This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं० 52]

नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 18 दिसम्बर 24 , 2005 , शनिवार/अग्रहायण 27- पौष 3 , 1927

No. 52] NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 18-DECEMBER 24, 2005, SATURDAY/AGRAHAYANA27-PAUSA 3, 1927 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)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE वित्त मंत्रालय (आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग)

(Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division) New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005 नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

S.O. 4740.- 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 further amendment in the Notification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry of Finance in theDepartment of Economic Affairs (Banking Division) Number S.O. 535 (E) dated the 27th July, 1984 published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub -section ( ii ) dated the 27th July, 1984 , namely:---

का०आ ० 4740.- प्रादेशिक ग्रामीण बैंक अधिनियम , 1976 (1976 का 21 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतदद्वारा , भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ( बैंकिंग प्रभाग )के दिनांक 27 जुलाई, 1984 की सं. का.आ. 535 ( अ ) की अधिसूचना जो 27 जुलाई , 1984 को भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण , भाग II , खंड 3 , उप- खंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित हुई थी, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्:-

In the said Notification for the words "District of Muzaffarnagar " the words "Districts of Muzaffarnagar and Mcerut " shall be substituted.

उक्त अधिसूचना में , " मुजफ्फरनगर जिला" के स्थान पर. " मुजफ्फरनगर और मेरठ जिले " प्रतिस्थापित किए जाएंगे ।

[फा. सं.1 ( 25) /2005- आरआरबी ] एम. के. मल्होत्रा, अवर सचिव

[F. No. 1 (25)/2005 -RRBJ M. K. MALHOTRA, Under Secy.

पादटिप्पणीः प्रधान अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 535 ( अ) दिनांक 27 जुलाई, 1984 भारत के राजपत्र, असाधरण , भाग II , खंड 3 , उप-खंड (ii ) दिनांक 27 जुलाई, 1994 में प्रकाशित हुआ था।

Foot note : The Principal notification number S.O. 535 (E) dated the 27th July, 1984 was published in the Gazette of India, (Extraordinary ) Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section-( ii ) dated the 27th July, 1984 .

3557 GI/ 2005

(13671) 13672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 अक्तूबर, 2005

(स्वास्थ्यविभाग)

नई दिल्ली , 26 सितम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 4742.-केन्द्र सरकार ने भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में तथा पंजाब सरकार से परामर्श करके डा. ( श्रीमती) मालती थापर को इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में ममोनीत किया है ।

का०आ० 4741.-भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख) के अनुसरण में प्रो. जी. सी. सामल, प्राचार्य , एम. के. सी. जी. मेडिकल कालेज, बेरहामपुर को बेरहानपुर विश्वविद्यालय , उड़ीसा की सीनेट द्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केन्द्र सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा भारत सरकार के तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्यमंत्रालय की दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 138 में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थात्ः- अतः , अब , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के उपबन्धोंके अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार तत्कालीन स्वास्थ्यमंत्रालय के दिनांक 9 जनवरी , 1960 के सं. का. आ. 138 में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना में एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, अर्थातः--

उक्त अधिसूचना में" धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) के अधीन मनोनीत " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम संख्या 11 और उससे संबधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्या और प्रविष्टियां प्रतिस्थापित की जाएंगी, अर्थात्:-

" 11. डा. ( श्रीमती ) मालती थापर, पंजाब सरकार" सन्त अधिसूचना में क्रम संख्या 39 और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के लिए " धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के . अधीम निर्वाचित" शीर्षक के अन्तर्गत निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टि प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी , अर्थात्

डा. श्याम लाल थापर नर्सिंग होम,

बेरहामपुर विश्वविद्यालय "

जी. टी. रोड, मोगा

" 39. प्रो. जी. सी. सामल, प्राचार्य, एम.के. सी. जी. मेडिकल कालेज , उड़ीसा -760004

[संख्या वी-11013/ 1/2005- एमई( नीति-1 ) ]

के. वी. एस. राव, अवर सचिव [ संख्या वी. - 11013/2/2004- एमई ( नीति-1 ) ] के. वी. एस. राव , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2005 MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

Departmentof Health)

New Delhi the 26th September, 2005

S.O. 4742. Whereas the Central Government, in pursuance ofclause ( a) of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the IndianMedical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956) and in consultation with the Government of Punjab have nominated Dr. (Mrs. ) Malti Thapar, to be a member of the Medical Council of India for a period of five years with effect from the date of issue of this notification.

S.O. 4741. Whereas in pursuance of clause (b ) of Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956( 102 of1956) Prof.G.C. Santal , Principal , M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur, has been elected by the Senate ofthe Berhampur University, Orissa to be a member of the MedicalCouncil of India with effect from the date of issue ofthis notification.

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

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

Inthe said Notification, under the heading, 'Elected under clause (b) of Sub-section ( 1) of Section 3 ' for serial number 39 and the entries relating thereto the following entry shall be substituted, namely:-

In the said notification , under the heading , 'Nominated under clause (a) ofSub -section (1) ofSection 3 ' for serial number 11 and the entries relating there to , the following serial number and entries shall be substituted, namely:-

Berhampur University "

Principal,

"39. Prof. G. C. Samal, M.K.C.G. Medical College, Orissa-760004 .

"11. Dr. (Mrs) Malti Thapar , Government ofPunjab" Dr. Shyam Lal ThaparNursing Home, G.T. Road, Moga

[No. V-11013/1/2005-ME (Policy-I) ] [No. V- 11013/2/2004- ME (Policy - 1) ] K. V. S. RAO , Under Secy.

K.V. S. RAO, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

13673

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE पोत परिवहन, सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय (पोत परिवहन विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2005

(Department ofAgricultural Research and Education) (Indian Council ofAgricultural Research)

NewDelhi , the 13th December, 2005 का.आ. 4743.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) केनियम 10 के उप- नियम 4 के अनुसरण में पोत परिवहन , सड़क- परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय , पोत परिवहन विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणके अधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों द्वारा हिन्दीका कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लेने पर उसे एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:-

S. O. 4744.In pursuance of Section 7 (2 ) of the A.P. Cess Act, 1940 and Regulation 2 ( iv ) of the Standing Finance Committee Regulations framed by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research , the Government Body has elected Dr. S.S.Baghel , Vice-Chancellor , Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat 785 013 , Assam as its Member to the Standing Finance Committee for a period of one year with effect from 23rd November, 2005 .

कोलकाता पत्तन न्यास , 15, स्ट्रैण्डरोड, कोलकाता-700001

[F.No. 6 (1 )/2003-Gov. Cell ] SUSHAMA NATH, Addl . Secy.

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय [फा. सं. ई -11011/1/2000- हिन्दी] अजय कुमार भल्ला, संयुक्त सचित्र

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING, ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS (Department of Shipping)

(भारतीय मानकब्यूरो ) नई दिल्ली 2 , दिसम्बर , 2005

New Delhi , the 28th November, 2005

का. आ. 4745.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

S.O. 4743. In pursuance of the sub rule (4) of the rule 10 ofthe Official Language ( use for the official purpose ofthe Union) Rules , 1976 ( as amended 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Higways , Department of Shipping , more than 80% of the staff of which have acquired working knowledgeofHindi:-

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि सं. की संख्या , वर्ष और द्वारा अतिक्रमित

शीर्षक

Kolkata Port Trust, 15, StrandRoad, Kolkata-700001

[F.No. E- 11011/1 /2000 -Hindi ] A. K. BHALLA , Jt . Secy.

भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हो, कीसंख्या औरवर्ष

कृषिमंत्रालय

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) (कृषिअनुसंधान और शिक्षा विभाग )

(भारतीय कृषिअनुसंधान परिषद्)

1. 13730 ( भाग 43) :

31अक्तूबर , 2005 नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2005

2005 विशेष प्रकार के कुंडलन तारों की विशिष्टि- भाग 43 एरोमैटिक पॉलीमाइड टेप लिपटे गोल ताँबे के तार,

वर्ग 240

का. . 4744.- कृषि उत्पाद उपकर अधिनियम, 1940 की धारा 7 ( 2 ) तथा भारतीय कृषि अनुसंधान परिषद्द्वारा निर्मित स्थाई वित्त समिति के विनियम 2 ( iv ) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय कृषिअनुसंधान परिषद्, शासी निकाय ने अपने सदस्य के रूप में डॉ. एस. एस . बघेल, कुलपति, असम कृषि विश्वविद्यालय, जोरहट -785013 , असम को 23 नवम्बर, 2005 से एक वर्ष की अवधि के लिए स्थाई वित्त समिति के सदस्य के रूप में चुना है ।

[फा.सं. 6 ( 1 )/2003- गवर्नेस सैल ] सुषाय नाथ , अपर सचिव

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, 13674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

अनुसूची

गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय

नये भारतीय मानक स्थापित तिथि

[संदर्भ: ईटी 33/टी-92 ] सं. मानक( कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत् तकनीकी)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवामानकों, यदिकोई हो, कीसंख्या

और वर्ष

(Department of ConsumerAffairs )

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) NewDelhi, the 2ndDecember, 2005

30 सितम्बर, 2005

1. 4160 : 2005 अम्तर्पाशन स्विचं सॉकेट आठटलेट- विशिष्टि (पाहला पुनरीक्षण)

S. O. 4745. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRules( 1 ) of Rules 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the

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

Date of Establis- hed

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन; बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयो: नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, मंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूर्ण तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

Indian Standards , ifarty, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

[संदर्भ: ईटी 14/टी-23 ] (1)

(3)

(4)

पी. के . मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा. ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत् तकनीकी)

31October,

2005

1. IS- 13730 (Part 43 ):2005, Specifications forparti-

New Delhi , the 13th December , 2005 cular types ofwidning wires Part43:Aromatic polyimidetapewrapped round copperwire, Class240

S. O. 4746. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1) ofRules (1) of rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and year ofthe

Sl. No. and year No. ofthe Indian Standards

Date of Establis- hed Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices:NewDelhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai andalsoBranch Offices : Ahmetlabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati, Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

[Ref. ET 33 /T -92]

