
WW1 : B. Ganga Raju
Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Employment Card
Ex-W3:SC Certificate
Ex-W4: Transfer Certificate
L C28 of 2002
The position now is that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 those who have completed 240 days in a year has some right as notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. But all of them entered into settlements , no doubt , these persons are not members of the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation . But those who have worked even for 30 days in a calendar year or 70 days , in 36 calendar months and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements entered into by All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements , but for the settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year others do not have any right under the ID Act . And this is a all India problem and unfortunately for the Petitioners the same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex. M6 herein , was discussed bytheOrissaHigh Court in OJC No. 9039 of 1997 (WP) and batch, which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Where in it was held "the currency of the arrangements made on the basis ofthe impugned decisions/settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997. It is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have not been fixed. We do not think it necessary to go into this hypothetical questions........" . Against which SLP was filed in the Hon'ble SC which dismissed saying the SLP isdismissed on merits . In fact, all these reference or 2(A) (2) are about their termination. For Example the reference is "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services ofSri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/ Non-Messenger, State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled? " Actually if they had any grievance that the bank had agreed vide minutes ofconciliation proceedings dated 9-6-1995,vide Ex. M5 , they should have apoproached conciliation officer raising a dispute that no joint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which wil come into effect from 1-4-1997. As the Hon'bleHigh Court ofOrissa also stated in the end 2800 G1/05-35 10840
WW1 : B. Devudu
Ex.-W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Letter of WW1 dated 10-8-1994 LC 52 of 2002
WW1 : B. Saraswati
Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Interview call letter
LC 53 of 2002
WW1 : PV Rama
Ex.-W1: Service Certificate
LC 56 of2002
WW1 : K. Appa Rao
Ex. -W1 : Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Service Certificate
Ex-W3: Service Certificate
Ex-W4: Service Certificate
LC 59 of 2002
WW1 : B. Lakshmana Rao
Ex.-W1 : Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Service Certificate
Ex-W3 : Emparel list
LC 59 of 2004
WW1 : E. Sunder Kumar
Ex.-WI : Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Service Certificate
Ex-W3: Service Certificate
Ex-W4: Service Certificate
Ex-W5: Service Certificate
Ex-W6 : Service Certificate
Ex-W7: Interview call letter
Ex-W8: Empanel list
Ex-W9: Transfer Certificate
Ex-W 10: Caste Certificate
LC 60 of 2004
WW1 : S. Madhusudhan Reddy Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Service Certificate
Ex-W3: Empanel list
Ex-W4 : Interview call letter
Ex-W5 : Transfer Certificate
LC 69 of 2003
WW1: Surya Prakash Rao
Ex-WI: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification ofthe bank Ex -W3: Empanel list
LC70 of 2003
WW1 : Hari
Ex. -WI: Corvice Certificate
Ex -W2: Notification ofthe bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC71 of 2003
WW1 : G Ramesh Reddy
Ex. -WI: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank Ex-W3 : Empanel list
LC 72 of 2003
WW1 : K. Lazar
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC 80 of 2003
WW1 : G Srinivas
Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC81 of 2003
WW1 : A Narasinga Rao
Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
L-C 85 of 2003
WW1 : A Atchuta Rao
LC 86 of2003
WW1 : Y. Suri Appa Rao
Ex. -Wl : Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
Ex-W3 : Empanel list
LC 87 of 2003
WW1 : B. Chithiyya
Ex -WI: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC92 of2003
WW1 : G. Semhachalam
Ex. -W1: Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Notification ofthe bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC 91 of 2003
WW1 : G.V. Ramachandra Rao
LC 92 of 2003
WW1 : G. Mohan Rao
Ex-WI : Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC 93 of 2003
WWI : J. Subha Rao
Ex -WI: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
Ex-W3 : Empanel list
LC 94 of 2003
WW1 : AdapakaArraji
Ex. -WI : Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC 123 of 2003
WW1: 1. Nagaraju
Ex. -WI: Service Certificate
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list
LC 124 of 2003
WW1 : K. Gowri
Ex-WI: Service Certificate
Ex-W2 : Notification of the bank
Ex-W3: Empanel list 10841 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
And
LC 150 of 2003
WW1 : M. Venkata Rao
1. The Chief General Manager,
Ex. -WI: Service Certificate
State Bank of India,
Ex-W2: Notification of the bank
LocalHeadOffice, Bank Street,
Ex-W3: Empanel list
Hyderabad
LC 195 of 2003
2. The Dy. General Manager,
WW1 : M. Sankar Rao
StateBank of India,
Ex.-W1 : Service Certificate
ZonalOffice,
Ex-W2: Service Certificate
Respondents
Visakhapatnam-530001.
Ex-W3: Service Certificate
APPEARANCES :
Ex-W4: Transfer Certificate
Shri Vikas, Advocate
Forthe Petitioner :
Documents marked by Management (in all the 27 cases)
Shri M Ramdas , Advocate
For the Respondent :
AWARD
MW1 : Shri C.R.M. Shastry ( in all 27 cases)
Ex. MI : Statement of WW1's working days
Ex.M2: Printed booklet
नई दिल्ली, 12 सितम्बर, 2005
TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour by its order No. L- 12011/28/2000- IR (B-I) dated 27-10-2000 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 between the management of State Bank of India. and their workman for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam. The reference is,
SCHEDULE
का. आ. 3534.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केम्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंकऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आई डी- 185/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-09-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Sri L.V.V. Anjaneyulu and 181 others, Ex- messengers (as per annexure) arbitrarily with effect from 31-3-1997 is justified ? If not, what relief the workmen are entitled ?"
[सं. एल-12011/28/2000-आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ]
अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी
New Delhi , the 12th September, 2005
S.O. 3534.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D: No. 185 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-09-2005.
[No. L- 12011/28/2000 - IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer
ANNEXURE
The reference is numbered as ID 35/2000 at Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam and transferred this case to this Tribunal as per order No. H- 11026/1 / 2001 - IR ( C.II ) ofthe Ministry of Labour, Government of India , New Delhi and renumbered in this tribunal as I.D. No. 185/2002 and notices were issued to the parties . The Government of India has referred about 500 such references and it will not be possible or practicable to answer every reference separately. As the main issues involved are one and the same , I am of the opinion that all ofthem can be decided in groups by giving common awards, this group which I am now dealing pertains toVisakhapatnam Zone and the award in this reference is passed in accordance with the common awards passed in other 500 such references which are made zone -wise groups based on the award passed in ID 222/2001 wherein the Petitioner is Mr. P. Anil Kumar who also is the General Secretary ofthe Petitioner association herein.
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD
PRESENT:
Shri E. ISMAIL, B. Sc. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer Dated the 17th May, 2005
ID No. 185 of 2002
(ID No. 35/2000 on the file of Industrial Tribunal, Visakhapatnam)
Between:
4. To begin with I am quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975. I have not onlyto consider merely the technical aspects , powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference but 1 will also have to see viewing it as a human problem. These cases remind me of a poem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and I find no better way than to start my award by quoting the entire poem of Faiz,
The General Secretary,
"Humility I've learnt, sympathy for the poor, StateBank of India Panel Employees ( Class- IV)
Association , Andhra Pradesh , H. No. 8-2-272/31/ 12 , Shoukat Nagar Colony,
Road No. 2, Banjara Hills,
learnt the meaning ofdespair, suffering and pain; learntto comprehend the miseries ofthe oppressed, the meaning of cold sighs , of pallied faces.
.... Petitioner
Hyderabad-500034 (Α.Ρ) 10842
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to сгу,
Inwhose eyes tears, bitterly shed, fall asleep.
Andthose destitute upon whose morsels swoop down the vulturs hovering above, poised on their wings
Whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of thelabourer, and on the highways flows the blood of the poor, a sort of fire upsurges in my bosom and I lose all hold over my heart . "
AsI stated supra, these cases have got a chequered historyand instead of myself narrating the same, I think it wouldbe better to write down what he stated in his claim statement of this particular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statements in all the cases filedby the Petitioners .
5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in ID No. 222/ 2001 has filed the following claim statement. That the workman joined in the services of the Management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in 1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period ofabout 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services wereterminated by oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997 . The workman submits that heis erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of State Bank of India. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. he passed IX class. The qualification is VIII standard wljich is prescribed for the post of messenger. The Management of bank has decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel found suitable for permanent appointment by waitlisting them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting till such opportunity arises.
6. That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State of India-settlement one . under this settlement three categories of employees were listed. That is . ( A) those who have completed 241 ) days in 12 months or less after 1-7-1975 , (B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 . (C) ( i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or ( ii ) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1-7-1975.
7. The person who satisfied in all the above 4 categorieswere to be interviewed by a selection committee the said selection committee would determine the suitability ofthe said candidate for permanent appointment . Therefore , the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work of the workman then prescribed certain the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee . Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed inorder of their respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement is specifically provided that henceforth , " there will be no temporary appointments in the subordinate
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] cadre" , except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, "from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidlines of the bank" , the workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft , a notification was issued in the newspapers . The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . A written examination followed by viva-voce in May, 1989 washeld. Aselected panel was prepared, as per clause 7 of the agreement , i.e. , settlement No. 1 , the selected panel was tobe valid upto December, 1991. The workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17-11-87 wasmodified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into between the parties . In terms of the said agreement a chance was to be given, " to all eligible temporary employees for permanent appointments . The appointments were against the vacancies likely to arise during the years 1995-96, circular made it clear that in view oftheenormityofthe problem an extension of the currency ofthe panel, eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter, "will be given another chance to appear for interview" .
8. In fact, there is some confusion in the claim statement, but actually another panel was prepared. There were total five settlements, settlement dated 17-11-87 is the 1st settlement (Ex. M1 ) , settlement dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement (Ex . M2 ) , settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex. M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 , is 4th settelement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement (Ex . M6) . In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex. M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with its a question oftime before appointments or services are regularization inthe services ofthe bank. The workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope thatsooner his services will be regularized with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere . It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employment in substantial terms was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India .
9. The Government of India issued circular No. F-3/ 3/104/87 - IR, dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the ChiefExecutives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments . That some of the persons similarly situated like this Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of (he Management of the bank is not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, file W.P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court A.P. It is specifically averred in the said Writ Petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. The Honble High Court of A.P. by anorder dated 5-3-97 directed the bank to implement the 10843 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9 , 1927
counter affidavit follows : "Government of india, vide its letter dated 16-8-1990 , issued guidelines to all the public sectorbanks with regard to recruitent and absorption of teporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard . The Government of India guidelinesmade it clear that all theall the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.
The approach paper specified that the cases of temporaryemployees who had put in not less than 240 daysoftemporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Section 25 -F may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. Inrespect of temporary employees who had put in less than240 days ofservice in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement withthe representative union . In para 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put intemporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of90 or more days , the bank by way of further concession entered into settlements even in respect ofthose who had put in less than 90 days . As such, it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned. The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on orafter 1-1-1982 could be considered for re-employment in terms ofthe scheme. The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.
settlement as amended from time to time . It also directed thebank to carryout the terms of the settlement before the expiry ofMarch, 1997. The High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement . I view of the directions grantedby theHigh Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on thebasis of the agreement entered into on 17-11-87 under whichthe panel was valid upto December, 1991 , and on the basis ofa settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panel were made alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the plane was valid upto December, 1999. The other agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was valid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27-10-1998 whereby the panels were made aliver upto 31-3-1997 were under the bonafide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately, contrary to the directions given by the High Court on 5-3-1997 in W.P. No. 4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties , the bank issued proceedings dated 25-3-1997, dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97 . The said order was followed by the Management . Aggrieved by the said action the workmen hereinand similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Honble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the Deputy General Manager and theAssistant General Manager (Respondents 3, 4 and 5 therein) on 25-3-97, 27-3-97 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non-continuance of the Petitioners therein in serviceby absorbing them in the services of the bank as violative of Section2(p) and 18( 1 ) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direction to the bank to absorb them inservice.
As could be seen from the above , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies .
It is further submitted that at para 6 (k ) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and settlement of all the points and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . This would mean that theGovernment of India guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specifiedthereinand not otherwise . As such , it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases ofthe employees who had worked for less than 90 days . As such, question of violation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives ." 10. He further submits that inthe counter affidavit filed inWrit Petition No. 9206/97, the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks, it employed temporary employees in subordinate cadre . it is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged. Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground ofurgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It isdesignated to, on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone of hope and on the other to ensure that bernefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a face ofunfair labour practice.