(3)

(1) (2)

(4) P. K. MUKHERJEE, Sc . ' F ' and Head (Electro technical)

30September, 2005 नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर, 2005

1. IS 4160 : 2005 Inter- locking Switch Socket Outlets-Specification (FirstRevision)

का. आ. 4746.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित कस्ता है किांजिन भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वे स्थापित हो गया है :-

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Bianak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices:NewDelhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

andalso Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

13675

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

[Ref. ET 14/T- 23 ]

P. K. MUKHERJEE , Sc. 'F ' and Head (Electrotechnical) नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4747.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या औरतिथि

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

Date fromwhich the amendment shall have effect (1)

(3)

(4) (2)

1. IS651 : 1992 2November, 2005 7December, 2005 2. IS778 : 1984 3November, 2005 7December, 2005 3. IS 779 : 1994 5November, 2005 6December, 2005 4. IS7231 : 1994 3November, 2005 9December, 2005 5. IS 9271 : 2004 1November, 2005

संशोधन लागू

होनेकीतिथि

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय सं. मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4) ( 1 ) (2)

1. आई एस 651 : 1992 2 नवम्बर, 2005

9December, 2005

3 November, 2005

6. IS 15328: 2003

9December, 2005

1 November, 2005

7 दिसम्बर, 2005

8December, 2005 7. IS 5312 (Part 1) : 2004

7 दिसम्बर, 2005

2. आई एस 778: 1984 3 नवम्बर, 2005

3. आई एस 779: 1994 5 नवम्बर, 2005

I November, 2005

8. IS 13049 : 1991

8December, 2005

6 दिसम्बर, 2005

3 नवम्बर , 2005 9 दिसम्बर, 2005 4. आई एस 7231 : 1994

1 नवम्बर, 2005 9 दिसम्बर , 2005 5. आई एस 9271 : 2004

3 नवम्बर , 2005 9 दिसम्बर , 2005 6. आई एस 15328: 2003

नवम्बर, 2005 8 दिसम्बर , 2005 7. आई एस 5312( भाग ): 1

2004

8. आई एस 13049 : 1991 1 नवम्बर, 2005

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

[Ref.: CED/Gazette]

8 दिसम्बर, 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, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम मेंबिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

J.C. ARORA, Sc . ' E ' & Head (Civil Engg.)

कोयला मंत्रालय

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र]

जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) NewDelhi , the 14th December, 2005 S. O. 4747. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule (1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies thatamendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

का.आ. 4748.- कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास) अधिनियम ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम ) कहा गया है, की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सख्यांक का.आ. 1298 तारीख 29 मार्च, 2005 जो भारत के राजपत्र, भाग ii , खंड-3 , उपखंड ( ii ) तारीख 9 अप्रैल , 2005 में प्रकाशित होने पर उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि ( जिन्हें इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भूमि कहा गया है ) में या उस पर के अधिकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर, आत्यंतिक रूप से केंद्रीय सरकार में निहित हो गए थे ;

13676

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] और, केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है , कि वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, नागपुर (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् सरकारी कंपनी कहा गया है ) ऐसे निबंधनों और शर्तों का जिन्हें केन्द्रीय सरकार इस निमित्त अधिरोपित करना उचित समझे , अनुपालन करने के लिए रजामंद है ;

(20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) the lands and rights in or over the land described in the Schedule,appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) ofsection 10 of the saidAct;

And whereas the Central, Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the Government Company), is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the CentralGovernment thinks fit to impose in this behalf, अतः अन , केंद्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 11 की उपधारा द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह निर्देश देती है, (i) कि उक्त भूमि और उक्त भूमि में इस प्रकार निहित या उस पर के सभी अधिकार ठारीख 9 अप्रैल , 2005 से केंद्रीय सरकार में इस प्रकार निहित बने रहने के बजाय , निम्नलिखित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, उक्त सरकारी कंपनी में निहित हो जाएगे , अर्थात्-

1. सरकारी कंपनी, उक्त अधिनियम के उपबंधों के अधीन यथा अवधारित प्रतिकर, ब्याज नुकसान और वैसी ही मदों की बाबत किए गए संदायों की केंद्रीय सरकार को प्रतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

Now, therefore, in the exercise ofthe powers conferred by Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights inor overthe said lands , so vested, shall , with effect from the 9th April, 2005 instead ofcontinuing to so vest in the Central Government , vest in the said Government Company, subject to the following terms and conditions, namely:-

1. The Government company shall reimburse the Central Government all payments made in respect of compensation, interests , damages and the like , as determined under the provisions ofthe saidAct;

2. सरकारी कंपनी शर्त ( i ) के अधीन, केंद्रीय सरकार को संदेय रकमों का अवधारण करने के प्रयोजनों के लिए एक अधिकरण का गठन किया जारगा तथा ऐसे किसी अधिकरण और अधिकरण की सहायता के लिए नियुक्त किए गए व्यक्तियों के संबंध में उपगत सभी व्यय सरकारी कंपनी वहन करेगी और वैसे ही उक्त भूमि में या उस पर इस प्रकार निहित अधिकारों के लिए या उनके संबंध में विधिक कार्यवाहियों, जैसे अपील आदि की बाबत उपगत , सभी व्यय भी उक्त सरकारी कंपनी बहन करेगी ।

2. A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government by the said Government Company under condition ( 1 ) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the said Government company and similarly, all expenditure incurred in respect ofall legal proceedings like appeals etc. , for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said land, so vested shall also be borneby the said Government Company;

3. सरकारी कंपनी, केंद्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों की, ऐसे किसी अन्यव्यय के संबंध में, जो उक्त भूमि में या उस पर के इस प्रकार निहित होने वाले पूर्वोक्त अधिकारों के बारे में , केंद्रीय सरकार या उसके पदधारियों द्वारा या उनके विरुद्ध किन्हीं कार्यवाहियों के संबंध में आवश्यक हो, क्षतिपूर्ति करेगी ।

4. उक्त सरकारी कंपनी को, केंद्रीय सरकार के पूर्व अनुमोदन के बिना, उक्त भूमिमें अधिकारों को किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को अंतरित करने की शक्ति नहीं होगी, और

3. The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding the rights in or over the said lands so vested;

5. उक्त सरकारी कंपनी, ऐसे निर्देशों और शर्तों का , जो केंद्रीय सरकार द्वारा जब कभी आवश्यक हों, उक्त भूमि के विशिष्ट क्षेत्रों के लिए जाएं या अधिरोपित किए जाएं, पालन करेगी ।

4. The said Government Company shall have no power to transfer the lands and rights in or over the said lands so vested to any other person without the prior approval ofthe Central Government ; and

[फा.सं. 43015/12/2002- पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

5. The said Government Company shall abide by such directions and conditions as may be given or imposed bythe Central Government for particular areas ofthe said land as and when necessary.

ORDER

[F. No. 43015/ 12/2002-PRIW] NewDelhi , the 15th December, 2005

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 4749.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में रमनाड जी.सी. एस- S.O. 4748. Whereas on the publication of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal S.O. No. 1298 dated 29th March, 2005 in the Gazette ofIndia, Part - II, section 3 , Sub-section ( ii ) dated 9th April , 2005 issued under Sub -section of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development ) Act , 1957 13677

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(1)

रमनाड

रीजेन्सीपॉवर प्लान्ट पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा, एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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;

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमिके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री बी. रामाचन्द्रन, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, 4- बी, सेन्चुरी प्लाजा, 560-562, अन्ना सलाई तेयनामपेट, चेन्नई -600 018 ( तमिलनाडु) को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

सर्वे

जिला तहसील गाँव

नं.

आर.ओ. यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल ( हेक्टेयर

में)

(5) (2)

(3) (4)

(1)

0.08-0

53- वल- 94-2

रमनाड

0.08.0

94-3

थरवई

0,05.5

94-4ए1

0.02.0

94-5ए

93-1 0.07.0

93-3 0.05.5

0,05.5

93-5बी

93-7 0.07.5

0.02.0 सरकारी भूमि

91-1

0.23.5

91-6

0.01.0

92-3

90-4 0.18.0

90-5 0.08.0

0.10.0

89-2

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

0.10.0

रमगाड

0.05.0

53-वल 89-3 न्थरवई जारी पीटी89-5

0.02.0

89-6सी

0.02.0

87-1बी

87-2 0.10.5

0.01.0

65-1

-बी1 ए

0.03.5

65-1बी- 1सी

65-1बी- 0.04.0

2जी

0.03.0

65-1बी- 2सी

0.02.0

65-2सी

68-2 0.09.0

0.10.5

68-3

0.23.0

69-4

0.05.5

76-7

0.08.0

76-8ए 1

0.07.0

76-8ए 2

0.02.0

76-8बी

0.02.5 सरकारीभूमि

76-9

0.14.0

75-1

0.08.0

75-2

0.02.0

74-2बी

0.04.0

74-2सी

74-2ई 0.07.0

0.07.0

74-3 ए

0.01.0

74-3बी 1

0.04.0

73-3बीर

0.02.0

74-4बी

0.08.0

74-5

0.02.0 सरकारी भूमि

77-1

77-2ए 0.01.0

0.02.5

77-301

0.04.5

77-4ए 1

0.04.0

77-5ए

78-2ए 0.15.0

0.17.5

78-2बी

0.13.0

78-2सी

3.39.5

योग 13678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II -SEC. 3(ii)] (1) (2) (3) (4) ( 5 )

( 2 ) ( 3 )

(1 )

(4) (5) रमनाड रमनाई

रमनाड रमनाड

52- कुसा- 110-1 बी 0.25.0

0.13.5

52-कुसा- 51-3बी

0.15.0 109

वनकुडी

वनकुडी 51-6

0.09.0सरकारी भूमि

52-3 0.02.0 108-3ए 0.17.0

108-3बी 0.02.5

योग 4.92.5 108-3सी 0.05.0

0.01.0

18-कालु- 196-1ए

108-3डी 0.05.0

कुरानी

0.11.5

196-1बी

108-5 0.16.5

196-2सी 0.11.0

194-2सी 0.08.0 94 0.41-0 सरकारी भूमि

194-5 0.04.0 93-3बी 2 0.09.5

0.11.5

194-6ए

0.12.0

93-1 ए

194-6मी 0.03.5

0.09.5

93-1 बी

0.13.0

201-1बी

0.12.0

93-1 सी

0.08.5

201-1सी1

0.09.0सरकारी भूमि

201-1सी2 0.02.0

0.35.0

29-1बी

0.03.5

201-502

29-1सी 2 0.06.5

201-7 0.06,5 36-4 0.08.0

193-1 0.01.0 36-5 0.04.0

193-10 0.04.0 37-10 0.19.0.