11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87 , 16-7-88 and 27-10-88 . The bank in the guise ofextending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16-8-90 stated in its
12. The workman submits that the bank also referred a further settlement dated 9-1-1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period. Therefore , their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon this 10844
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
settlement in their impugned action. It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the workman herein as it does not specify the termination of the employees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporary messengers/attenders/sweepers etc. , even after thejudgement ofHon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continged the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circular issuedby Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 4194/97, dated 5-3-97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied uponthe settlement dated 9-1-1991 . Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal, unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
13. The workman submits that the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 and batch by anorder dated 1-1-1998. It is pertinent to mention that as a matter of fact the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings of fact:
"(1) That the candidates had appeared for written examination and a Viva Voce Test . They therefore, satisfied a procedure of objective criteria in the process ofselection.
(2) The life of the panels were admittedly extended by the bankbeyond its initial life- span.
(3) Inspite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation of the services of the employees who were continued to be in the panel , the above workmen were continued to be engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997, 27-3-1997 and31-3-1997.
(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive till all the enmpanelled candidates were absorbed.
(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees areabsorbed and regularized in the services of thebank.
(6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation of being regularized in the services ofthe bank.
Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services ofthe bank, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the services of the workmen but to terminate their services even ifthey were otherwise eligible forregularization.
(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contrarytothe ratio laid down by the Supreme
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] Court in State Bank of India Vs. V. Sundara Mani reported in AIR 1976 SC 1111 , (9) The status of the workmen vis - a - vis the bank needed no probe.
(10) That the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealingwith the question of temporary workmen pointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is not only violation ofBipartite Agreement ofthe Desai Award that after the said period, the status of the employees is that of regular employees .
(11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , the Learned Counsel forthe Petitioners, is totally right in contending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except toknow whether they have been implemented or enforced. Therefore , it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or flouted by the Respondent bank in its true and real implications" .
14. The workman submits that the W.P. No. 4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein they have complained about the non - implementation of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption. Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlement, the Court held that the members ofthe Union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability ofenforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-87 as amended from time to time before the expiry of 31-3-97.
15. Further, judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way theywillbe referred to while referring the arguments . It is further averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India. He submitted that in the clause 10 of the statement it is specifically mentioned that the workman to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlements . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled candidates . The Management has indulged in unfair labour practices . The Management has committed unfair labour practice and terminated the services of candidates form 1-4-97 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India.
10645 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्टूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.
16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowedto lapsebya so-called Memorandum ofUnderstanding dated 25-2-1997, that the action ofterminating such employees liketheworkmanby virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement wouldbe illegal and unair labour practice which cannot be allowed to be perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the workman after 31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done without any notice and it violates Sec. 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative ofprinciples of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of India. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus , the main proceedings are issuod in cleanable exercise ofpower, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed. That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97, Ex.M5 doesnot appoint the workman and it's own legal entity, the said Memoranduin of Understanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the workman whose rights are being affected. Submitted that the Management didnot adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Central Government in its ' instructions dated 16-8-90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997despite there being vacancies . The Management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here. It is not pertinent to note/mention here that the Respondent Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June , 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders. After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates . It is once again reiteratedthat the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even intemporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies . Hence, the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjust , illegal , violative of principles ofnatural justice and hence , the Management is directedto reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits.
18. Discussions were held on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management Bank under Sec. 2(p) readwith Sec . 18( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules 1957. A copy of the saidsettlement dated 17-11-87 which may be herein after referredas first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statenient above, it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorisedwould be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrived betweenthe Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of considération of vacancies as 1987to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplatedunder the first settlement dated 17-11-1987. This is the second settlement .A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the banks service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered. Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper onthe issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that allthepublic sector banks may follow the provisierts laid down inthe approach paper. The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering intoa settlement with the representative union . In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days ofservice in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desiredtheycould enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6(h) it is mentioned that onlythose temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days after 1-1-82 would be eligible for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect ofemployces who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days , the bank by way of a further concessions entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after1975were also considered. Hence , there was a genuine effort onthe part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies.However, para 6(k) ofthe approach paper made itclear that it isa one time exercise in full and final settlement ofall the claims and disputes for the past period , in respect oftemporaryworkmen covered by the settlement. Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 herein after referred as 4th settlement . And the time limit was extended upto 1994 17. Acounter was filed with the following averments . Thatthe reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is respectfully submitted that totide over severe sub -ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies, exigencies , etc. , and also owing to the restrictions imposed by the Government of India/Reserve Bank of India on in take of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub-ordinate staff like messengers , sweepers , sweeper cum water boys , etc. , depending on the availability ofwork on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches . It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation. which represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98% ofthe work force as its ' members ' espoused the cause oftemporary employees who have put in less than 240 10846
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees , casual/dailywagers . It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect oftemporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers , they can beconsidered for the vacancies arising between 1995-96 only.
exist on 31-3-1997. That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may ariseupto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contraryto the settlements arrived between the State Bank ofIndia Staff Federation and the Management bank . That the settlements are binding on the parties . The Petitioner is also bound under the terms of the said settlement . The settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's services against the vacancies likely to arise. The settlements were effected to balance the expectations of the temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible persons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context . It is submitted that the period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law. These tempoгагу employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization . That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 12964/94 , held as follows, " It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Petitioners also. It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any ofthe terms of the settlement has been violated by the bank's Management . If the Petitioner had worked in the bank on part -time basis before 31-5-94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The claim put forth by the Petitioner in the Present petition is therefore misconceived and not tenable . However, it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management . As already pointed out that it is not the grievance ofthe Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitioner has been denied by the bankManagement . Therefore , I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground , to grant the kind of relief sought for by the Petitioner. Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. "
20. If the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry, which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence , there is no question of any legitimate expectation being violated 19. It is submitted that the administrative set up of theHyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices (Zones)at Hyderabad, Vijayawada , Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh . Interms ofthe settlements the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption . These panels were prepared zone- wise separately for messengers and non - messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. , 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 . That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) for implementation ofbi -partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees. The Regional Labour Commissioner (C) conducted conciliation proceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank . It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the parties is filed as material paper. A settlement was arrived atand an agreement was signed between the Federation and theManagement bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec . 2(p ) readwith Sec. 18( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27-2-1991 a Memorandum of Understanding was also signed by the Federations affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has sincebeen completed by Central Office and thereby 403messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly. It was agreed between theFederation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms ofthe settlement dated 30-7-1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997 . That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels . The Petitioner who has put in anaggregate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/ law except under the settlement entered into thereon. In fact , the case of the Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding onhim/her. The Management bank has not violated any of theprovisions of the terms of the said settlement . That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is non- compliance of the terms agreed under these settlements . These settlements were time bound and they ceased to
21. Similarly placed ex-employees filed WP No. 9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions. Aggrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the 10847 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated. He denied that all should have been absorbed. Heagreed that no notice or pay in lieu there offwas given. That all these Petitioners were asked not to come. Hedenied that there are still number of vacancies . He does not know whether Mr. M. Lingam, claimant in ID No. 236/2001 working inBarkatpurabranch and Mr. Ravi Kanth in ID No. 59/2001 working in Parishram Bhavan branch.
SingleJudge. Thereafter the ex -temporary employees field Special Leave Petition No. 11886/11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP. Therefore reference to the Judgement of the learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already beenset aside. The observations made in the Judgements cannotbe reliedupon for any purpose what so ever. The question of operation of Sec . 25F would not come into play. Further the issue is covered by various Judgements ofHon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble HighCourts.Hence, the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.
The Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition. He further deposed that he worked for 93 days but he was given certificateonlyfor 55 days before interview. That heworked between 1988-97 for 843 days. That as per the norms he also fits in category B and he speaks about the settlements and he further deposed that on 18-11-93, 800 contract labourers were made permanent by the bank. By then, their existing panels were still not completed. That till date the bank is still continuing with some persons who are from the panel by making pick and choose method and it is also claimed by Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) that some ofthese employees are still working . In Ex. W10 itself it was mentioned that still temporary employees were continuing against permanent vacancies and sweeperswere not being appointed on regular basis , canteen employees were being used for messengerial work, ex -temporary workers are still being used for performing messengerial work.
23. In the cross examination he deposed that the Branch Manager . Local Head Office branch, State Bank of India, was known to his father who was a Mali in the bank . After introducing him to the Branch Manager he requested him for providing work to the Petitioner as a temporary messenger. Accordingly, he was given appointment as messenger on temporary basis in 1988 for 55 days and later he had worked as messenger on temporary basis now and then .He was not sponsored by any employment exchange. That he used to work depending on the availability ofwork in the branch. That he applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1991. He was called for interview and his name was included in the panel of temporary messengers in the year 1992. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel. That he is not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days was given appointment in the bank. He did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service. That he appeared for interview as per the settlements and the settelments expired on 31-3-97.
25. Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners, Mr. Prasada Rao, Mr. Prabhakar, Mr.Vikas etc. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalfofSri S. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and theywere given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services ofthe Respondent by way of settlements. Instead they were removedfrom serviceby oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that therewere no vacancies to accommodate the claimants, while engaging third parties on temporary basis , apart from re-engaging some of the claimants on temporary basis as messengers/non-messengers. The said action of the Respondent is high-handed, unilateral , arbitrary and colourable exercise ofpower apart from being amounts to unfair labour practice . It is an admitted case of the Respondent that it has 805 branches all over the State whereas theRespondent has 827 branches. That it consists of four modules ,Hyderabad, Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi. That the counsel is appearing for 100 claimants for Hyderabad module. Likewise they art appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing. All these claimants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions ofthe Central Office and Local Head Office. In order to settle the issue of temporary employees and to streamline the same these settlementswereentered into in pursuance of the decision taken by the Respondent to give a chance for absorption. There are five settlements , one Memorandum of Understanding, one conciliation proceedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination. One example may be taken of a Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who workedboth in messenger cadre and non -messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days . The break-up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988, which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank. He belongs to SC community. He has passed 9th class, though the qualification for the post of messenger is 8thclass. That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the settlements they weremade to work with artificial breaks. Though theywere empanelled and given a hope that their cases will be considered for absorption. The same was not considered Onthe other hand their services were orally terminated on 31-3-1997 asking them not to attend duties from 1-4-97 Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered into between thebank and in the last settlement it is specifically mentioned that the non- messengerial posts shall be filled in before 31-3-1997 before the empanelled list is allowed to lapse . The Government of India had issued a circular dated 16-8-90 wherein it is specifically stated that the concerned 24. The Chief Manager (Per & HRD) , Sri A. Rama Rao deposed to the facts as stated in the counter, as MW1 and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , Judgement , the appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP. In the cross examination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and
2800 G1/05-36 10848
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]
under any sub - consciousness pressures preconceived notions, theories or ' isms ' but since to evolve working principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner. The interest of proper judicial enquiry including the collection, collation and analysis of relevant facts. Therefore , it becomes highly significant in industrial matters . The Supreme Court right from Bharath Banks case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest Airports Authority case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance of the ignorance ofthe working class and important of the rights restating principles of social justice . The present trend of Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests of not only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are so wedded that they cannot be separated in all contexts and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to survive in this world. As observed by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Association of Australia Vs. State of Australia which was also quoted in the State of Bombay Vs.Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case " in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in ...