193-11 0.04.0

0.01.0

37-8ए

193-8 0.05.0 37-9 0.02.0 सरकारी भूमि

193-9 0.07.0 26-1

.19.0

193-12 0.01.0 26-5 0.37.0

202-2ए 0.07.5 26-3 0.01.0

202-1 0.01.0

0.03.5

25-1ए

202-2बी 0.09.0 25-2 0.01.0

203-1 0.02.0 सरकारी भूमि

0.08.5

25-3ए 1

203-2 0.07.0

0.02.0

25-3ए 2

;

203-3ए 0.12.0 25-3बी 0.09.5

203-3बी 0.01.5 25-4 0.02.0 सरकारी भूमि

0.07.0

203-4

16-1सी 0.07.0

203-7 0.12.5 16-1डी 0.11.0

203-9ए 0.01.0 40-1 0.08.5

204-1 0.09.0 40-3 0.15.5

0.04.0

204-2ए

0.18.0

204-2बी 0.03.0 46-1ए

204-3 0.04.0 46-2बी 0.06.5

204-4 0.10.5 46-2डी 0.06.5

204-5 0.02.0

0.15.0

41-1ए

206-4 0.05.0

0.02.0

41-1बी

207-2ए 0.12.0 45-2 0.11.0

0.01.0

207-2बी

45-4ए 0.01.0

0.07-0

207-3ए

44-1 0.02.0 सरकारी भूमि

0.05-0

207-3बी

0.14.0

44-अबी

0.07-0

208-2ए

51-2: 0.12.0

208-2बी 0.07-5 13679

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005 /पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1 रमनार्ड

0.03-0

18- कालु- 209-2सी

209-2डी 0.12-5

कुरानी

2.59.5

बौग

[फा. सं. एल-14014/18/05- जी.पी. ]

एस.बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERTROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 14th December, 2005

S.O. 4749. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas through Ramnad GCS to Regency Power Plant pipeline project in the State of Tamilnadu, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India) Limited;

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

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

Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty -one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object inwriting to the laying ofthe pipeline under the land to the Shri V. Ramachandran , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, 4- B , Century Plaza, 560-562, Anna Salai Teynampet, Chennai- 600 018 (Tamilnadu).

SCHEDULE

District Tehsil Village Survey No.

Areatobe Acquired for R.O.U.

(inHectares)

0.08.0

94-2

53 - Valan-

Ramnad Ramnad

0.08.0

94-3 .

tharavai

0.05.5

94-4A1

0.02.0

94-5A

0.07.0

.93-1

3557 Gl/2005-2

0.05.5

93-3

Ramnad Ramnad 53 - Valan-

0.05.5

93-5B

tharavai

0.07.5

93-7

0.02.0 G.POR

91-1

0.23.5

91-6

0.01.0

92-3

90-4 0.18.0

0.08.0

90-5

89-2 0.10.0

0.10.0

89-3 PT

0.05.0

89-5

0.02.0

89-6C

87-1B 0.02.0

87-2

0,10,5

0.01.0

65-1B1A

0.03.5

65-1B1C

0.04.0

65-1B2B

0.03.0

65-1B2C

65-2C 0.02.0

68-2 0.09.0

0.10.5

65-3

0.23.0

69-4

0.05.5

76-7

0.08.0

76-8A1

10.07.0

76-8A2

10.02.0

76-8B

76-9

0.02.5 G.POR

0.14.0

75-1

0.08.0

75-2

74-2B 0.02.0

0.04.0

74-2C

0.07.0

74-2E

0.07.0

74-3A

0.01.0

74-3B1

0.04.0

74-3B2

0.02.0

74-4B

0.08.0

74-5

0.02.0 G.POR

77-1

0.01.0

77-2A

0.02.5

77-3A1

0.04.5

77-4A1

0.04.0

77-5A 13680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1

0.18.0

Ramand Ramnad

52-Kusa- 46-1A

0.15.0

Ramnad Ramnad 53-Valan- 78-2A

tharavai 78-2B 0.17.5

0.06.5

46-2B

vankudy

46-2D 0.06.5 78-2C 0.13.0

41-1A 0.15.0 Total

3.39.5

41-1B 0.02.0 52-Kusa- 110-18 0.25.0

45-2 0.11.0

0.09.0 G.POR

109

vankudy

45-4A 0.01.0 108-3A 0.17.0

44-1

0.02.0G.POR

0.02.5

108-3B

0.14.0

44-3B

0.05.0

108-3C

51-2 0.12.0 108-3D 0.05.0

51-3B 0.13.5 108-5 0.16.5

51-6 0.15.0 94

-0.41.0 G.POR

0.02.0

52-3

93-3B2 0.09.5

Total 4.92.5 93-1A 0.12.0

196-1A 0.01.0

18-Kalu-

93-1B 0.09.5

kurani 196-1B 0.11.5 93-1C 0.12.0

196-20 0.11.0 30

0.09.0 G.POR

194-2C 0.08.0

194-5 0.04.0 29-1B 0.35.0

194-6A 0.11.5 29-1C2 0.06.5

0.03.5

194-68

36-4

0.08.0

201-18 0.13.0 36-5

0.04.0

201-1C1 0.08.5 37-10 0.19.0

0.02.5

201-1C2

0.01.0

37-8A

201-5A2 0.03.5 37-9 . 0.02.0G.POR

201-7 0.06.5 26-1

0.19.0

193-1 0.01.0 26-5

0.37.0

0.04.0

193-10

26-3 0.01.0

193-11 0.04.0

0.03.5

25-1A

193-8 0.05.0 25-2

0.01.0

0.07.0

193-9

25-3A1 0.08.5

0.01.0

193-12

0.02.0

25-3A2

0.07.5

202-2A

25-3B 0.09.5

202-1 0.01.0 25-4

0.09.0

202-2B

0.02.0 G.POR

203-1 0.02.0G.POR 16-1C 0.07.0

203-2 0.07.0 16-1D 0.11.0

203-3A 0.12.0 40-1-

0.08.5

0.01.5

203-3B

40-3

0.15.5 13681 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

0.07.0

गाँव सर्व संख्या

तहसील

आर.ओ.यू. 203-4

जिला

18-Kalu-

Ramand Ramnad

0.12.5

203-7

kurani

203-9A 0.01.0

अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेयर में)

0.09.0

204-1

0.04.0

5 204-2A

0.03.0

204-2B

300/1

अनगढ़

वड़ौदा बड़ौदा

0-02-07

0.04.0

204-3

0-02-07

योग

0.10.5

204-4

[फाइल सं. एल-14014/16/'05 -जी.पी. ]

0.02.0

204-5

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

0.05.0

206-4

New Delhi , the 14th Deceraber, 2005

0.12.0

207-2A

0.01.0

207-2B

207-3A 0.07.0

0.05.0

207-38

5.0. 4750.-Whereas it appearsto the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of natural gas through GACL toM/s . Deepak Nitrate, Nandesari pipeline project in the State of Gujarat, a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL (India) Limited;

0.07.0

208-2A

0.07.5

208-28

0.03.0

209-20

0.12.5

209-2D

2.59.5

Total

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

[F. No. L-14014/18/05 -G. P. ]

S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2005

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe 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 .

का.आ. 4750. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में जी.ए.सी.एल- मैसर्स दीपक नाइट्रेट, नन्देसारी पाइपलाईन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल (इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जामी चाहिए;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date onwhich the copies of the notification issued under Sub- section (1) of Section 3 of the saidAct, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri R.S. Ranade Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, Darpan Building, R.C. Dutt Road, Alkapuri , Vadodara- 390005 (Gujarat)

SCHEDULE

Distt.

Village Suryay Area to be

Tehsil

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;

acquired forR.O.U. (inHectares)

0-02-07

Angadh 300/1

Vadodara Vadodara

0-02-07

Total

[F. No. L- 14014/16/205 -G. P. ]

S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीका से जिसने कयत अधिनियम की भरस 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री आर. एस. रानाडे, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, दर्पण भवन , आर.सी. दत्त रोड, अलकापुरी, वड़ोदरा ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकेगा । 13682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2005

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2005 का.आ. 4751.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 564( अ ) तारीख 19-04-2005 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा गुजरात राज्यमें स्कॉट लास- बैन्को प्रोडक्ट लिमिटेड पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से पेट्रोलियम गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

S.O. 4751.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 564(E) dated 19-04-2005 issued under Sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of Natural Gas through Scott Glass to Banco Product Ltd. pipeline project in the State of Gujarat by the GAIL (India) Limited;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 10-5-2005 बैंक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 10-5-2005;

और पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;

Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to the Central Government ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि जक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित हैं, उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

And Whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report , decided to acquire the Right ofUser in the lands specified in the Schedule;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred bySub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declars that the Right of User in the landspecified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying thepipeline;

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 for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication ofthe declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, 'निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, किन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहीत होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल (इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होंगा ।

Distt.

अनुसूची

Tehsil Village Survey No

जिला तहसील गाँव सर्वे संख्या आर.ओ.यू.

Area to be acquired forR.O.U.