authorities have to follow the procedure in the approach paper for regularization who are on the rolls of the bank. Until theproblem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, nobank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments . Inspite of the clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issue of temporary employees before passing impugned oral orders on the other hand, they are engaging third parties and some of the claimants are still working on temporary basis , In fact he has given the list of atleast 46 candidates who are before this Court still working in Hyderabad module , Vijayawada module there are as many as 26 candidates working, in Tirupathi module43 are working, even inVisakhapatnam module four are working. Before the 5th settlement taken place there was a conciliation proceeding wherein it was specifically agreed, " as regards for filling of messengers posts as already been ordered, the remainder number will be filled before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of an understanding that may be reached after ascertaining correct procedure with regard to the number of messenger posts to be created in terms of settlement . Another joint committeewillbe constituted to review existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997. " And having agreed that coolly dispensed them byoral order on 31-3-1997 . The question that there are no vacancies is false. In fact, there are number of vacancies in all the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly, new persons were engaged by the Respondent apart from engaging some of the claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997 . In order to show that there arevacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis . Sample copies of proceedings of the bank which show that some of the claimants were re-engaged after 1-4-97 is also submitted with a separate statement who were engaged after their oral termination and who are continuing till today. Infact, instead of entering into a fresh agreement as settled before the conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all cannons of justice . The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao , Sr. Advocateand further more arguments have been advanced by him and several Judgements were cited which will be dealt in due course
27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way of life for everyone in Bharat Republic . The poor workmen and common men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right to work and right to adequate means of livelihood in just and humane conditions of work , to living wage , a decent standard of life, education and leisure. Article 43 (A) 43 Constitution Amendment Act , 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry. He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore , in interpreting the constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to build up continuity of socio , economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equiality of opportunity and status and the Law should constantly meet the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order. Therefore , the concepts engrafted in the Statutė require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violence to the language . Then he further argues and reiterates the facts of the settlements which need not be repeated here . He further argues that theMemorandum of Understanding is not correct , because the last settlement does not provide for lapsing of the cmpanelled candidates , the bank is obliged for implementation of the empanelled candidates and not for lapsing the panels . That in the case of all the applicants with respect towhom that the principles of fair play, equity and consciousness and justice is required. The workers have fundamental right to live under Article 14, 15 & 16 which can neither waived nor taken away. Since many of the applicants are jobless and have worked för longer periods , upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived of their 26. Sri S. Prasada Rao , Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is a boon to the industrial development which aims at( a) Investigation and settlement of Industrial Disputes, (b) to keep social justice as a main criteria , ( c) Progress of Industry and (d) Harmony and cordial relations. He submits that in the case of Management of Hotel Imperial , New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers Union, AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 1342, itwas held that, " Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction to grant interim relief also ." The applicants are employees of the State Bank of India and they have worked for a periodwhich is noted in the list ofcases which are pending before this Court. That the ultimate object of Industrial Adjudication has been received by all as one of revolutionary import which admits its task not on purely theoretical , abstract, academic grounds adhearing to any dogmas , or applying abstract principles mechanically or 10849
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]
livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered. That the State Bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. , A.P. Shops & Establishments Act . Sec . 2A(2) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners. These arguments need not be respeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India in .......
He submits that it was a legitimate expectation of these employees . No doubt , one may not have a right but Courts have recognized that in such cases like these cases a legitimate expectation was created by the bank by taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 and we are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the conciliation officer that a further settlement may be entered into after 31-3-97 all of a sudden a Memorandum of Understanding is entered into and thousands of people are given a good-bye . All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered . That about 35000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected . It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there will be more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered, they will fall short of total vacancies .
28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikaas. Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short, the State Bank of India has committed the following illegalities : I unfair labour practice , vitiated by colourable exercise ofpower, 2. impugned oral orders of terminationwithout authority on 31-3-97, 3. the exercise of thesaid power is violative ofarticle 14 and Sec . 19 (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , 4. The purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as if it's a back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements they have created legitimate expectations of absorption to thesepoorworkmen who have been running around since 1975. The order not to engage is a non- speaking order. Further several of these persons although were terminated are still working, ifthere is no work how these persons are working? The argument that due to computerization lesser staffisrequired does not hold because the work ofattenders could onlybe done by robots which have not yet come in India, hence, waterboys, sweepers and for odd work, still the services ofthe attenders are required. Those whowere madeto understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after all the so- called Memorandum of Understanding is to defeat the purpose ofsettlements wherein the effected parties are not evenconsulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec. 23 ofthe ContractAct .
policy. He also relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571, this dealt with the rule empowering the Government corporation to terminate services of its permanent employees by giving or pay in lieu of notice period is opposed to public policy and violative ofArticle 14, 39(a) and41. He also relies on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248, their Lordships held, that an agreement can be challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised even by a person who had earlier consented to the agreement . They further held that the illegal contract, cannot constitute and effect and accord satisfaction . He also relies on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that, "We have, no doubt that the precedents on the point, the principles ofindustrial law, the constitutional symathy of Part IV and the sound rules of statutory construction convergeto the same point that when a notice intimating termination of an award or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is set for fresh negotiations or industrial adjudication and until either effort ripens into afresh set ofconditions ofservice the previous award or settlement does regulate the relations between the employer and the employees. " He also relied on 1999 (5) ALD 1992 (D.B.) General manager, State Bank of Hyderabad and another Vs. P. Ramulu , wherein their Lordships referred to the circular of the Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approach paper in the recuritment as well as in absorption of temporary employees as follows : " For the staffwhich is presently on the rolls ofthe Banks their serviceswill be regularized in terms ofthe Approach Paper. For the current requirement banks may utilize their existing panel oftemporary employees and in case these employeeswere not takenfrom the employment exchanges theBanks would be required to approach the DGE & T directly seeking exemption. Until the problem ofexisting temporary employees is fully resolved no Bank will be permitted to mak. any temporary appointments. " In that case para 6, all employees who had put in 90 or more daysafter the cut off date i.e. 1-1-1982 will only be eligible for consideringthe scheme . The Respondent in the Writ Petition hasput in more than 90 days before the said cut offdate. Their Lordships held that as per the scheme one time opportunity each a person who had completed 90 days oftemporary service as on 1-1-1982 and also after 1-1-1982 shall be regularized by empanelling himfor the post.He also referred to Supreme Court employees Welfare Association Vs. Union ofIndia wherein it was held, that il iswell settledprinciple of law that when a special leave petiton is summarily dismissed under article ofthe Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisaged by article 141 of the Constitution. He also relied on 1997 (6) Supreme Court cases page 564, which is to the same effect. He also relied on2003(4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their Lordships held, it is well settled law that in case where SLP isdismissed without assigning any reason that order wouldnot constitute a binding precedent . He also relied on 2003 Supreme Court cases page 231 which reiterate the same.He also relied on AIR 2002 Supreme Court page 3088wherein thei Lordships held, "the High Court and 29. I now refer to the cases cited by various Advocates. The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao . AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein afull bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal ofa permanent employee without assigning any reason, their Lordships held, is arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public 10850
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]
1
J allother courts in the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court, but that does not absolve them of the obligation and responsibility tofind out the ratio of the decision and ascertain the law, if any, so declared from a careful reading of decision concerned and only thereafter proceed to apply appropriately. He also relied on 2003(7) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein if was held, " Therefore , while aplying the decision to a later case , the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colourfrom the question involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs ofa given situation . The only thingbinding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part ofthe ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative . The task offinding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into thefacts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure ofsocial justice . Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expressions carry na weight at all, nor everypassing expression ofa Judge , however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight ofauthority." He also relies on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 Supplementary IV Supreme Court cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. State ofU.P. and Others, wherein their Lordships held, " since no disputewas raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 in their reply to the averments made by the appellant in the Writ Petition that 40 per cent of the total number ofposts had not been filled by promotion, in as much as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the said averinents had been admitted by respondents . " He ther fore, submits that the Petitioners have alleged in the petition that there were about 1500 vacancies and it has not been controverted, hence, this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has been admitted by he bank.
Industrial Tribunal that workman has worked 240 days in a calendaryear is legal and proper. " He also relied an 1995 Supplementary (4) Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordships directed regularization of services of the Petitioners who had worked for three years including the break till today, shall not be terminated and shall be absorbed in regural vacancies as and when they arise. He also relied on 1991 supplementary (2) SCC page363 wherein it was held, the change ofservice rules cannot be made in the prejudice ofan employee who was in service prior to the change. He also relied on 1986 Supreme Court page 954 wherein it was held, " such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer andworkmen otherwise then in the course ofconciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec . 18( 1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen any who are not parties in the settlement. " He also relied on 1993 ( 1) SCC page 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held asfollows: " In contractual sphere as in all other State actions , the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform 10 Article 14 of the Constitution of which non -arbitariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act falrly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action '. Due Observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision- making process in all State actions. To satisfy this requirement of non - arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore, necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations ofthe persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess ofpower apart from affecting the bona fides of the decision in a given case . The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground ofarbitrariness. Rule of law does not compietely eliminate discretion in the exercise ofpower, as it is unrealistic, butprovidesfor control
of its exercise byjudicial review. [Para 8 page 91] " 30. He also relies on LLJ 2004 February page 227, wherein it was held, " the Respondent was working as a part time sweeper in the organization of the Petitioner. After fifteenteen yearsyear of service , the Respondent was terininatedfrom service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part - time employee also falls within the defition of workman under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore . awarded reinstatement with continuity of service andfull backwages. The High Court also retreated the findings of the Labaur Court and stated that as long as the ingredients afSec. 2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee has been appointed as a regular, perma.ent/ temparary or daily wages, casual or part-time. " He also relied on LLJ 1995 (1) page 323 wherein the High Court upheld the findings ofthe Labour Court that the bus driver on an average worked for 20 days in a moral at was paidwagesfor one month. Average working hours 10 to 12hours and no overtime wages paid. Finding of the
He also relied on thefull bench decision ofHon 'ble Supreme Court in 1992 (4) Supreme Court cases page 118, wherein their Lordships held iffor any reason, an adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case or regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State . He also relied on 2001 ( 1) LLJwherein their Lordships heldthat, " so far as the work- charged employees and casual labour are concerned, the effortmust be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications, ifany, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. If a casual labourer is continuedfor afairly long spell say two or three years a 10851 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
expectation and the claim is reasonable or legitimate, is a question offact in each case . This question had to be determined not according to the claimants' perception but in larger public interests . " He also relied on 1997 7SCC 592 wherein it was held that the selected industries (Respondents) with which the agreements were entered intoby the StateGovernment legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner andaccording to past practice unlessthere is any special reason not to adhere to such practice. The doctrine of "legitimate expectation " has been judicially recognized by the Supreme Court. The doctrine of " legitimate expectation" operates in the domain ofpublic law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right. He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 wherein it is held that- law must therefore be now taken tobewell-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving aperson oflivelihood must meet the challenge ofarticle 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil ofarticle 14and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result incivil consequentces would have to answer the requirement ofarticle 14. So it must be right,just andfair not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial function and an administrative function for the purpose ofprinciples of naturaljustice is calculated to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice, it is difficult to seewhy it should be applicable only to quasi -judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically applyto both. Therefore, fair play in action requires that theprocedure adopted must bejust, fair and reasonable . Themanner of exercise ofpower and its impact on the rights ofthe person affected would be in conformity with theprinciples ofnatural justice. Article 21 clubs life with liberty, dignity ofperson with means oflivelihood without which theglorious content of dignity ofperson would be reduced to animal existence. When it is interpreted that the colour and content ofprocedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processualjustice, it would relieve legislative callousness despising opportunity of being heard and fair opportunities ofdefence . Article 14 has a pervasive processualpolency and versatile quality, equivalitarian initssoulandallergic to discriminatory dictates . Equality is the antithesis ofarbitrariness. It is, thereby, conclusively heldbythis court that the principles ofnatural justice are part ofarticle 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must bejust, fair and reasonable. He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein it was observed " the right to life includes right to livelihood. Therefore cannot hand an to the fancies of the individuals in authority. The employment is not a bountyfrom them nor can it servival be at their marcy. Income is the foundation ofmany fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. That will be mockery ofthem.