अर्जित करनेके

(InHectares)

लिए क्षेत्रफल

(हेक्टेयर में )

5 Bharuch

Cart-Land

Jambusar Ankhi

0-09-07 भरूच

कार्ट लैन्ड 0-09-07

जवुसर अणखी

0-09-07

योग 0-09-07

Ne , L - 14014/6/ 105 -G. P. ] [फाइल सं . एल-14014/6/ '05 -जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

8. B.MANDAL, Under Secy.

13683 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर , 2005

215

0.0240

239

0.7100

238

0.02.50

241

0,3040 का. आ. 4752.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि राजस्थान राज्य में गुढ़ामलानी- मथानिया स्पर पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

योग

4.0180

0.0100

रामपुरा

0,0340

161

भाटियान

152

0.0310

0.5670 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

0.6680

0.8890

0.5900

0.2670

0.0240 अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम 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 ;

0.7230

योग

3,8030

0.3800

राजासनी 139

0.0820

141

0,3620

169

1,1820

168

0.0260

170

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमिके नीचे पाइप‌लाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में , श्री अकील अहमद, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, सी-6 , फ्लैट नं. 107, सवाई जय सिंह राजमार्ग , बनीपार्क , जयपुर ( राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

0.5620

171

167

0.0460 अनुसूची

0.1270

162

163

0.8980 जिला

गाँव सर्वे नं.

तहसील

आर. ओ. यू.

0.9320

अर्जित करने के

165

1.2060

145

लिएक्षेत्रफल

(हेक्टेयरमें )

5.8030

योग

0:5700

187

मणाई

जोधपुर

181

0.0110

100

0.3700

ओसिंया

0.5130 जोधपुर

चौपासनी चारणान

0.0760

0.0200

0.4500

0.3900

51/1

0.4900

51/2

0.1900

0,0020

1.1400

136

0.0070

0.4590

133

0.6900

0.1490

48/2

134

0.2000

0.0640

48/3

0.0100

130

0.0800

48/4

131

0.4570

0.0260

146

0.0400

0.2470

46/3

खाली 0.1330

0.3650

46/2

खाली

0.0300

0.3600

46/1 13684

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

5 मणाई

जोधपुर

0.3000 जोधपुर

1048

जोधपुर बेरू

0.0040

0.8560

1049

0.0060

0.8300

1047

0.0100

2/1

0.7600

1062

0.8180

1.3860

0.1500

1065/1

योग

8.7160

1065

0.2810 खोखरी

0.4100

1068

1.0010

योग

0.4100

1069

0.0160 इन्द्रोका

157/1

0.0290

1067

0.4640

157/3

0.2430

1071

0.0220

157/2

0.3340

1096

0.5320

157/4

0.0200

1095

0.4510

160

1.0760

1094

0.1490

160/2

1.0660

1103

0,4080

160/1

0.1580

1104

0.4540

168

1.3670

1107

0.5360

185/2

0.5430

1112

0.1270

185/1

0.4010

1114

0.0400

185

1.0730

1131

0,9810

186

0.0090

1129

0.2990

184

0.0290

1130

0.4390

188

0,2090

1122

0,0340

189

1.6000

1466

0.4100

191

0.1380

1459

0.4940

190

0,0800

1467

0,0900 245

0,0760

1468

0.3980 243

0.0040

1469

0.2060 240

0.0160

1450

0.0290 239

0,0660

1443

0.0900 270

0.0350

1442

0.0100 313

0,0820

1444

0.5890 307

0.6480

0.0400

1423

311

0.6070

1445

0.5200 308

0.0060

1422

0.4540 332/1

0.0560

1420

0.0060 303

0.0680

1419

0.4820 291/1

0.0980

1418

0.3040 291

0.4710

1417

0.2470 292

0.5110

योग 13.2270 293

1.9100

674

शिव सारणो

0.0250 योग

13.0290

कीदाणी 672

0.3240 बेरू

1060

1.5590

673

0.5700 1059

0.0770

0.4800

676 13685 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24 , 2005 / पौत्र 3 , 1927

[ भाग II-खष्ठ 3 (ii) ] ..

0.0620

0176

0.0060

शिवं सारणों की 671

जोधपुर जोधपुर कैरू

जोधपुर

जोधपुर .

0,0160

1075

1,2650

677

ढाणी

0.1610

1079

0.8280

680

0.1110

0180

0.0300

679

0.5690

1081

0.3900

745

0.1980

1100

0.7590

746

0,0300

1100/2

0.7350

752

0.2900

1099

0,6080

730

0.0670

1098

0.1810

751

0.2540

1085

0.2660

749

0.5550

1086

0.4660

785

0.3980

1087

0.0570

$22

0.3900

1088

6:9900

बोग

0.1560

1089

0.0130

821

0.0180

1127

2,8300

812

0.1640

1126

2.2340

826

0,0010

1137/1

0.2340

828

0.3090

1138/2

0.0920

839

0.6750

1139

0.5320

850

0.5000

1140

0.1520

849

0.0770

1170

0.3140

847

0.0110

1181/1

0.3520

848

0.5170

1181

0.6390

843

0.8750

1182

0.0450

853

0.0770

1211

0.5550

918

0.6000

1219

0.7520

926

0.0150

1205

0.0880

1027

0.6050

1204

0.0160

1024

0,0010

1199

0.2430

1030

0.2940

1203

0.1070

1031

0.4480

1202

0,3060

1038

0.2880

1201

0.0180

1037

0.0390

1200

0.0040

1039

20.7940

योग

0.0010

1036

1.1580

मोकलावास 20

0.2730

1035/1

0.0580

0.4910

1035

0.7999

0,3370

1045

0.6330

0.0790

1045/1

0.0790

0.0030

1044

0,4000

0.0740

1046

0.1380

0.2340

812

0,0330

0.3320

1047

0.3030

0,6680

1069 13686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA 3, 1927

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

5 जोधपुर जोधपुर मोकलावास 34

0.7200

जोधपुर

240

रोहिला कलां

जोधपुर

0.2660 64

0.0100

239

0.2470 35

0.6230

238

0.2470 63

0.0930

237

0.0160 61

0.0650

244

0.1620 60

0.8170

375/1

0.2850 216

0,4020

375

0.1250 215

0.3890

495/1

0.0650 212

0.2520

373

0.0190 211

0.3470

363

0.5140 194

0.4050

376/1

0.1520 193

0.4430

439

0.1900 191

0.7580

440

0.6270 179

0.0060

437

0.0670 180

1.2760

436

0.4270 170

0.7600

458

0.1520 171

0,8000

459

0.0740 157

0.0200

476

0.5130 172

0.0200

474

0.0020 156

0.3290

483

0.2870 155

0,4610

484

0,0260 योग

12.6770

0.3200

486

146

रोहिला खुर्द

0,0060

485

0.3150 147

0,6850

488

0.1280 153

0.5470

489

0.1520 154

0,2170

490

0,0760 155

0.4390

526

0,2460 156

0,7280

527

0,0100 157/1

0.0100

योग

5.7100 159

0.9380

लूणी

झंवर

0.4140 157

0.0040

0.0370 158

0.2310

179

0,6780 127

0.0300

177

0.1310 102

0.2540

0.4140 99

0.5190

0.0370 97

(0.4280

0,3760 94

0.0540

168

0.7530 91

0,2780

167

0.0120 90

0,1520

166

0.0560 93

0.9340

170

0.0040 87

0.0240

171

0.7720

164

योग

6.4780

0.1880

163

0.6400 13687 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

0.0200

272

0.0040

डोली

झवर

लूणी

जोधपुर

0.0900

275

0.4900

0,3540

276

0.0750

115

0.3780

277

0.2630

117/1

0.5460

279

2.2820

0.3760

220

117

0.0350

221

0.6550

116

7,0300

योग

0.0470

118

0.3020

0.0260

नारनाडी 294

133

0.9280

295

0.4710

132

0.2280

296

0.4140

134

0.4560

297

0,8660

135

1.1410

307

0.0060

0.0340

309

130

0.0010

310

0.0370

137

0.2150

306

0.6460

143

0.0170

316

0,1920

146

0.2900

328

0.7040

0.8100

1960

327

0.5720

340

0,3010

1961

0.0750

340/1

0.0330

1972

0.1170

340/2

0.2090

1990

0.3330

341

0.0100

1,2810

345

1993

0.0300

346

0,6660

1995

0.6690

394

0.4560

1992

0.0010

395

1,3800

2012

0.0160

726/396

0,3270

727/396

0.1440

2022

0.2650

397

0.0060

खाली

0.3000

398

0.6790

2023

0.4230

399

00560

2001

0.0200

402

0,0800

0,7800

388

1919

1,2260

430

0.8500

1918

0.0560

435

0.1350

1917

0.0260

431

0.2970

16.9120

योग

455

0.3330

453

0.6710

303

डोली

0.2840

454

0.2200

302

0.3130

451

0.3540

301

0.2470

441

0.0870

440

0.1090 263

0.0380

300

10.4170-

योग

0.1610

264

0.4560

भाण्डूकलां

लूणी

जोधपुर

0.3430

265

03020

0,4000

266

0.2

0.3150

267

0.3300

0.3650

269

0,0900

0.0220

282

0.2380

0.3070

268

0.0060

0,0420

273

3557 G1/2005-3 13688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA 3, 1927

[PART IISEC. 3 (ii )] 1

5 जोषपुर लूणी भाण्डूकलां 33

0.3000

190

जोधपुर लूणी

हमीर नगर

0.4760 396/31

0,0400

182

1.1600 399/31

0.5850

181

0.0040 394/31

0.1200

योग

8.9250 62

0.6350

रोहिंचा कलां 196

0.6460 65

0.0250

197

0.6720 68

0.3840

190

0.7740 74

0,1360

189

0.7990 75/1

0.4150

188/2

0.2020 75

0,1900

141

0.0390 120

0.0300

0.4240 119

0.2300

0.8840 121

0.0880

105

0.0400 141

1.1080

100

0.1400 144

0,0630

104

0.5140 147

0.2280

103

0.4750 154

1.9780

108/1

0.0560 247

0.9300

0.0360 246

0.1350

0.5310 245

0.5140

1.1880 208

1.6680

0.6460 210

0,1540

0.1100 211/1

0.5810

0.0680 211/2

0.4170

1.2040 228

0.3820

1.1420 216

0.5020

0.7180 217

0.6000

1.0980 223

0.4750

0.93 10 222

0.1250

0.0140 योग 14.6570

0.9520 हमीरनगर 246

0.8550

0.0360 247/2

0,5130

0.0160 239

0.4000

0.4180 238

0.6270

योग

14.7730 235

0,2220

214

0,2840

रोहिचा खुर्द

234

0,0540

213

0.0430 232

0.6280

173

0.4380 203/4

0.6180

186

0.3580 202

(0,8580

185

0.3720 201

0.1800

187

0.3130 196

0.8280

188

0.3910 193

0.7510

183

0.0300 191

0,7510

182

0.1700 13689

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[भाग II- खच्ड 3 ( ii) ]

0.2940

180

रोहिंचा खुर्द

जोधपुर लूणी

0.3350

151

0.2710

152

0.6430

156

0.2020

64/3

0.0080

64/4

0.6840

64/5

0,0330

0.1420

0.0290

0.7520

0.4360

0,1800

0,0200

0.0350

0.0790

0.4690

0.1980

0.6530

1.2920

0.8360

9.9900

योग

0.2460

168

कागनाडा

0.3370

165

0.0040

167

0.2160

169

0.0220

164

0.0340

163

0.3190

162

0.2580

161

0.9220

156

0.5130

154

1.0130

143

0,2420

144

0,6660

145

0.0570

146

0,5180

150

0.0040

148

0,0570

147

0.7770

136

0.0470

116

0.3020

101

1.6330

0,2150

0,9370

1,2200

0.0420

कागनाका

लूणी

1.2760

0.0290

0.4830

43.