Mr. Vikas , appearing for various Petitioner cited various Judgements some ofthem are 1998 7 SCC page 804 presumption may arise that there is regular needfor his services. In such a situation , it becomes obligatory forthe concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization , While doing so, the authorities ought to adopt apositive approach coupled with an empathy for theperson." He also reliedon Judgment ofthe High Court ofPatna reported in 2003 III LLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed, "All said, the claim ofsuch persons who have remained in the employment ofthe State for longperiods, those who have spent the golden period of their lives in the service ofofthe State, those who with the passage ofthe time have become eligible for appointment elsewhere cannot be ignored altogether." He also relied on 1995 (2) Supreme Court cases page 326 where the full bench of the Supreme Court held, "In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he is affected or likely to be affected by the order passed by a public authority, the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation. The expression which is said to have originatedfrom the Judgement ofLord Denning in Schmidt Vs. Secy. of State for HomeAffairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General ofHong Kong Vs. Ng Yuen Shiu Privy Council applied this principlewhere expectations were "based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of the public authority" and observed : "Accordingly 'legitimate expectations' in this context are capable of including expectationswhich go beyond enforceable legal rights, provided theyhave some reasonable basis.Aperson may havea legitimate expectation ofbeing treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right in private law to receive such treatment." Healso relied on 1998 (7 ) Supreme Court cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has it genesis in the field of administratve law. The Government and its Departments , in administrating the affairs ofthe country, are expected to honourtheir statements ofpolicy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota ofabuse ofdiscretion . The policy statements cannot be disrtegarded unfairly or applied selectively. Continuing their Lordships further held, though the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character andassuresfairplay in administrataive action, itmay, in a given situation , be enforced as a substantive right. The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrieved either (a) by altering rights or obligations ofthat person which are enforceable byor against him in private law; or (b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either (1) he had in the past been permitted by the decision -maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision-maker that it will not bewithdrawn without giving him first an opportunity ofadvancing reasons for contending that it shouldnot be withdrawn. Indian scenario in the field of legitimate expectation is not different. The question whether the 10852
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER I , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II SEC. 3 (ii )] where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staff of income tax Department some of them working from 8 years, directions issued to pay such workmen at the rate equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption. He also relied onAIR 1990 Supreme Court page 2228 where in it was held that the Kerala water supply and civil water authority shall immediately regularize the services of public health Department employees as per its resolution dated 30-1- 1987 without waiting for the State Government approval. They also directed those who have put in less that one year service age bar may be waved etc. Several more citations he filed about regularisation. He also relied on 1996 1 Service law reporter Supreme Court of INDIA page 56 where in it was held, workman in the employment in the state of forest Department for 5 to 6 year and in each year they worked for a period ranging 100 to 330 days, workmen employed under the schemes at hand had been so done. To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularize them amountsto unfair labour practice and various other judgements and further added to his arguments that by further arguing that these cases are the most fit for regularization as someof them are working from 1975 .
no statutory right to seek any relief under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act. The Petitioners have not put in continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act . It is to be examined whether they stand a chance for abosrption as per the settlements. That the Petitioners failed to meplead the All India SBI Staff Federation as party to the dispute before this court to seek interpretation of the settlements . As such , the cases are bad for non -joinder of necessary party. That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancices are less than 100 each year. The SBI has absorbed messengers and Non-messengers totaling to more than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgement that the settlement are repugnant to Sec . 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the Memorandum of Understanding and the Theory of Legitimate Expectations has no place in the settlements. That in terms of the 5 settlements , the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive upto 31st March, 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Administrataive instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 as there were no vacancies . That the question ofregularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz . , if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointment are made on adhoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and iftheir services are required by the Bank. In any case, backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of the requisite procedure of recruitment and especially when there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry of the candidate could never be effected.
Mr.Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs. TN Jaya Ram where in it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned single judge held that the Petitioner had not worked continuously for a period of 30 days . The learned single judge relied on category ' C ' of the settlement to arrive at the said conclusion . Their lordships allowed the WritAppeal on the ground, in view of the fact that the Petitioner falls short of the required 30 days by 4 days , the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity in the employment of the bank"
Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate , Shri Prabhakar Rao , Advocate on behalf of Shri Ramachandra Rao . Advocate and Sluri Prasad, Advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners who haye been unceremoniously disınissed on 1-4-1997 and some ofthem are still continuing and it is not only a question on industrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioners who worked since more than two decades .
They also relied on several cases, in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere inclusion of a candidates name in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected. Some vacancies remaining unfilled after process of selection finally closed- candidate not appointed-No discrimination. They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to aninvitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post . They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 584 Syndicate Bank Vs. Sankarpal where in it was held that if a waiting list isfor specific period the wait listed candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses . They also relied on 1997 4 SCC 283 Sanjay Vs. Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that weight listed candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies . He also relied on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 where it was held-Stop gap appointees or Temporary appointees do not have any right for continuous or for regularization .
The argued by the Learned Counsel for Respondent Shri B. G. Ravinder Reddy, Advocate and Smt Lalita Kumari , Advocate that the Hon'ble CGIT-cum -Labour Court is fully empowered todecide the disputes which are pending before it in the LCIDs and ID . That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the branches for short periods at the instance of concerned Branch Manager who had no jurisdiction to appoint them . They are not employees of the State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure . The daily wagers/ casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited . That the Petitioners were engaged by the concerned branch managers to meet the exigencies ofwork at intermittent intervals and they cannot be termed as employees of the bank on temporary basis in any identified post or vacancy. That the Petitioners have
Smt Lalitha Kumari , advocate for Respondent relied on 2004 Vol . IV SLT page 947 which was a Judgement from Madras High Court where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointntent held in violation of mandatory provisions of statues ignoring minimum education qualifications , wholly illegal . Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality.
10853 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
Petitioners to such forums for such disputes could be nothing less then pushing the hapless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry mount of the wild life".
Butboth ofthem mainly relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court ofOrissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 inwhich itwas held that only those casual workers who were inthe waiting list of the bank (panels) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies ofthe bank. As the select list came to an end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgement of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP (CC) 3082/99.
Be that maybe so . The above Judgement was set asideby writ appeals by division bench holding that the matterhas tobe dealt with and settled bythe partiesunder theprovisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court. Against which a Special Leave Petitions were filed which were dismissed.
He further argued that even those who have completed 240days also cannot claim regularization as the very entrywas irregular and they got any right it is through theagreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Supreme Court heldthat any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds. Such regularization is jeopardizes the larger public interests . So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance. And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is an All India agreement and the Hon'ble Suprme Court has dismissed the SLP on merits, hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Petitions may be dismissed.
The position now is that under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 those who have completed 240 day's in a year has some right as notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. But all of them entered into settlements, no doubt, these persons are not members of theAll India State Bank ofIndia Staff Federation. Butthose whohaveworked even for 30 days in a calendar year or70 days in 36 calendar months and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements entered intobyAll India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements but for the settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year other do not have any right under the ID act. And this is a all India problem and unfortunately for the Petitioners the same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex.M6 herein, was discussed by the Orissa High Court in OJCNo.9039 or 1997 (WP) and batch, which wasto lapse on 31-3-1997 . Wherein it was held "the currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the unkned decisions/ settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997. It is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have not been fixed. We do not think it necessary to go into the importecialpersons. Against which SLP was filed in the SC which dismissed saying the SLP is dismissed on merits . In fact, all these references or 2(A) (2) are about their termination. For example the reference is "Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of India, Local Head office, Hyderabad in terminating the services ofSri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/ Non-Messenger, STATE BANK OF INDIA w.e.f. 31-3-1997 isjustified or not? Ifnot, what reliefthe applicant is entitled ?". Actually if they had any grievance that the bank had agreed vide minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-1995 , vide Ex.M5 , they should have approached conciliation officer raising a dispute that no joint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997 . / As the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa also stated in the end ofthe Judgement, it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated, the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/ authority. The reference here is whether termination is justified or not .
I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of persons involved and the great expectations raised but justice has to be rendered as per law. Therefore in view of the Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by As stated in the beginning, these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 2005. To sum up the entire facts in a nut shell, the entry of these persons was as casual employees . Seeing the enormity of the situation the SBI and All India SBI staff federationentered into various agreements . The candidates werecalled for interview and were empanelled. The last agreementwas dated 30-7-1996 (Ex. M6) which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Then there was a Memorandum of understanding dt 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary employees, daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997 . There was an conciliation dated 9-6-1995 vide Ex.M5 wherein before the conciliation officer it was agreeed that another joint committee will be constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-97. No such joint committeewas constituted nor any fresh settlement came into effectfrom 1-4-1997. Carrot was dingled before the workers for number of years creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good-bye to all the employees on 31-3-1997 . Their hopes were further raised by the Judgement of the High Court which held "the Petitioners/employees who were on duty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deem to be on duty and shall be entitled to all the benefits of such a post and they shall be immediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some supernumery posts within 3 months from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to which they were entitled as on that date , till they are absorbed" . Infact the Hon'ble single judge stated in the Judgement which I quote " Mr. S Ramachandra Rao , Learrned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have never controverted such a factual and legal position. Such a dispute in any form existing and even apprehended definitely could be a subject of reference to the board of settlement, to a court for enquiry, to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication ." . It is also his apprehension genuinely expressed that driving the 10854
[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
WW 23 : PKameshwar Rao
WW 24: Y Satyam
WW 25 : Ch Narayana Swamy
WW 26 : R Venkateshwar Rao
the Hon'ble Superme Court on merits when the SLP was dismissed on merits , I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri Anil Kumar, Shri LVV Anjaneyulu and 181 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 isjustified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
WW 27 : DNS Prakasha Rao
WW 28 : U Satyanarayana
WW 29 : BSalmon Raju
WW 30 : U Moshi
WW 31: P Varaprasad
WW 32 : M Suvarna Raju
WW 33 : Shaik Galib
WW 34 V Hari Hara Prasad
WW 35 : KAppa Rao
WW 36 : D Simhachalam
WW 37 : D Lakshmana Rao
WW 38 : B Appa Rao
WW 39 : AKanaka Raju
Before parting with th case, I feel it apt to direct the Respondent " which is State under article 12 of the Constitution of India" to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary dailywages/ casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities of the expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with mercy. I was constrained to follow the settled law position , but my conscience prompted me to issue the above directions , which I hope and trust will be honoured by the Respondent bank. While so considering , the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable grounds as the above category employees have spent long timewith the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization oftheir services .
WW 40 : D Chanti Babu
WW 41 : I Appala Raju
WW 42 : GSrinivas
WW 43 : VGanapati Rao
As I have to follow the settled law & the position in which I found myselfwhile delivering this award it prompted metodescribe the condition ofthese petitioners as depicted inthe poem ofFaiz Ahmed Faiz quoted at the beginning of theAward.
WW 44: G Kalyana Chakravarti
WW 45 : P Srinivas Rao
Typed by LDC to my dictation , corrected and pronouncedby me on this the 17th day ofMay, 2005.
WW 46: RamGopal
WW 47 : Siva Koti Rama Rao
E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer
WW 48: R Ganapati Rao
Appendix of Evidence
WW 49 : P Maheshwar Rao
WW 1 : LVV Anjaneyulu
WW 50 : P Nageshwar Rao
A ww 2: S Vishwa Mohan Rao
WW SI B Sankara Rao
ww 3: Kodi Veera Raghava
WW 52: Chaviti Neelaya
WW 4: KRatna Raju
WW 53: Kumar Swamy
WW 5: T Surender Kumar
WW 54 : P Yakasi
WW 6 : MLaxminarayana
WW 55 : Y Ramana
WW 7: PGV Subashana Rao
WW 56 : TUma Sankar Rao
WW 8 : M Babu Rao
WW 57 : D Rama Rao
WW 9 : RTV Ramana Rao
WW 58: K Satyanarayana
WW. 10 : S Nageshwar Rao
WW 59 : KVRamakrishna
WW 11 : I Nookaiah
WW 60 : LBodiyya
WW 12: N Varaha Murthy
WW 61 : S Eshwar Rao
WW 13 : AVGangadharam
WW 62 : P Atchibabu
WW 14 : P Venkata Ramana
WW 63 : GSimhachalam
WW 15 : Md. Sayeed
WW 64: YPydi Raju
WW 16: T Tayara Rao
WW 65 : TGowarayya
WW 17 : Y Simhachalam
WW 66: Jaya Rao
WW 18 : Smt. P Chinnammi
WW 67 : SAppala Naidu
WW 19: A Krishnaveni
WW 68 : CRamakrishna
WW 20: A Subba Rao
WW 69 : P Ramakrishna
WW 21 : B Venkata Rao
WW 70 : K Tirumala Rao
WW 22 : B Ramakrishna
WW 71 : S Samson
[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
WW 72 : M Gowraiah
10885
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
WW 121: KYacob Raj
WW 122: BLakshmi
WW 73 : DY Naidu
WW 74 : B Neelam Naidu WW 123: Saikrishna Reddy
WW 75 : KLaxminarayana WW 124 : M Sri Anjaneyulu
WW 76 : M Prasad Rao
WW 125: GSimmayya
WW 126 : KPrasad Rao
WW 77 : GDavidRaju
WW 127 : BSatyanarayana
WW 78 : BLaxminarayana Rao WW 128 : VKrishna Rao
WW 79 : JBalaram
WW 129 : B Mutyala Rao
WW 80 P Jagadeeshwar Rao WW 81 : G Sobhan Babu
WW 130 : TNageshwarRao
WW 82 : MRamakrishna
WW 131 : YDandasi
WW 132 : R Bhaskara Rao
WW 83 : Chenna Srinivas WW 84: Madhusudan Rao WW 133 : KAppa Rao
WW 134: GSrinivas Rao
WW 85 : M Suryanarayana WW 135 : PRatna Raju
WW 86: RapakaMoshi
WW 87 : Dake Prasad
WW 136: S Bala Satyanarayana
WW 137 : K Chandra Kumar
WW 88 : Keta Venkata Ramana WW 138 : Ch Stalin Babu
WW 89 : P Kesava Satya Prasad WW 139 : B Rama Rao
WW 90 : E Kondaiah
WW 140 : PBhaskar Rao
WW 91 : P Venkata Rao
WW 141 : KVijaya Kumar
WW 92 : M Vijaya Kumar WW 93 : B Yesu Babu
WW 94 : S Sankar Rao
WW 95 : PRamana
WW 142 : M Venkateshwar Rao
WW 143 : GV Ramachandra Rao
WW 144 : VDurga Prasad
WW 145 : G Neelaiah
WW 96 : N Venkata Ratnam WW 146: BRama Rao
WW 97 : Ch Venkat Rao
WW 147 : KMahankali
WW 98 : Kona Ramu
WW 148 : K Venkata Rao
WW 99 : SKrishna
WW 149 : GRamu
WW 100 : S Kanaka Rao
WW 150 : P Danumaiah
WW 101 : A Srinivas Rao
WW 151 : K Venkata Ratnam
WW 102 : V Srinivas Rao
WW 152 : VBala Raju
WW 103 : S Jaya Ram
WW 153 : P Yacob
WW 104: K Satyanarayana WW 154 : MRamakrishna
WW 105 : S Jayanath. Rao
WW 155 : K Chitti Babu
WW 106 : PRamu
WW 107 : PUma Maheswara Rao WW 156 : K Atchayya
WW 157 : KNageshwar Rao
WW 108: JV Bhagwanth Rao WW 158: A Babi Raju
WW 109 : B Ganesh Kumar WW 110 : R Ramesh
Documents marked for Petitioners Ex.W1: Service Certificate
WW 111 : AAppala Swamy WW 112 : PUma MaheswaraRao Ex. W2: Notification of the Bank
Ex. W3 :
Interview Call Letter
WW 113 : Y Nagaraju
WW 114 : Ch V Rama Rao
Ex. W4:
Empanel list
WW 115 : Ch Venkat Ramana WW 116 : S Jagannadha Rao WW 117 : N Sita Ram Babu WW 118 : P Nageshwar Rao WW 119: VRamachandra Raju WW 120 : ΟYVenkaiah
2800 G1/05-37
Ex. W5 to W 166 are Service Certificates
Documents marked by Management Ex.M1 : The statement showing the No. of days each Petitioner worked during relevant period .
Ex.M2: Printed Book containing settlement between the staff federationand Management .
10856
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 1, 2005/ ASVINA 9 , 1927
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3535.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं एल-12011/297/2003- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 14th September , 2005 S.O. 3535 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 25/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bank ofBaroda, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-9-2005.
[No, L- 12011/297/2003 - IR(B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT -25/2004.
Reference No. L- 12011/297 /2003 - I.R. (B - II)
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]
AWARD
1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of Sub-sectons - 1 & 2( A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act' ) has referred this industrial dispute foradjudicaton to this Tribunal which runs as under :-
1 "Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in impositon of punishment of reduction of pay by one stage is legal and justified ? If not , what relief is the concerned workman entitled to?"
2. It transpires from the record that Smt . Lata Kala. who isworking as the Cashier -cum-Clerk in the Nehru Place branch ofBank of Baroda at Jaipur, was chargesheeted on 8-2-2002 and on conclusion of the enquiry against her, she waspunished vide order dated 4-1-2003 with reduction of one stage in the basic wages of scale of pay with cumulative effect. She preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 22-3-2004 passed by the appellate authority. The applicant-union in its claim statement has assailed the punishment order by stating that the alleged misconduct could not be proved against the workman .
3. The non - applicants in their written counter have supported the said punishment order passed against the workman by stating that the misconduct was proved against the workman and the punishment imposed on her isjustified.
4. I have heard both the parties and have gone through the record .
......
Applicant
TheRegional Secretary, Bank ofBaroda Karamchari Union, Rajasthan, C/o BOB, D -38 A, Ashok Marg , C - Scheme, Jaipur
VERSUS
......Non-applicants
1. The Zonal Manager , Bank ofBaroda, Zonal Office , 4thFloor, Anand Bhawan , Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur. 2.TheAssistant General Manager, Bank ofBaroda, ZonalOffice, 4th Floor, Anand Bhawan, Sansar Chandra Road , Jaipur
PRESENT :
: Sh. R.C. Sharma
PresidingOfficer
Fortheapplicant
: Sh. Rajendra Агога.
: Sh . T.P. Sharma.
:29-7-2005
Forthe non-applicants Date of Award
5. The Ld . representative for the workman contends that the workman had furnished a guarantee in favour of her close relative and after payment of certain instalments , the account became non - performing asset ( for short , NPA). Hisfurther submission is that there were three parties in this case , the lending institution, the borrower and the guarantor. In ordinary course of business when account becomes NPA , the bank should initiate the recovery process against the principal borrower. But there is no provision in the bank service rules for a guarantor that in case of NPA , the initiation of action against him will be required. The lending institution had written the letters to. the non -applicant bank to recover the amount from the workman. The Ld . representative further submits that charge number I framed in this regard has not been found proved by the Enquiry Officer and charge number 2 has been found proved against the workman, but the Enquiry Officer has not quoted any act which can be termed as acting prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank.
6. Per contra, the Ld. representative for the bank contendes that both the charges were found proved against the workman, who was purnished by the disciplinary authority and in appeal , her punishment was upheld by the appellate authority. His submission is that in the bank 10857
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
services integrity and honesty of the employee is required and it is evident from the entire proceedings of the enquiry that ample opportunity was given to the workman to rebut the charges and the punishment inflicted upon the workman isjustified.
any act ofthe workman delinquent on which charge can be consideredtobe proved against her under this Clause . As such, I find considerable force in the submission advanced on behalf of the workman that the Enquiry Officer in his finding with regard to charge no . 2 has not quoted any act ofthe delinquent which can be termed as acting prejudicial to the interest of the bank.
7. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have gone through the record.
13. Accordingly, the findings recorded by the EnquiryOfficer on charge number 2 being perverse cannot be upheld and the workman deserves to be exonerated of the misconduct levelled against her under Clause 19.5 (J) of the BPS . The punishment orders dated 4-1-2003 and 22-3-2003 cannot be termed as justified and legal in view of the aforesaid discussion .
8. Chargesheet dated 8-2-2002 reads that without obtaining the permission from the bank, the delinquent signed an agreement ori 14-10-98 with State Bank ofBikaner &Jaipur, Jawahar Nagar Branch at Jaipur as a guarantor to a loan of Rs . 104000/- availed by her relative . This amount when considered in aggregate to outstandings of various staff loan accounts in your name , comes to a very excessive side. It further says that this loan account has turned to NPA and the liability, of the guarantor co - stands with that of borrower . On these facts, two charges were levelled againsther,
(i) Incurring debts to an extent considered by the management as excessive [ Clause 19.7 ( 1 ) of BPS]
(ii) Doing an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank [Clause 19.5 (J) ofBPS ]
14. In consequence, the reference is answered in the affirmative in favour ofthe applicant union and against the management of Bank of Baroda and it is held that the imposition ofpunishment of reduction of pay by one stage passed against the workman Smt . Lata Kala is illegal and unjustified, which is quashed accordingly. The workman would be entitled to all the legal benefits which are admissible to her , as if the said order of punishment was not passed against her. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.
15. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central
Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act .
R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005 9. The Enquiry Officer in his report has concluded that charge no . 1 is not found proved against the deliquent . But with regard to charge no . 2, he has noted as below:- "As the P.O. has argued it is true , because of constant follow up by the authorities of State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur with our Bank's authorities it had adversely affected image and reputation of our Bank and its employees and thus her deeds are acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. "
10. On this finding the Enquiry Officer has concluded that charge no . 2 has been found to be proved against the workman.
का.आ. 3536.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल -12011/101 / 2002- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव 11. The disciplinary authority in his order dated 4-1-2003 and the appellate authority in his order dated 22-3-2003 has recorded the same conclusion . The appellate authority in his order has noted that " it is clear that one of the charges levelled against the appellant in chargesheet dated 8-2-2002 stands proved
NewDelhi, the 14th September,2005
S.O. 3536.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 11/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bank ofBaroda, and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-9-2005.
[No. L- 12011/101/2002 - IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under secy.
12. On a careful examination ofthe record, it appears that charge no. 1 , which was the prime allegation against the workman, could not be found proved against her and it appears that the authorities of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipurhad written letter to the authorities ofBank of Baroda for persuading the workman to repay the outstanding in the aforesaid loan as a guarantor. Thus it was a part of charge number I framed against the workman delinquent. Therefore , on the same score, charge no. 2 cannot be presumedtobe proved against the workman and the finding recordedby the Enquiry Officer is perverse on this account. Besides it, the Enquiry Officer has not cited or enumerated 10858
THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
ANNEXURE
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT-11/2004.
Reference No. L- 12011/ 101/2002- IR. (B-II)
AllBank Safai Karmachari Sangh , Through the President, Central Bank of India, NearAIR, M.I. Road, Jaipur.
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] applicant -urionbefore the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) . The applicant-union has further stated that the workman has priority right to be considered for regularisation and for grant of regular pay - scale in comparison toher junior. It has urged that the workman maybe considered for regularisation to the post of sweeper from the date when her next junior has been regularized and the regular pay scale of the post of sweeper be granted toheraccordingly.
ApplicantUnion
VERSUS
1.Bank ofBaroda, Through General Manager, HeadOffice,Mandvi (Gujarat).
2. TheAssistant Manager,
Bank ofBaroda, Regional Office, AnandBhawan, Sansar ChandraRoad, Jaipur.
..Non- applicants
PRESENT:
: Sh. R.C. Sharma
PresidingOfficer
Fortheapplicant
:Sh.Mahesh Kr . Ved & S.NeerajBhatt.
Forthe non-applicants :Sh. Tej Prakash Sharma.
Dateofaward
:12-08-2005
AWARD
1. The Central Government va exercise ofthe powers conferredunder Clause 'D ' of sul sctions -1 and 2 (A) to Section10ofthe Industrial Dapur Act, 1947 (hereinafter referredtoas the Act' ) has referred this industrial dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-
"Whether the action ofthe management ofBank of Baroda in not regularizing the services of the disputant Smt . Vimla Devi a part - time Safai Karamchari and not granting her benefit of regular pay scale of the post is legal and justified? If not, what reliefis the disputant is entitled to?" 2. The applicant-union has pleaded in its claim statement that its member Smt . Vimla Devi is working as a permanent part -time sweeper since 25-11-1993 at the extension counter of the non -applicant Bank. Jhalana, establishment, Jaipur, who finds place at serial number 6 in the seniority list of sweepers maintained by the non- applicant bank. As per the rules/norms , the part- time employees are regularized and granted regular pay- scales inphased manner according to their seniority. However , thejuniorpersons Shri Raghuvir and Shri Sunil Kumar wereregularized and granted regular pay- scale of the post of sweeper, but the workman was deprived of these benefits. She made a representation on 12-9-1997 to the BranchManager but no action was taken in its response andultimately an industrial dispute had to be raised by the 3. Resisting the claim, the non -applicants in their written counter have averred that the workman is not entitled to get any relief as the service conditions extended to her is in conformity with the provisions of the standing order/bipartite settlement . It is further stated that she is not working as permanent part - time sweeper, but she is engaged on contractual basis and the regularisation ofthe daily rated employes is accomplished as per the norms and schemes fixed by the bank. Since, the workman is working for the timebeing for a few hours ina day she is not entitled to the regular pay - scale of the post of sweeper as she is not discharging the same duties and responsibilities which are being discharged by the regular employees ofthe bank. They have further added that unless the workman fulfils the requisite qualifications as much as criteria fixed by the bank she is not entitled to get the right of regularisation. It has been denied on the part of non - applicants that any junior person to the workman has been regularized on the respective post.