0.5400

0.3260

0,3900

0.3840

1.6260

0,0020

1.2640

0,2000

0.0200

0,9720

33/1

18.1130

योग

0.0100 धवा-द्वितीय 88

0.9880

0.9980

योग

0.0550 पीपरली 19

0.5300

1.0630

0.9570

0.5780

0.6470

0.1240

0.6560

4.6100

योग

0.5620

246

सोमाई

0.0450

239

1.3580

238

0.0380

236

0.9780

235

0.0360

232

0.8670

225

0.5750

227

0.0010

228

0.0380.

224

0.157

156

0.9

160

0.0080

161

0.989

159

0.2850

158/1

0.7230

158/2

7.5670

योग

[फा. सं. एल-14014/18/'05-जी.पी.]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव 13690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] NewDelhi , the 14th December, 2005

Jodhpur Osiyan

0.0240

235

Chaupasani

Charnan 239

0,7100

238

0,0250

241

0.3040 S.O. 4752. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that forthe transportation of natural gas through Gudhamalani toMathania spur pipeline project in the State of Rajasthan, apipeline should be laid by the GAIL (India ) Limited;

Total

4.0180

0.0100

Rampura

0.0340

Bhatiyan 161

152

0.0310

0.5670 And, whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

0.6680

0,8890

0.5900

0.2670

0.0240 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.

0.7230

Total

3.8030

139

0,3800

Rajasani

141

0.0820

169

0,3620

168

1.1820

170

0.0260

171

0.5620 Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under Sub- section ( 1 ) or Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object inwriting tothe laying of the pipeline under the land to Sh. Akil Ahmed, Competent Authority, GAIL ( India ) Limited, C-6, 107, Kamal Apartment, Swai Jai Singh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

167

0.0460 SCHEDULE

162

0,1270 District Tehsil

163

0,8980 Village Survey No.

165

0.9320

145

1.2060

Area to be acquired forROU (inHect.)

Total

5.8030 1

187

0.5700

Jodhpur Manai

181

0.0110

100

0.3700

Osiyan Chau-

Jodhpur

0,5130

0.0760

pasani 99

0.0200

Charnan

0,4500

51/1

0,3900

0,4900

51/2

0,1900

0.0020

1.1400

136

0,0070

0.4590

133

0.6900

48/2

0,1490

134

0,2000

48/3

0.0640

130

0.0100

48/4

0,0800

131

0.4570

0.0260

146

0.0400

46/3

0,2470

OpenField 0.1330

46/2

0.3650

0.0300

OpenField

44/1

0,3600 13691

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2006/पौष 3, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

0.0040

Beru

1048

Jodhpur

0.3000

Manai

Jodhpur

0.0060

1049

0.8560

0.0100

1047

0.8300

0.8180

1062

0,7600

2/1

0.1.500

1065/1

1.3860

0.2810

1065

8.7160

Total

1,0010

1068

0.4100

Khokhari 58

0,0160

1069

0.4100

Total

0.4640

1067

0.0290

157/1

Indroka

0,0220

1071

0,2430

157/3

0.5320

1096

0,3340

157/2

0.4510

1095

0.0200

157/4

0.1490

1094

1.0760

160

0.4080

1103

1.0660

160/2

0.4540

1104

0.1580

160/1

0.5360

1107

1.3670

168

0.1270

1112

0,5430

185/2

0,0400

1114

0.4010

185/1

0,9810

1131

185

1.0730

0.2990

1129

0,0090

186

0,4390

1130

0.0290

184

0.0340

1122

0.2090

188

0.4100

1466

1.6000

189

0.4940

1459

0.1380

191

0,0900

1467

0,0800

190

0.3980

1468

0.0760

245

0.2060

1469

0.0040

243

0.0290

1450

0.0160

240

0,0900

1443

0.0660

239

0.0100

1442

0.0350

270

0,5890

1444

0.0820

313

0.0400

1423

0,6480

307

0.5200

1445

0.6070

311

0.4540

1422

0.0060

308

0.0060

1420

0.0560

332/1

0.4820

1419

0.0680

303

0,3040

1418

0.0980

291/1

0.2470

1417

0.4710

291

13.2270

Total

0,5110

292

0.0250

Shiv Sarano 674

1.9100

293

0.3240

672

KiDhani

13.0290

Total

0.5700

673

1.5590

1060

Beru

0.4800

676

0.0770

1059 13692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II SEC . 3(ii )) 1

5 Jodhpur

Shiv Sarano 671

0.0060

Jodhpur

Jodhpur Jodhpur

1076

Keru

0.0620 677

KiDhani

1.2650

1075

0.0160 680

0.8280

1079

0.1610 679

0.0300

0180

0.1110 745

0.3900

1081

0.5690 746

0.7590

1100

0.1980 752

0.7350

1100/2 0.0300 750

0.6080

1099

0.2900 751.

0.1810

1098

0.0670 749

0.2660

1085

0.2540 785

0.4660

1086

0.5550 822

0.0570

1087

0.3980 Total

6.9900

1088

0.3900 Keru

821

0.0130

1089

0.1560 812

2.8300

1127

0.0180 826

2.2340

1126

0.1640 828

0.2340

1137/1

0.0010 839

0.0920

1138/2 0.3090 850

0.5320

1139

0.6750 849

0.1520

1140

0.5000 847

0.3140

1170

0.0770 848

0.3520

1181/1

0.0110 843

0.6390

1181

0.5170 853

0.0450

1182

0.8750 918

0.5550

1211

0.0770 926

0.7520

1219

0.6000 1027

0.0880

1205

0.0150 1024

0,0160

1204

0,6050 1030

0.2430

1199

0.0010 1031

0.1070

1203

0.2990 1038

0.3060

1202

0.4480 1037

0.0180

1201

0.2880 1039

0.0040

1200

0.0390 1036

0.0010

Total

20.7940 1035/1

0.2730

Mokalawas 20

1.1580 1035

0.4910

0,0580 1045

0.3370

0,7990 1045/1

0.0790

0.6330 1044

0.0030

0.0790 1046

0.0740

0.4000 812

0.2340

0.1380 1047

0.3320

0.0330 1069

0.6680

0.3830 13693 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005 /पौष 3, 1927

0.7200

0.3640 Jodhpur Jodhpur Mokalawas 34

Jodhpur Jodhpur Rohila Kalan 240

0.0100

239

0.2470 35

0.6230

0,2470

238

0.0930

0.0160

237

0.0650

0.1620

244

0.8170

0.2850

375/1

216

0.4020

375

0.1250 215

0.3890

495/1

0.0650

0.2520

212

373

0,0190 211

(0.3470

363

0.5140

0.4050

194

376/1

0,1520

0,4430

193

439

0,1900

0.7580

191

440

0.6270 179

0.0060

437

0.0670 180

1.2760

0.4270

436

0.7600

170

458

0.1520

0.8000

171

459

0.0740 157

0.0200

476

0.5130 172

0.0200

474

0.0020

0.3290

156

483

0.2870 155

0.4610

484

0,0260

486

0.3200 Total

12.6770

485

0.3150 146

Rohila

0.0060

488

0.1280 Khurd

147

0,6850

489

0.1520 153

0.5470

490

0.0760 154

0.2170

526

0.2460 135

70.4390

527

0,0100 156

0.7280

Total

5.7100 157/1

0.0100

Luni

Jhanwar

0.4140 159

0.9380

0,0370 157

0.0040

179

0.6780 158

0.2310

177

-0.1310 127

0,0300

0.4140 102

0.2540

0.0370 99

0.5190.

0.3760 97

0.4280

168

0.7550 94

0,0540

167

0.0120 91

0:2780

166

0,0560 90

0.1520

170

0.0040 93

0.9340

0.7720

171

0.0240

164

0.1880 Total

6.4780

016400

163 13694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

5 97

Lunil

0.0040

Jhanwar

Jodhpur

273

0.0420

Doli

Jodhpur Luni

0.4900

272

0.0200

0.0750

275

0.0900 117/1

0.2630

276

0.3450 117

0.3760

277

0.3780

0.6550

116

279

0.5460 118

0.0470

2.2820

220

133

0.0260

221

0.0350 132

0.4710

7,0300

Total

134

0.4140

0.3020

Narnadi 294

135

0,8660

295

0.9280 130

0.0340

296

0.2280 137

0.0370

0.4560

297

0.6460

143

1.1410

307

0.1920

146

0,0060

309

1960

0.8100

310

0.0010 1961

0.3010

0.2150

306

1972

0.0330

316

0.0170 1990

0.2090

0.2900

328

1.2810

1993

327

0.7040

0.6660

1995

340

0,5720

0.4560

1992

0.0750

340/1

2012

1.3800

0.1170

340/2

2022

0.1440

0.3330

341

0.0060

OpenField

0.0100

345

2023

0.6970

346

0.0300 2001

0.0560

394

0,6690 1919

0,7800

0.0010

395

0.8500

1918

0.0160

726/396

0.1350

1917

0.3270

727/396

Total 16.9120

0.2650

397

Doli

303

0.6710

0.3000

398

302

0,2200

0.4230

399

0.3540

301

402

0.0200 263

0.0870

0.0800

388

300

0.0380

430

1.2260 264

0.1610

435

0.0560 265

0.0260

431

0.3430

0.4000

266

455

0.2970 267

0.3150

453

0.3330

0.3650

269

454

0.2840 282

0,0220

451

0.3130

0.3070

268

0.2470

441 13695

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/ पौष 3, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 3

1 1

0.1090

440

Luni

Jodhpur Jodhpur

Narmadi (Contd.)