4. On pleadings , the following points for determination were framed :-
(1) Whether the disputant Smt . Vimla Devi is entitled for regularisation of her service and for thebenefit of regular pay - scale of the post?
(ii) Relief, if any
5. In the evidence , the applicant- union has submitted the affidavit of WW- 1 Smt . Vimla Devi and fit the rebuttal the counter affidavit of Shri Subhash Chandra Garg, the incharge of extension counter , Jhalana Doongari wasbrought on the record. Both the witnesses were cross- examined by the respective opposite representative . The applicant-union has also led the documentary evidence , whereas the non - applicants have chosen not to bring any documentary evidence on the record.
6. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record. The point- wise discussion follows as under:- Point No. I
7. The Id. representative for the workman contends that the disputant is working more than 29 hours per week, who is entitled to get full - scale wages and that the junior persons to him were regularized in the services , as such, she is also entitled for her regularisation in the service Countering this submission , the Id . representative for the non -applicants contends that the workman in her applications Ex . W - 1 to Ex. W- 3 has not mentioned that 10859 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
she was working more than 29 hours per week and she is working only 15 to 30 minutes a day. The ld. representative has also denied that the junior persons to her were regularized.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions .
13. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant union that the workman was performing for more than 29 hours per week whch entitles her to get the full scale wages in accordance with the 5th Bipartite settlement (for short, "BPS") . It has been controverted on behalf of the bankby contending that she is working nearly half an hour adayand is not entitled for the full-scale wages .
14. The 5th BPS lays down that if the normal total working hours per week of the part -time employees are beyond29 hours , full-scale wages would be granted tohim.
9. The applicant -union has sought two reliefs; firslty, the regularisation of service of its member Smt. Vimla Devi and, secondly, for providing the benefit of regular pay- scale ofthe post..
10. To substantiate the plea that the workman is qualified for regularisation of her service, it has been contended that her name figures at serial no . 6 of the seniority list prepared by the management . Further, it has beencontended that the junior persons to her have been regularized in the service whereas she has not been provided this benefit and the junior persons are named as Raghuvir, posted in Power House Branch, Jaipur as well as Sunil Kumar, posted in Station Road Branch, Police Line, Jaipur. It has also been contended that both these persons have been granted the full salary.
11. The applicant -union has placed on record the documents Ex. W-4 to support this submission, which is a memorandum of understanding arrived at between the management ofBank ofBaroda, Jaipur and its staffunion during the conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C), Jaipur whereby certain casual workers were absorbed as sweeper in the distinct pay scales. But his conciliation proceeding does not contain the names of Raghuvir or Sunil Kumar to suggest that these were also absorbed in the services ofthe bank. Thus, the applicant -union has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence which could lead to infer that the junior persons to the workman were absorbed in the services of the bank.
15. In the claim statement, the applicant-union has put forward aplea that the workman was performing her duties from 9 A.M. to 2 P.M. In the office and was cleaning thecarpetarea of more than 1500 sq.ft. This fact has been reiteratredby the workman in her affidavit and in the cross- exmaination she has also stated that she is working from 9 A.M. till 2 P.M. per day in the office. Contrary to it, the caseofthe bank is that the workman is working from 9.30 A.M. to 9.45 A.M. per day. There is no documentary evidence available on this fact, but it is evident that the union has based the plea of nearly 5 hours per day performanceofthe workman on account of the carpet area exceeding more than 1500 sq. ft . for which no measurement couldbe brought on the record by Union and add to it, in none of her letters the claimant has mentioned this fact . Thus, the logic cited by the Union behind this plea of performing the duty beyond 29 hours per week on the basis of carpet area, which has been categorically denied on behalf of the bank, is neither supported by any documentary evidence , nor by the leters addressed by the workman to the bank. Significantly, the letter Ex. W- 3 containing the request of the workman for her transfer from extension counter to the Malviya Nagar Branch fortifies the contention advanced on behalf of the bank that she wanted her transfer to Malviya Nagar Branch to established her claim for full- scale wages . As such, the submission advanced on behalfofthe applicant- union that the disputant is working in the extension counter beyond 29 hours perweek cannot be accepted being exaggerated one . Relief:-
16. For the forgoing reasons, the union has failed to establish that the workman is entitled for regularisation of her service and to get the full - scale wages.
17. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative in favour of the Bank ofBaroda and against the Union and it is held that the action of the management in not regularizing the services of the disputant Smt. Vimla Devi, part-time Safai Karamchari and not granting her benefit ofregular pay-scale ofthe post is legal andjustified. Anaward is passed in these terans accordingly..
18. Let a copy ofthe award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17(1 ) oftheAct
R. C. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer 12. Coming to the next question, the applicant-union has exhibited 3 applications which were presented before thebank authorities by the workman. Ex. W- 1 , applications dated 12-9-1997 bears the signature of the workmanwhich says that she is working for the last 4 years in the extension counter throughthe contractor and is paid Rs . 120/- per month which should be increased. Her another application isEx. W-2 dated 14-12-2000 wherein she has stated that she is gettingRs . 740/-consolidatedwages per monthwhich maybe hiked and she ranks first in the seniority list. In the third applications, Ex. W- 3 dated 28-3-2003 she has demandedthat the adequate pay-scale should be provided to her and has also requested that her services may be transferredto the Malviya Nagar Branch. It flows fromthe aforesaid applications that initially she was getting consolidatedwages Rs . 120/- per month as a part-time sweeper, which was ultimately raised to the tune of Rs.740/- per month.
10860
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005
allowances permanently vide order dated 5-2-2003 is justified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?"
का.आ. 3537-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ोदा, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-9-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं. एल-12011/81/2004- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi , the 14th September, 2005
2. The applicant - union while assailing the punishment order dated 5-2-2003 passed against its member Sh. D.S.Bhadoria , the workman , Cashier -cum -Clerk, has pleaded, inter alia, in its claim statement that the charges levelled against the workman vide chargesheet dated 23-5-2002 are groundless , that the enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice and that the findings arrivedat by the Enquiry Officer are arbitrary. The Union hasfurther stated that the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority is illegal and has also further challenged the order dated 26-3-2003 passed by the appellate authority. The Union has urged that the punishment orders dated 5-2-2003 and 26-3-2003 be declared as unjustified and illegal and it may further be declared that the workman is entitled to get all those benefits , which he could not get on account of the punishment order .
S.O. 3537. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 49/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court Jaipur as shown in the Annexure , in Industrial Dispute between the Management of Bank of Baroda, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 13-9-2005.
[No. L- 12011/81/2004- IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
ANNEXURE
3. The non -applicant resisting the claim of the applicant -union has averred in his written counter that the enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice , that the charges levelled against the workman were found proved against him, that the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority isjust and legal and that the appellate authority has correctly modified the punishment order subsequently.
4. In the rejoinder, the applicant - union has reiterated the facts as stated in its claim statement.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR
Case No. CGIT-49/ 2004.
5. I have heard both the parties and have Scanned the enquiry record .
Reference No. L- 12011/81/2004-I.R. (B- II)
Applicant
The Regional Secretary, Bank ofBaroda Karamchari Union, Rajasthan, C/o BOB , D -38 A, Ashok Marg, C - Scheme, Jaipur ......
Versus
......Non-applicants
TheDeputy General Manager, BankofBaroda, Anand Bhawan, 4th Floor, Sansar Chandra Road, Jaipur
PRESENT:
:Sh. R.C. Sharma
PresidingOfficer
:Sh. RajendraArora.
Forthe applicant
: Sh. T.P. Sharma.
Forthe non-applicants
:29-7-2005
Dateofaward
AWARD
6. The Id. representative for the Union contends that the workman in his travelling expenses bill had inadvertently mentioned the date of journey by Rajdhani Express from Delhi to Howrah as 23-3-98 , whereas he had in fact undertaken the journey from Delhi to Howrah by Rajdhani Express on 22-3-98 . His submission is that as per the rules , the mention of PNR/Ticket number in the bill was sufficient to receive the reimbursement of LFC bill and later on he had also submitted the train ticket bearing the same PNRnumber, which he had mentioned in the bill . As such, no excess payment was obtained by the delinquent . His next submission is that so far as taking 15 days more leave encashment is concerned, the defence representative had sought a copy ofthe application vide which the delinquent had requested for leave encashment in the year 1999, which could not be provided to him despite the direction issued by the Enquiry Officer . He, therefore , submits that the delinquent had not intentionally requested for claiming 15 days' more leave encashment . Lastly, the ld. representative has assailed the punishment order on the ground that the appellate authority vide its order dated 30-7-2004 has received his earlier order dated 26-3-2003 in the absence of anyprovision in law.
1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub-Sectons - 1 & 2 (A) to Section10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act ' ) has referred this industrial dispute foradjudicaton to this Tribunal which runs as under :-
"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Jaipur awarding punishment of bringing downfour stage in the pay scale of Shri D.S. Bhadoria EC No. 37787 and debarring from all special
7. In response, the Id. representative for the bank contends that the workman had travelled by Rajdhani Express for which he was not entitled and had obtained 15 days ' excess leave encashment , which was granted on his application. The ld. representative has also contended that the appellate authority is competent to review his own order.
10861 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
8. I have bestowed my thoughtful considerationto the rival contentions and have gone through the record.
9.The chargesheet dated 23-5-2002 reads two charges against the workman as below :-
(i) That after obtaining the permission you had availed the LFC from 22-3-98 to 10-4-98 and you claimed in your TA Bill that the journey was undertaken by you on 23-3-98 by train number 2302. Rajdhani Express running from Delhi to Howrah. But you did not submit your journey ticket along with your bill and you had taken the reimbursement worth Rs . 14557 from the office. Subsequently, during the personnel audit it was found that the Rajdhani Expressdid not run between Delhi and Calcutta on 23-3-98 . Thus , you had deliberately submitted a wrong claim ofRs . 8215 /-before the bank and you had fraudulently received the said amount .
(ii) That as per the details shown in the table you had deliberately obained the excess leave encashment for 15 days against the bank rules .
12. Now, I will dwell on the next charge levelled against the workman pertaining to the payment of the excess leave encashment of 15 days . It has been alleged on behalfofthe bank that the workman had wrongly claimed 15 days more leave encashment by submitting his applicationbefore the bank. MW- I NK Jain was examined on this point by the management, who has not exhibited the application of the workman which is stated tohave been submitted by him for the leave encashment before the bank . It is further revealed that the defence representativehad filed an application Ex. DE- 1 before the EnquiryOfficer seeking a copy ofthe application submitted bythe workman for his leave encashment . On submission ofthis application, the Presenting Officer had addresseda letterEx. ME- 17 to the Branch Manager, Alwar instructing himto transmitthis application to him for placing it before the Enquiry Officer. In response , the letter of the Branch Manager,AlwarEx. ME- 18 was placed on the enquiryrecord which says that the voucher vide which the advance amount forjourneywas sanctioned to Sh. D.S. Bhadoria has been deemedtobehis application for leave encashment. This letter indicates that the delinquent had never submitted any application for leave encashment before the bank authorities and it is manifestly clear that the document which has been alleged to be the basis of the allegation could notbe brought out on the record by the management to prove the motive of the delinquent and the findingfinding reachedat by the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the record and is perverse, which cannot be sustained:
10. At first, I proceed to examine the findings down by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the first charge. The charge levelled against the workman is that he had submitted a TA Bill before the bank wherein he had exhibited that he had undertaken the journey on 23-3-98 by the Rajdhani Express, whereas on 23-3-98 this train did not run between Delhi to Calcutta . The defence adopted by the workman is that he had mentioned the PNR number in his bill as required by the concerned rules but inadvertently the journey date was mentioned as 23-3-98 instead of 22-3-98.