10.4170

Total

0.4560

Bhandu Kalan 41

0.3820

0,1170

0.3300

0.0900

0.2380

0.0060

0.3000

0.0400

396/31

0.5850

399/31

0.120

394/31

0.6350

0.0250

0.3840

0.1360

0.4150

75/1

0.1900

0.0300

120

119

0.2300

0,0880

121

1.10

141

0.0630

144

0.2280

147

1.9780

154

0.9300

247

0.1350

246

0,5140

245

208

1.6680

210

0.1540

0.5810

211/1

0.4170

211/2

0.3820

228

0.5020

216

217

0,6000

0.4750

223

0.1250

222

14.6570

Total

0.8550

Hamir Nagar 246

0.5130

247/2

3557 G1/2005-4

0.4000

239

0.6270 Hamirnagar (Contd.) 238

235

0.2220

0.0540

234

0.6280

232

203/4

0.6180

202

0.8580

201

0.1800

0.8280

196

0.7510

193

191

0.7510

0.4760

190

182

1.1600

0.0040

181

Total

8,9250

0.6460 Roicha Kalan 196

0.6720

197

0,7740

190

0.7990

189

0,2020

188/2

0.0390

141

0.4240

0.8840

0.0400

105

0,1400

100

0.5140

104

0.4750

103

0,0560

108/1

0.0360

0,5310

1.1880

0.6460

0.1100

0.0680

1.2040

1.1420

07180

1.0900

1310

0.0140

0.9520

0.0360 13696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3, 1927

[PART II SEC. 3( ii)] 1

5 Jodhpur Luni Roich Kalan 2

0.0160

Luni

Jodhpur

0.2580 1

(Contd.)

0,4180

0.9220

Kagnada 161 (Contd.) 156

154

0.5130 Total 14.7730

143

1.0130

0,2840

Roicha Khurd 214

144

0.2420 213

0.0430

145

0.6660 173

0,4380

146

0.0570 186

0,3580

150

0.5180 185

0.3720

148

0.0040 187

0.3130

147

0.0570

0.3910

188.

136

0.7770 183

0.0300

116

0.0470 182

0.1700

101

0.3020 180

0.2940

1.6330 151

0.3350

0.2150

0,2710

152

0.9370 156

0.6430

1.2200 64/3

0.2020

0.0420 64/4

0.0080

1.2760 64/5

0.6840

0,0290 65

0,0330

0.4830 66

0.1420

0.5400 59

0.0290

0.3260 48

0.7520

0,3900 45

0.4360

0,3840 44

0.1800

1.6260 46

0.0200

0.0020 42

0.0350

1.2640 19

0.0790

0,2000 18

0.4690

0.0200 14

0.1980

33/1

0.9720. 17

0.6530

Total 18.1130 15

1,2920

0.8360

Dhava- II 88

0.0100

0.9880 Total

1.9900

0.9980

Total

0.2460

Kagnada 168

165

0.3370

0.0550

Piparli

167

0.0040

0.5300 169

0.2160

1.0630 164

0.0220

0.9570 163

0.0340

0.5780 162

0.3190

0.6470 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

13697 1

Luni

Jodhpur

0.1240

Piparli

0.6560

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्वात् और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाईनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित हैं, उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विपिश्चिय किया है;

Total

4.6100

Sonai

246

0.5620

239

0.0450

238

1.3580

236

0.0380

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

235

0.9780

232

0.0360

225

0.8670

227

0.5750

228

0,0010

224

0,0380

156

0.1520

160

0.1920

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाईनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, पाइपलाईनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहीत होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल (इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

161

0,0086

अनुसूची

159

0.9890

जिला

गाँव

तहसील

सर्वे संख्या आर.ओ.यू.

158/1

0.2850

158/2

0.7230

Total

7.5670

के लिए अर्जित क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेयर में)

5 [F. No. L- 14014/18/05 -G . P.] S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy . मुरैना

711

0.10

मुरैना जयपुर उर्फ

नयागांव

712म

0.03 नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर, 2005

716

0,09

437

0,02

719

0.01

436म

0.30

435म

0.25

380

0.02

383

0.01

274

0.07

275

0.03

276

0.07

277

0.03 का.आ. 4753.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 882 ( अ ) , तारीख 24-6-2005 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में कैलारस - मालनपुर स्पर पाइपलाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से आर. एल.एन.जी. के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

281

0.0

287

0.0.

288

0.02 और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 1-8-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

280

0.03

289

0.04

290

0.01

262円

0.24 और पाइपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;

114

0.04

402म

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

1.78

कुल 13698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA3 , 1927

1 मुरैना

352

0.06 मुरैना फूलपुर

मुरैना

354

0.13

346

0.02

362

0.08

363

0.03

364

0.10

365

0.02

336

0.01

335

0.09

334म

0.08

410

0.11

431

0.02

430

0.02

429म

0.01

413

0.11

412

0.01

427

0.02

415

0.07

419

0.02

417

0.01

418

0.05

420

0.02

508म

0,06

505

0.01

504

0.16

0.06

502म

501 म

0,19

0.05

500

0.01

499

0.10

499म

0.01

1.73

कुल

180

0.08

0.03

181

177

0.04

172

0.11

171

0.05

162म

0.01

161

0.12

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

5 पमाया

मुरैना

160

0.03

158

0.06

157म

0.05

153

0.04

151म

0.12

150

0.11

149म

0.18

115म

0.02

0.27

104म

110

0.01

106

0.09

105

0.07

102

0.12

0.01

101

1.62

कुल

सेवा

0.05

593

592

0.20

123

0.02

121

0.05

119

0.04

117

0.04

118

0.01

116

0.05

115

0.05

109

0.08

108

0.03

107

0.03

106

0.09

105

0.01

0,06

0.05

0.08

0.05

0.11

0.06

0.08

0.06

0,01

1.40 13699

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd December, 2005

428

0.05

मुरैना मुरैना विजयपुरा

0.03

421म

420म

0.10

164

0.01

406

0.10

405

0.01.

357

0.06

0.05

358

351/432

0.04

351

0.01

S.O. 4753.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 882(E) dated 24-6-2005 issued under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquirethe right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of R- LNG through Kailaras- Malanpur spur pipeline project in the State of Madhya Pradesh by the GAIL (India) Limited;

0.06

350

0.06

180

And, whereas , copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the public on the 01-08-2005;

183

0.01

182

0.04

And, whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

0.63

कुल

133

0.04

बारे का पुरा

118

0,03

And, whereas , the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government ;

0.10

116

106

0.10

107

0.01

And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report , decided to acquire the Right ofUser in the lands specified in the Schedule;

113

0.04

109

0.10

110

0.02

0.01

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

0.07

0.05

0.09

0,66

कुल

1259

0.07

नुराबाद

1258म

0.01

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 for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest, on this date of the publication ofthe declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

0.06

1260म

SCHEDULE

1261

0.04

District Tehsil

Area to be

1269

0.03

Village Survey No.

acquired

1268

0.06.

for ROU

1267

0.12

(in

0.01

1273

Hectare)

1266

0.02

1274

0.15

1276

711

0.10

0.06 Morena Morena Jaipur Alias

1248

0.02

0.03

712M

Nayagaon

0.65

कुल

716

0,09 [फा. सं. एल-14014/14/05-जी.पी. ]

0.02

437 एस० बी० मण्डल, अवर सचिव 13700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

Morena

508M

0.06

0.01

Morena Phulpur

Jaipur Alias 719

Morena

505

436M

0.30

0.01 Nayagaon

504

435M

0.25

0,16

380

502M

0.06

0.02

383

501M.

0,19

0.01

274

500

0.07

0.05

500

275

0,01

0.03

276

0.07

499

0.10

499M

277

0.01

0,03

281

0.04

Total

1.73

287

0.01

180

0.08

Pawaya

288

0.02

181

0.03

280

0.03

0.04

177

289

0.04

172

0.11

290

0.01

0.05

171

262M

0.24

162M 2M

0.01

114

0.04

161

0.12

402M

0.32

160

0.03

Total

1.78

158

0.06

157M

0.0

0.05

352

Phulpur

153

0.04

354

0.13

151M

0,12

346

0.02

150

362

0.11

0.08

149M

363

0.02

0.18

115M

364

0.02

0.10

104M

0,27

365

0.02

336

110

0.01

106

0.09

335

0,09

105

0,07

334M

0.08

102

0.12 410

0.11

101

0.01 431

0.02

Total

1.62 430

0.02

Sewa

593

429M

0.01

0.05

592

0.20 413

0.11

123

0.02 412

0.01

0.05

121

427

0.02

119

0.04 415

0.07

117

0.04

419

0.02

118

0.01 417

0.01

116

0.05 418

0.05

115

0.05 420

0.02

109

0.08 13701 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/औष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

0.03

108

0:07 Sewa

Morena Morena

Bare Ka Pura 60

Morena

0.03

0.05 107

0.09

106

0.09

0.01

105

0.66

Total

0.01

0.07

1259

Nurabad

0.06

1258M

0.01

0.05

0.06

1260M

לי

0.08

0.04

1261

0,08

0.03

1269

0.05

0.06

1268

0.11

0.12

1267

0.06

0.01

1273.

0.08

1206

0.02

0.06

0.15

1274

0.01

0.06

1276

1.40

Total

0.02

1248

428

0.05

Vijaypura

0.65

Total

0.03

421M

[F. No. L- 14014/14/05-G.P. ]

0.10

420M

S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.