13. The third contention canvassed on the behalfof the Union is that the order dated 30-7-2004 passedby the appellate authority is illegal since the appellate authority has no power to review his own order. The Ld. representative in support ofhis submission has reliedupon 2005(1) SCT 520.
14. The disciplinary authority vide his order dated 5-2-2003 has inflicted the punishment ofbringing down workman'sbasic wages by four stages in the scale ofpay and has debarred him from all the special allowances permanently. The appeal preferred by the delinquent before the appellate authority was rejected vide his order dated 26-3-2003,upholding the punishment order dated 5-2-2003. But subsequently the appellate authority vide his order dated30-7-2004 has observed that his previous orderdated 26-3-2003 readwith the order ofthe disciplinary authority dated5-2-2003 is not în conformity with the provisions of theBipartite Settlement and has substituted the punishment as"basicpay tobe brought down to lower scale of pay by two stages". Thus the appellate authority has suo motto reviewed his own order and it is well-settled law that the appellate authority has no power to review his own order. The submission canvassed on behalf of the Union on this point is strengthened by the decision supra.
15. Furthermore, the punishment order dated 5-2- 2003passedby the disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment on the workman by bring down his basic wages by four stages in the scale of pay. Para 6 ofBipartite Settlement dated 10-4-2002 prescribes the penalties for grossmisconduct and its sub clause (g) lays down that the delinquent bebrought down to lower stage in the scale of 11. There is no dispute that the workman had mentioned the PNR number in his journey bill and the Ld. representative has taken me through the memorandum of settlement dated 10-4-2002 wherein in the chapter 17 titled "Leave fare concession" its clause 17.21 . lays down that a workman may be reimbursed as per his entitlement the amount ofexpenses incurred by him for LFC on producing satisfactory evidence of the actual expenditure incurred bywayoftickets/money receipt/PNR mumber/train number, date ofjourney, etc. In compliance ofthis clause, it appears that the workman had submitted his TA Bill mentioning therein the PNR number Apart it, the workman during the course ofthe enquiry had also submitted his railway ticket Ex. DE-21 , whereby he had undertaken his journey on 22-3-98 from New Delhi to Howrah by Rajdhani Express. The expenditure incurred by him in this journey was also reimbursed to him. It, therefore, flows from the aforesaid facts that the delinquent had undertaken the journeyby the Rajdhani Express on 22-3-98 and mentioning of the journey date as 23-3-98 instead of 22-3-98 occurred inadvertently.Hence , the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that he had obtained the reimbursement fraudulently by stating in the TA Bill that he had undertaken the journey by the Rajdhani Express , is clearly contrary to the record and no reasonable person could have arrived at this finding on these facts.
10862
[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
V/ s.
TheDirector (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd , Telbhavan,
pay up to a maximum of two stages . As such , the disciplinary authority was not legally competent to inflict the impunged punishment on the delinquent which deserves to be quashed on this count too.
Dehradun-248003.
Opponent
APPEARANCES :
16. For the forgoing reasons , the impunged punishment order cannot be maintained..
: Sh. R.C. Shukla
Complainant
:Shri K.V. Gadhia
Opponent
ORDER
17. In the result , the reference is answered in the affirmative in favour of the applicant-union and against the management of Bank of Baroda and it is held that the order dated 5-2-2003 awarding the punishment of bringing down four stages in the pay scale of the workman Sh . D.S. Bhadoria and debarring him from all the special allowances permanently is unjustified. The workman is entitled to all the benefits which were admissible to him , as if the said order was not passed against him. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.
18. Let a copy of the awardbe sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of theAct .
R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who complete six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change oftime bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
नई दिल्ली , 14 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3538.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. पुल-30025/83/2005- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
NewDelhi, the 14th September, 2005
S.O. 3538. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 72/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure , in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of O.N.G.C. Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-8-2005 .
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a Old I.T.C No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R. & P. rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation. The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference .As per the present R. & P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50 ( 1 )/ 2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 -A and Schedule -IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it its prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R. & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical &Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
[No. L-30025/83/2005-IR(Misc.)]
C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, AT AHMEDABAD
Present: Shri B. I. Kazi B. Sc . , L.L.M. Presiding Officer
Com. C.G.LT. A No. 72/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT. Α. No. 201/04
(Old Com. No. 26/03 in Reference (LT.C. ) No. 120/99)
M.T. Patel
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied StaffAssociation, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mahesana-384002 .
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The oponent has not contravened any provisions ofSection 33 of the I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connectedwith the men reference. Hence the complaint is required tobe dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption. The subjectmatter ofpresent complaint is not connected withthe pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99. There'is no such demand promotion in the main reference.
..Complainant 10863 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र: अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
ANNEXURE
TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, AT AHMEDABAD BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL
PRESENT:
Shri B.I. Kazi B.Sc. L.L.M. Presiding Officer
Com. C.G.LT.A. No. 73/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT.A. No.. 201/04
(Old Com. No. 27/03 in Reference (L.T.C.) No. 120/99) D.B. Vasava
The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there willbe change ofany service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R. & P. regulations andthe union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R. & P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 ofthe I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mahesana-384002 ....Complainant
V/s.
5. During the course of adjudication of representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.
The Director (Personnal/HR) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan,
Dehrandun -248 003 .
....Opponent
APPERANCES
Shri R. C. Shukla
Complainant :
: Shri K.V. Gadhia
Opponent
ORDER
6. Looking to the facis of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R. & P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infrctuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject - matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad
Date: 17-01-05
B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of servic condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R&P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
का.आ. 3539. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-8--2005 को प्राप्त
हुआ था ।
[सं. एल--30025/84/2005- आई आर ( विविध ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th September , 2005 S.O , 3539. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe managemerit ofO.N.G..C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-8-2005.
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.Α. No.201/04 as aOld I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R&P rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation. The actionwill change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As perthepresent R&P rules after completing ofsix years, the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/ 50( 1 )/ 2002 on 15/05/2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9-A and Schedule - IV ofI. D. Act, 1947. Thus it its prayed that theHon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party todesist for any action of modifying R. &. P rules for electrical categoryworkmanwithout the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation and not to change the service condition till theReference 120/99 is finalized.
[No. L-30025/84/2005-IR(Misc .)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.
2800 67/05-38 10864
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
3.A notice was issued to the opponent to file the WrittenStatement .
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of section 33 ofthe I.D. Act. The complainant is not workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension -assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with thepending Reference (ITC ) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence deniedby the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R&P regulations and the union isnot recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R&P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cusi .
5.During the course ofadjudication the representa- tiveofthe complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed off accordingly.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 , it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance ofthe complainant regarding changing the R& P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6, this complaint become infrictuous anddoes not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Ex. 6 the prties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter ofthe complaint . Hence thiscomplaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost .
B.I. KAZI , Presiding Officer Ahmedabad. Date 17-01-05
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3540.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निविष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक
[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/04) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/85/ 2005- आई आर( विविध ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 14th September, 2005
کا S.O. 3540.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management ofO.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-8- 2005.
[No. L- 30025/ 85/2005 - IR(Misc) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy. ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD PRESENT :
Shri B.I. Kazi , B.Sc. , L.L.M. , Presiding Officer Com. C.G.LT.A. 74/04 In Reference No. C.G.LT.A. No. 201/04
(Old Com. No. 28/03 in Reference (L.T.C.) No. 120/99) B.D. Patel C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, Mahesana -384002
....Complainant V/ s . The Director (Personnal/HR) , ONGCLtd, Telbhavan, Dehradun -248003 .
..Opponent APPEARANCES:
Complainant: Shri R. C. Shukla Opponent: Shri K.V. Gadhia
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy. in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of servic condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action modifying R& P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a Old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R& P Rules 10865 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/ आश्विन 9, 1927
policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach ofsection 33. Thus there is no violation ofsection 33 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
Inview ofthefact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter ofthe complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost .
Ahmedabad. Date 17/01/05
B.I. KAZI, PreddingOfficer
नई दिल्ली , 14 सितम्बर, 2005
without the consent ofElectrical & Allied Staff Association . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference .As perthe present R&P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service conditionofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH/50 ( 1 )/ 2002 on 15/05/2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B". Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9-A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that theHon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R&P of rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.
का.आ. 3541. औद्योगिक विबाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एम.जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।
[सं . एल-30025/86/2005- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव NewDelhi, the 14th September, 2005
S.O. 3541. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothemanagement ofO.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-08-2005.
[No. L-30025/86/2005 -IR(Misc)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy
ANNEXURE
CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, AHMEDABAD
PRESENT:
Shri B.L. KAZI B.Sc. L.L.M. , PresidingOfficer Com. C.G.I.T.A. 75/04 in Reference No. C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions ofSection 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference (ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demandpromotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management istrying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there will be change of any service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the Discussion for changing the R& P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R&P. The complainant has not producedany proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
(OldCom. No. 29/03 in Reference (I.T.C.) No. 120/99)
G.K. Khant
Complainant
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19 , Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar, ....
Mahesana-384002
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.
V/s.
The Director (Personnel/HR) , ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan,
....Opponent
Dehrandun -248003.
6. Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R.&P.
2800 G1 /05-39 10866
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005/ASVINA 9 , 1927
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Appearances :
Complainant: Shri R. C. Shukla
Opponent! Shri K. V. Gadhia
ORDER
willbe change ofany service conditions of the complainant. The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R& P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R&P. The complainant hasnot produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management. Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.
1. The complainant has filed this complain under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of servic condition. Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R& P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case.
6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R. &P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
Inview ofthe fact of Ex. 6 the parties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost.
Ahmedabad.
Date 17/01/05
B.I. KAZI , PresidingOfficer
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.I.T.A. No. 201/04 as a Old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R. &P. Rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association , The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As per the present R. &P. rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition of the workman . The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC /AH/50 ( 1 ) / 2002 on 15/05/2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure "B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per section 9 - A and Schedule - IV ef I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desirt for any action of modyfying R & P. rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement.
का.आ. 3542.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/87/2005- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव
New Delhi , the 14th September , 2005
S.O. 3542. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 76/04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of O.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-08-2005.
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement .. The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of section 33 ofthe I.D. Act. The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required tobe dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension- assumption. The subject matter of present complaint is not connected withthe pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union. It is the privilege of the management to change any rule . It is denied that there
[No. L- 30025/87/2005 - IR(Misc) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.
10867 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
ANNEXURE
BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, AT AHMEDABAD
PRESENT :
Shri B.I. Kazi B.Sc. L.L.M. PresidingOfficer
Com. C.G.I.T.A. 76/04 In Reference No. C.G.I.T.A.
No. 201/04
(OldCom. No. 30/03 in Reference (I.T.C. ) No. 120/99)
A.G. Patel
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association, 19, Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar,
Mahesana -384002
....Complainant
V/s.
The Director (Personnel/HR) ,
ONGC Ltd, Telbhavan, Dehrandun - 248003 .
....Opponent
Appearances:
Complainant: Shri R. C. Shukla
Opponent: Shri K.V. Gadhia
ORDER
maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption . The opponent has not contravened any provisions of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference. Hence the complaint is required to be dismissed . The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99. There is no such demand promotion in the main reference. The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true, hence denied by the opponent. It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there willbe change of any service conditions of the complaint . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R&P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R &P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
5. Dusing the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex. 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management.Hence the present complaint may be disposed offaccordingly.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Dispute Act , praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post. It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of servic condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R&P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be change till the pending of reference case .
6. Lookingto the facts ofthis purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the coraplainant regarding changing the R.&P. policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of Section 33ofthe Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent. Looking to the Ex. 6 this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Ex . 6 the prties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint . Hence this complaint is hereby disposed off. No order as to cost.
B.I. KAZI, Presiding Officer
Ahmedabad. Date 17-01-05
नई दिल्ली, 14 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3543.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 77/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-8-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।
[सं. एल-30025/ 88/2005- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]
सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव 2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.GITA. No. 201/04 as a Old I.T.C. No. 120/99 for adjudication . The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R& P Rules without the consent ofElectrical & Allied StaffAssociation . The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As perthe present R&P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service conditionofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change oftime bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/AH/50 ( 1 )/ 2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B" . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule- IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action of modifying R& Pof rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized.