0.01

164

406

नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर, 2005

0.10

0.01

405

0.06

357

0.05

358

0.04

351/432

0.01

351

0.06

350

0.06

180

0.01

183

0.04

182

का.आ. 4754.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 883 ( अ ) तारीख 24-06-2005 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा मध्य प्रदेश राज्यमें कैलारस- मालनपुर स्पर पाइफ्लाईन परियोजना के माध्यम से आर.एल.एन.जी. के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

0.63

Total

0.04

BareKa Pura 133

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 5-8-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

0.03

0.10

116

0.10

106

...और पाइपलाईन बिछाने के संबंध में जनता से प्राप्त आवेपर. सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और उन्हें अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;

0.01

107

0.04

113

और सक्षम प्राथिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

0,10

109

0.02

110

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् औरयह समाधान हो पाते पर कि उक्त भूमिलाई विधी के 13702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

ग्वालियर ग्वालियर बरौआ

0.10

141म

लिए अपेक्षित हैं, उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

142म

0.15

146म

0.11

148

0.01

147म

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

215म

0,24

216म

0.01

204

0.03

203

0.01

200म

0.18

202म

0.01

201 म

0.02 और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाईनें बिछानेके लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, पाइपलाईनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहीत होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

359म

0.02 अनुसूची

360म

0.31 जिला तहसील गाँव सर्वे संख्या

371

0,08

372

0.02

369

0.05

आर.ओ.यू. के लिए अर्जित क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेयर में )

375

0.08 1

376

0.02 मुरैना

711

मुरैना

0.05

976म

0.12 जयपुर उर्फ नयागांव

710म

0.03

1000

0.06 725

0.01

1008

0.02

0.11

! 730म

1004

0.09 827म

0.06

1007

0.01 823

0.03

1005

0.01

0.22

825म

1006

0.09 979म

0.03

1231

0.08

0.54

कुल

1229

0.05 ग्वालियर ग्वालियर बरौआ

म

0.03

1225

0.02 2म

0.09

1213

0.09 17म

0.05

1205

0.05 14म

0.11

1216

0.02 13 म

0.23

1203

0.06 62म

0.04

1201

0.05

1200

0.15

0.02 61 म

1478

60円

0.01

0.13 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

13703

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

1 ग्वालियरें ग्वालियर बरौआ

1479

0.07 ग्वालियर

1480

0.04

1482

0.04

1509

0.04

1473

0.01

1510

0.10

1523

0.06

1525

0.05

1537

0.01

1536

0.06

1534

0,03

1556

0.04

1557

0.04

1558

0.07

1559

0.01

1561

0.04

1560

0.07

1628

0.01

1629

0,06

1630

0.05

1639

0.07

1650

0.01

1640

0.01

1649

0.05

1642

0.10

0.07

1645

4.38

कुल

412

ग्वालियर ग्वालियर रायरु

0.08

414

0.01

409

0.01

425

0.26 ग्वालियर रायरु

514म

622

0.40

621

0.02

574

0.01

575

0.02

578

0,06

577

0.01

585

0.04

584

0.01

602

0.04

601

0.03

604

0.06

614

0.03

724

0.02

727

0.05

728

0.03

737

0.03

732

0.03

733

0.03

0.02

734

819

0.02

817

0.02

816

0.04

815

0.01

756

0.02

757

0.02

774

0.06

775

0.02

778

0.02.

779

0.03

781

0.02

784

0.03

2.07

कुल

117

0.04

0.05 ग्वालियर ग्वालियर रुद्रपुरा

424

0.05

423

0.06

426

0,06

422

0,11 :

0.01

513

0,12

511

3557 GI /2005-5

119

0.01

0.2

139म

164

0.05

163

0.04

0.01

165

175

0.02 13704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

2 3

5 ग्वालियर

176

0.01

ग्वालियर रूद्रपुरा

ग्वालियर ग्वालियर

411म

जमाहर

0.08 174

0.04

412

0.04

187

0.01

413

0.14 188

0.05

448

0.01 391

0.02

415

0.01 390म

0.03

447

0.01 229म

0.11

4854

0.13

0.7

377म

484円

0.04 376म

0.08

488円

0.01 232

0.08

489

0.17 367

0.10

490

0.01 365円

0.15

499円

0.05 664

0.07

498म

0.10 651म

0.01

501म

0.01 665

0.05

511

0.04 663म

0.04

510

0.05 668

0.05

513

0.08 670円

b.is

514

0.01 674म

0.09

559

682 म

0.11

0.01

560

0.01

1.49

कुल

544

0.01 38

0.08

ग्वालियर ग्वालियर डोंडियापुरा

558

0.10

0.09

41म

556

0.01

0.05 40

0.01

546

0.01 45

0.08

555

0.02

0.08

554

0.04 80

0.09

0.08

654

0.07

0.02

655

0.04 90

0.11

0.21

656

0.01

658

0.12

0.01

954

102

0.01

0.07

1.69

कुल

101

0.01 ग्वालियर ग्वालियर

161

0.04

अकबरपुर

100

0,13

162

0.01 104म

0.01

163म

0.05

1.01

कुल

164

0.01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 29 , 2005 /पौष 3 , 1927

13705 1

5 मऊ

805म

ग्वालियर ग्वालियर

0.09

165म

ग्वालियर अकबरपुर

173

0.02

177म

0.03

175म

0.13

275

0.04

271

0.16

272

0.03

0.05

267

265म

0.02

264

0.09

309म

0.14

308म

0.09

325म

0.01

306

0.14

327म

0.03

1.18

कुल

मऊ

0.08

115

116म

0.13

117म

0.04

149म

148

0.12

230

0.05

221

0.07

227 म

0.12

302

0.10

0.08

301म

300

0,09

525

0,07

524

0,08

520

0.02

518

0,07

517

0.01

516

0,05

800

0.01

0.05

801

803

0.02

804

0.16

011

807

0.04

809म

0.06

0.11

813म

0.07

819

0.11

818म

832म

0,12

836

0.16

842

0.14

844

0.01

845

0,01

848

833

0,10

2.51

कुल

[ फा. सं. एल.-14014/14/'05 -जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd December , 2005

S.O. 4754.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 883 (E) dated 24-6-2005 issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and MineralsPipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transport of R- LNG through Kailaras- Malanpur spur pipeline project in the State of Madhya Pradeshby the GAIL (India) Limited;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 5-8-2005;

Andwhereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority ;

And whereas the Competent Authority has, under sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted is report to the Central Government;

And whereas the Central Government has , after considering the said report, decided to acquire the Right ofUser in the lands specified in the Schedule;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying thepipeline;

13706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

372

0.02

Gwalior Gwalior Barauwa

0.05

-(Contd.) 369

375

0.08

376

0.02 And, further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall, instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest, on this date of the publication ofthe declaration, in the GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

976M

0.12 SCHEDULE

0.06

1000

District Tehsil Village

1008

0.02 Survey No.

0.09

1004

0.01

1007

Area to be

acquired

forROU

(in

Hectares)

1005

0.01

1006

0.09

711

0.05

Morena

Jaipur Alias

Morena

0.08

1231

0.03

710M

Nayagaon

0.05

1229

725

0.01

1225

0.02

730M

0.11

0.06

827M

1213

0.09

823

0.03

1205

0.05

825M

0.22

1216

0.02

979M

0.03

1203

0.06

Total

0.54

1201

0.05

0.03

Barauwa

Gwalior Gwalior

1200

0.02

0.09

1478

0.01

0.05

17M

1479

0.07

0.11

14M

1480

0.04

0.23

13M

1482

0.04

62M

0.04

1509

0.04

0.15

61M

1473

0.01

0.13

60M

0.10

1510

141M

0.10

1523

0.06

142M

0.15

1525

0.05

146M

0.11

1537

0,01

148

0.01

1536

0.06

0,04

147M

0.03

1534

0.24

215M

0.04

1556

0.01

216M

0.04

1557

0.03

204

1558

0.07

203

0.01

1559

0.18

200M

0.04

1561

202M

0.01

1560

0,07

0.02

201M

0.01

1628

0.02

359M

0.06

1629

360M

0.31

0.05

1630

371

0,08

1639

0.07 13707

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5 1

0.01

1650

Gwalior Gwalior Barauwa

0.03

Rairu (Contd . ) 784

Gwalior Gwalior

0.01

1640

Total

2,07

0.05

1649

0.04

Rudrapura 117

1642

0.10

0.01

119

1645

0.07

0.10

319M

4.38

Total

0.05

164

0.08

Rairu

412

0.04

163

414

0.01

165

0.01

409

0.02

175

0,05

425

176

0.01

0.05

424

174

0.04

0.06

423

187

0.01

0.06

426

0.05

188

0.11

422

0.02

391

513

0.01

0.03

390M

0.12

511

0.11

229M

0.26

514M

0.07

377M

0,40

622

0.08

376M

621

0.02

0.08

232

0.01

574

0.10

367

575

0.02

0.15

365M

578

0.06 .