New Delhi , the 14th September, 2005 3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the
Written Statement .
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement. The brief facts are that complaint is not
S.O. 3543. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 77/04) 10868
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1. 2005 / ASVINA 9 , 1927
of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofO.N.G.C. Limited and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 30-08-2005 .
[No. L -30025/88/2005 - IR ( Misc ) ]
C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy:
ANNEXURE
BEFORE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD PRESENT :
Shri B.L KAZI B.SC. L.L.M. , Presiding Officer Com . C.G.I.T.A. No. 77/04 in Reference No. C.G.I.T.A. No.
2001/04
(Old Com. No.31/03 in Reference (I.T.C. ) No. 120/99 ) G.R. Bhavsar
C/o ONGC Electrical & Allied Staff Association , 19. Pushpkunj Society, Near Sahkar Nagar.
Mahesana -384002
....Complainant V/ s .
The Director ( Personnel/HR) .
ONGC Ltd.. Telbhavan, Dehrandun- 248003.
....Opponent Appearances :
Complainant: Shri R. C. Shukla
Opponent: Shri KV. Gadhia
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, praying that the opponent shall not change time bound promotion policy, in which a workman who completes six years of service in one post will get the promotion to next higher post . It is the say of the complainant that change of time bound promotion policy is a change of service condition . Hence prays that the opponent should be ordered to desist from any action of modifying R&P rules for electrical category and the service condition should not be changed till the pending of reference case .
2. The brief facts of the complainant is that the Reference is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal C.G.1.T.A. No. 2t) 1/104 as a Old I.T.C. No. 12t)/ 99 for adjudication. The management of O.N.G.C. trying to modify R & P Rules without the consent of Electrical & Allied Staff Association. The action will change the service condition of Electrical category workman who are involved in the reference . As perthe present R& P rules after completing of six years , the workman is getting promotion to next higher post and it is the time bound promotion policy and it is also service condition ofthe workman. The management have intimated their intention of change of time bound policy to the union through conciliation officer vide file No. RLC/ AH / 50 ( 1 ) / 2002 on 15-05-2002 a copy is enclosed as Annexure " B " . Thus the intention of change of time bound promotion policy is change of service condition as per Section 9 -A and Schedule - IV of I.D. Act , 1947. Thus it is pryed that the Hon'ble Tribunal shall issue an order to opposite party to desist for any action ofmodifying R&P rules for electrical category workman without the consent of Electrical &
[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Allied Staff Association and not to change the service condition till the Reference 120/99 is finalized .
3. A notice was issued to the opponent to file the Written Statement .
4. By Ex. 5 the opponent has filed the Written Statement . The brief facts are that complaint is not maintainable at law and the Hon'ble Tribunal has no jurisdiction . The complaint is ill founded and made on assumption. The opponent has not contravened any provisions of section 3.3 of the I.D. Act . The complainant is not concerned workman and alleged dispute is not connected with the main reference . Hence the complaint is required tobe dismissed. The complaint is not maintainable at law, as it is filed on the ground of apprehension assumption . The subject matter of present complaint is not connected with the pending Reference ( ITC) No. 120/99 . There is no such demand promotion in the main reference . The averments and contention made in the complaint are not true , hence denied by the opponent . It is denied that the management is trying to modify recruitment and promotion rules with the other union . It is the privilege of the management to change any rule. It is denied that there willbe change ofany service conditions of the complainant . The management calls recognized unions and ASTD for the discussion for changing the R&P regulations and the union is not recognized union and their union has not a legal right to say anything about R&P. The complainant has not produced any proof of contravention of Section 33 of the I.D. Act . Thus it is prayed that the complaint should be dismissed with cost .
5. During the course of adjudication the representative of the complainant submitted a purshis by Ex . 6 and it is stated that the matter is settled with the management . Hence the present complaint may be disposed ofaccordingly.
6.Looking to the facts of this purshis Ex. 6 it is clear that the matter has been settled amicably and there is no grievance of the complainant regarding changing the R& P policy. Not only that the opponent has not committed any breach of Section 33. Thus there is no violation of section 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act by the opponent . Looking to the Ex. 6 , this complaint become infructuous and does not survive in law. Hence I pass the following order:
ORDER
In view of the fact of Ex. 6 the prties have amicable settlement regarding the subject matter of the complaint. Hence this complaint is hereby disposed of. No order as to cost.
Alımedabad. Date 17-01-05
B.I. KAZI . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3544. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 10869 [भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 1 , 2005/आश्विन 9, 1927
New Delhi , the 19th September, 2005 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त हो चुकीहै ) अध्याय-5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्: -
जिला
क्र. सं. राजस्व ग्राम तालुक
तिरूरंगाडी
मलपुरम
1. ए . आर. नगर
तिरूरंगाडी मलपुरम
2. परापूर
तिरूर
3. कुरूम्बत्तूर
मलपुरम
तिरूर
मलपुरम
4. ओतुकुंगल
S.O. 3545.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist October, 2005 as the date on which theprovisions 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 brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Uttar pradesh namely:-
तिरूर
5. कलपकान्बेरी
मलपुरम
Tehsil
District पोन्माला
तिरूर
6.
मलपुरम
Revenue Village
Revenue Pargna
[सं. एस-38013/53/2005- एस.एस. - 1 ] के.सी. जैन , निदेशक
New Delhi , the 19th September, 2005
"Area comprising of Reveue Village - Shhavali , Bibipur, Shernagar, Silajuddi , Bahadarpur, Khediviran, Humayunpur and Almaspur in the Revenue Pargana, Tehsil and District Muzaffar Nagar .
[No. $-38013/58/2005 -S.S. I ]
K.C. JAIN, Director
नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर, 2005
S.O. 3544. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act . 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October, 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 ) ofSection 76 and Sections 77. 78. 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely :-
District
S. Name of
Taluk
No. Revenue
Village
1. A.R. Nagar Tirurangadi Malappuram
का.आ. 46.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय- (44 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 प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्: - 4
Malappuram
Tirurangadi
Parappur
2. 3. Kurumbathur Tirur
जिला
Malappuram
क्र. सं. राजस्व ग्राम तालुक
Tirur
4. Othukungal
Malappuram
4
3
1
2
Tirur
Malappuram
5. Kalpakanchery
Tirur
6. Ponmala
परूर
Malappuram
एरणाकुलम
1. करूमालूर
परूर
2. अलनगाड
एरणाकुलम [No. S-38013 /53/2005 - S.S. IJ K.C. JAIN, Director
परूर
एरणाकुलम
3. कोट्टुबल्ली
4. वाडकेकरा परूर
एरणाकुलम नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर, 2005
परूर
एरणाकुलम
5. मूतूकुन्नम
परूर
एरणाकुलम
6. चेन्डमंगलम
परूर
7. परूर
एरणाकुलम
एरणाकुलम
कुन्नतुनाड
8. पश्चिम वेन्नूर
[सं. एस -38013/54/2005 - एस.एस. - 1 ]
के.सी. जैन, निदेशक का.आ. 3545.-कर्मचारी राज्य वीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय- 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के मिवाय 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 मिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपवन्ध उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-
New Delhi , the 19th September , 2005
जिला
राजस्व
राजम्व
राजस्व तहसील
ग्राम
परगना
जिला, राजस्व तहमील एवं राजस्व परगना मुजफ्फर नगर के अन्तर्गत आने वाले राजम्व ग्राम " महावली, वीवीपुर, शेरनगर, मिलाजुंडी, बहादुरपुर, खेड़ी वीरान , हुमायूँपुर ( गौ.आ. ) , अलमामपुर" ।
[मं. एम-38013/58/2005-एम.एम. - 1 ]
S.O. 3546. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October, 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 brought into
के.मी. जैन , निदेशक 10870
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 1 , 2005 /ASVINA 9 , 1927
force of the said Act shall come into force in the following arcas in the State of Kerala namely :-
Taluk
District S. No.
Name of Revenue Village
1. Karumalur
Parur
Ernakulam 2.
Parur
Ernakulam Alangad
Parur
Ernakulam 3. Kottuvally
Parur
Ernakulam 4. Vadekkekara
Ernakulam
Parur
5. Moothukannam
Ernakulam 6.
Parur
Chendamangalam
[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली , 19 सितम्बर , 2005
का.ओ. 3548.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरका एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर , 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहा ही प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा-77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्,
जिला
क्र. सं . राजस्व ग्राम
Parur
Ernakulam 7. Parur
Erankulam
Kunnathunad
8. West Vengoor
[No. S-38013 /54/2005- SS- 11 K.C. JAIN , Director नई दिल्ली , 19 सितम्बर , 2005
का.आ. 3547- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर, 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 प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः-
क्रम सं . राजस्व ग्राम
जिला
तालुक
वडकरा
कोषिकोड 1. एडचेरी
2.
वडकरा
विल्लियापल्ली
कोपिकोड
वडकरा
कोपिकोड 3. तिरूवालूर
4. अयन्चेरी
वडकरा
कोपिकोड
तालुक
तृश्शूर
कोंडुगलूर
1. लोकमल्लेश्वरम
तृश्शूर
2. कूट्टिचिरा
मुकुन्दपुरम
3. मेलूर
तृश्शूर
मुकुन्दपुरम
[सं. एस -38013/56/2005 - एसएस -1 ] के.सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 19th September, 2005 S.O. 3548.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October , 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- Vand VI [ Except sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala namely: -
S. Name of
[सं. एस-38013/55/ 2005 - एसएम -1 ]
Taluk
District No. Revenue Village
के.सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi . the 19th September, 2005 S.O. 3547.In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October, 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- Vand VI [Except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State ofKerala namely:-
Taluk
District S. Narne of No. Revenue Village
Vadakara
Kozhikode 1. Edachery
Vadakara
Kozhikode 2. Villipally
Vadakara
Kozhikode 3. Thiruvallur
Kozlukode
Vadakara
4. Avanchery
[No. S -38013 /55 / 2005 - SS- I ]
K.C. JAIN , Director
Thrissur 1. Lokmaleswaram Kodungalloor
2. Kuttichira
Thrissur
Mukundapuram
3. Meloor
Thrissur
Mukundapuram
[No. S- 38013 /56/2005 - SS -I ]
K.C. JAIN , Director नई दिल्ली, 19 सितम्बर, 2005
का.आ. 3549.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 अक्तूबर, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से 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 प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । के उपबन्ध राजस्थान के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्ः-
" जिला टोंक में तहसील निवाई के राजस्व ग्राम- जुगलपुरा कलां, पंचायत ढाणी जुगलपुरा, भगवानपुरा , झिलाय , गोपीनाथपुरा , सकतपुरा , हमीदपुरा , केरोद, रामसिंहपुरा , पहाड़ी, बिसनपुरा, बाढ बिशनपुरा , 10871 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]
भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर1 , 2005/आश्विन 9 , 1927
77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Rajasthan namely:-
बरथल , विजयपुरा , गुढ़ा आनन्दपुरा , चकविजयपुरा , खण्डवा, गोविन्दपुरा, केरिया, श्योसिंहपुरा, खणदेवत, जुझारपुरा, चोरपुरा, दामोदरपुरा, जुगलपुरा खुर्द, संग्रामपुरा , पलेई और जयसिंहपुरा के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र । "
[सं. एस-38013/57/2005 - एस एस-1 ]
के.सी: जैन , निदेशक
New Delhi , the 19th September, 2005
The areas comprising the revenue villages Jugalpura Kalan , Panchayat Dhani Jugalpura , Bhagwanpura , Jhilai , Gopinathpura , Sakatpura , Hameedpura . Kerod. Ramsinghpura , Pahari , Vishanpura, BarhVishanpura , Barthal , Vijayapura , Gudha Anandpura. Chak Vijaipura , Khandwa , Govindpura , Keriya , Shyosinghpura , Khandewat , Jhujharpura . Chorpura , Damodarpura, Jugalpura Khurd, Sangrampura. Palai and Jaisinghpura of Tehsil Newai in District Tonk. "
[No. S- 38013/57/2005 - SS- I ] S.O. 3549. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st October, 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- Vand VI ( Except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections
K.C. JAIN , Director Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press . Ring Road. Mayapuri . New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications . Delhi - 110054.