0.07

664

577

0.01

0.04

585

0.01

651M

0.01

584

0.05

665

0.04

602

0.04

663M

0.03

601

0.05

668

0.06

604

670M

0.15

0.03

614

0.02

724

674M

0.09

0.05

727

0.01

682M

0.03

728

1.49

Total

0.03

737

0.08

0.03

732

Dondiyapupura 38

0.09

41M

733

0.03

0.01

0.02

734

0.0

819

0.02

0.08

817

0.02

0.08

816

0.04

0.09

0.01

815

0,07

0.02

756

0.02

757

0.11

0.06

774

0.01-

0.02

775

0.12

0.02

778

0.01

102

779

0.03

0.07

0.02

781 13708

THE GAZETTEOF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1

Gwalior

275

0,04

0.01

Gwalior Akbarpur

Gwalior Dondiyapura 101

100

0.13

271

0.16

104M

0.02

272

0.03

1.01

Total

267

0.05

411M

Jamahar

0.08

265M

0.02

412

0.04

264

0.09

413

0.14

309M

0.14

448

0.01

0,09

308M

415

0.01

325M

147

0.01

306

0.14

485M

0.13

0.03

327M

484M

0.04

1.18

Total

488M

0.01

115

0.08

Mew

489

0.17

116M

0.13

490

0.01

0.04

117M

149M

0.04

499M

0.05

148

0.12

498M

0.10

230

0.05

501M

0.01

221

0.07

511

0.04

227M

0.12

510

0,05

302

0.10

513

301M

0.08

300

0,09

514

0.01

525

0.07

559

0.11

524

0.08

560

0.01

520

0.02

544

0.01

0.07

518

558

517

0.01

0,10

516

0.05

556

0.05

800

0.01

546

0.01

801

0.05

555

0,02

803

0.02

554

0.04

804

0.16

654

0.08

805M

0.11

807

0.04

655

0.04

809M

0.06

556

0,21

813M

0.11

558

0.01

819

0.07

954

0.01

818M

0.11

832M

0.12

Total

1.69

836

0.16

161

0.04

Akbarpur

842

0.14

162

0.01

844

0.01

163M

0.05

845

0.01

164

0.01

848

0.01

165M

833

0.09

0.10

173

0.02

2.51

Total

177M

0.03

[F. No. L- 14014/ 14/05 -G.P.J

175M

0.13

S. B. MANDAL, Under Secy.

13709

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 4755.-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 और भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं० का० आ 0 1971 तारीख 12 अगस्त, 2004 का आशोधन करते हुए, उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन, हरियाणा राज्य के राज्यक्षेत्र के भीतर, गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड की मुन्द्रा- बठिण्डा पाइपलाइन व हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड (एच.पी.सी.एल.) की मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के लिए सक्षम अधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए, एच.पी.सी.एल. में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर , श्री प्रहलाद सिंह, जिला राजस्व अधिकारी , हरियाणा सरकार को प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[फा. सं. आर-31015/6/2004--ओ. आर- ।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21th December , 2005

S. O. 4755. 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 modification of notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 1971 dated the 12th August , 2004, the Central Government hereby authorizes Shri Prahlad Singh, District Revenue Officer , Government of Haryana, on deputation to Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited(HPCL ) , to perform the functions of the competent authority for Mundra -Bathinda Pipeline of Guru Gobind Singh Refineries Limited and HPCL's Mundra- Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline , under the said Act, within the territory of the State of Haryana.

[No. R-31015/6/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 22 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 4756.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मत्रालय के का. आ . 3011 दिनांक 18.08.2005 द्वारा पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना प्रकाशित कर, व्यावर से चित्तौड़गढ़ तक पैट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए "सिद्धपुर - सांगानेर पाइपलाइन से चित्तौड़‌गढ़ तक ब्रान्च लाईन " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक शाखा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिसूचना में विनिर्दिष्ट तहसील चित्तौड़‌गढ़, जिला चित्तौड़गढ़, राजस्थान राज्य की भूमि अधिसूचित कीथी ।

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को दिनांक 23.09.2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी । और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी, राजस्थान , ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है । 13710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II--SEC. 3 (ii) ] और, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपाट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित करने का विनिश्चय किया है ।

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाता है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

वहसील: चित्तौड़‌गढ़

जिला: चित्तौड़गढ़

राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

खसरा संख्या

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

बड़ोदिया

1538

[फा. सं. आर-25011/31/2004-ओ.आर. - 1 ] एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 22th December , 2005

section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsii: Chittaurgarh , District : Chittaurgarh in the State of Rajasthan , specified.in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the S. O.4756. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. number 3011 dated 18.08.2005 issued under sub transportation of petroleum products in the State of Rajasthan from Beawar to Chittaurgarh in respect of "Branch Pipeline to Chittaurgarh from Sidhpur - Sanganer Pipeline" by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Andwhereas , copy of the said notification was made available to the general public on 23.09.2005.

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the saidAct 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 shouldbe -acquired;

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/ पौष 3 , 1927.

13711 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : CHITTAURGARH District: CHITTAURGARH State: RAJASTHAN

Area

Name of the Village

Khasara No.

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

5 BADODIYA

1538

[F. No. R- 25011/31/2004- O.R. -I ] S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 23 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 4757.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1604 तारीख 26 अप्रैल, 2005 , जो भास्त के राजपत्र तारीख 30 अप्रैल, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हजाखाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपल्ाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जबता को तारीख 9 जुलाई, 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

3557 G1/2005-6 13712

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

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

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

अनुसूची

तालुका: पंढरपुर

जिला : सोलापुर

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं.

उप-खण्ड संख्या

एयर

हेक्टर वर्ग मीटर 1

6 7

8 1 आने चिंचोली

120

00 07

00 02 40

104

00 30

00 03 20

00 04 59

105

119

00 00 48

कुल

00 48 06 2 पुलूजवाडी

304

00 16 65

318

00 11 80

319

00 06 25

320

00 06 25

321

00 04 95

कुल

00 45 90

[फा. सं. आर-31015/21/2004- ओ.आर- ॥ ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23th December , 2005

S.O.4757. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1604, dated the 26th April , 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) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 30th April , 2005, the Central Govemment declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni (Pune) to Pakni ( Solapur ) (viaHazarwadi ) in the State of Maharashtraby Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

13713

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 9th July, 2005;

And whereas the competent authority has, under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the saidAct, submitted report to the Central Government; Andwhereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is 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 tand for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Govemment, vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State: MAHARASHTRA

District : SOLAPUR

Taluka : PANDHARPUR

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name ofthe Village

120 1 AMBE CHINCHOLI

104

105

119

304 2 PULUJVADI

318

319

320

321

Apea

Sub-Division No.

Sq.mt

Rectare Are

8 5

00 07 77

0002

03 20

00.

00 04 59

00 00 90

00 00

Total

00 16 65

00 06 25

06 25

00 04 95

00 45 Total

[No. R-31015/21/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secу.

13714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4758.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1601 तारीख 25 अप्रैल , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 30 अप्रैल, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई- पुणे पाइमलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 2सितम्बर, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

तालुका: कडेगाँव

जिला: सांगली

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं .

उप -खण्ड संख्या पेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

8 1 उपाले वांगी

143

4 ब

90 06

148

88 86

कुल 00 07 08 2 उपाले मायणी

01 37

88888888

157 204

62 3 तोंडोली

261

284

295

00 03

309

00 04

318

403

00 03

0000

701

700

00 03

1000

690

87 34 94 87 71 36 04 65 56

00 30

6000

14 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

13715

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

जिला: सांगली

तालुका: कडेगॉव

गट नंबर गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

कम .

872 4 अमरापुर

862

834

827

958

955

967

974

1015

1016

1017

1018

1030

1032

1033

208 5 येक्लेवाडी

211

191

173

133

1413 6 बडिये रायबाग

1413

141.3

1383

1250

1117

1116

258 7 सेलकबाव

372

404

411

389

388

384

382

565 राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

उप -खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5

6 7 8

0006

00 02

00 01

00.00

00 00 56

00 00

00.00

00 01 27

16:

00 02

03 57

9000

00 01 85

00 01

कुल

00 01

0004

00 08 70 कुल

00 01 87

18 4

27 6

00 01

00. 02

16 15 0002

0011 37

00 28

कुल

00 02 18

00 0343

00.04 84

00 02 39

00 02 09

00 03 77

00 00 40.

00 24 03 कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/29/2004- ओ.आर- ।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव 13716

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

New Delhi , the 23th December, 2005

S.O. 4758.-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1601 , dated the 25th April , 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) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 30th April , 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune ) to Pakni (Solapur) (via Hazarwadi ) in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 2nd September, 2005;

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

Andwhereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the rightof user therein;

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section (4) of section 6 of the saidAct , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Govemment, vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State : MAHARASHTRA

Dist: SANGLI

Taluka : KADEGAON

Area

GatNo.

Sq.mt

Are

Hectare

Survey No.

Sub-Division No,

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

7 8

00 06 22

143

1 UPALE VANGI

00 00 86 148

00 07 08

Total

00 01 37

157

2 UPALE MAYNI

07 15

204

00 08 52

Total

00 02 87

261

3 TONDOLI

00 09

284

00 03 94

295

00 04 67

309

00 90.

318

00 03 36

403

00 01 04

701

00 03 65

700

00 03 56

690

00 39 14

Total [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

13717

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

Taluka : KADEGAON

State : MAHARASHTRA

Dist: SANGLI

GatNo.

SurveyNo.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

4 1

872 4 AMRAPUR

862

834

827

958

955

967

974

1015

1816

1017

1018

1030

1032

1033

208 5 YEVELEVADI

211

191

173

133

1413 6 VADIYE RAYBAGH

1413

1383

1250

1117

1116

258 7 SHELBGBAV

372

404

411

389

388

384

382

565

Area

Sub-Division No. Hectare AreBq.mt 5

6 7 8

00 06 67

00 02 13

00 01 09

00 00 37

00:00 61

00 38

0000 56

00 00 83

00 00 72

00 01 27

00 02 16

00 06 93

00 03 57

00 01 85

00 0.1 70

00 30 84 Total

00 00 42

DO 00 60

00 02 76

00 01 56

00 04 36

70 Total

01 87

60.00

00 04 18 6

00 01 27

02 14

00. 02 16

00 50

00 02 69

00 11 37

00 28 18 Total

00 03 43

00 04 84

00 02 39

00 00 65

00 04 28

00 02 09

$00

Total

[No. R-31015/29/2004- O.R.-II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

13718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 23 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 4759.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1709 तारीख 6 मई, 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 7 मई, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई- पुणे पाइमलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 30 जुलाई , 2005 , को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्त्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 13719 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

अनुसूची

जिला: सांगली

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र तालुका: कवठे महांकाल

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

कम सं .

उप-खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 2

6 7

8 1

तिसंगी

00 02

471

484

489

ब

00 02

500

00 00

639

00 05 43

669

667

00 11

865

00 24

कुल

00 00

घाटनांद्रे

183

7.7

191

00 00

248

257

00 01

283

00 01

598

595.

599

00 00

594

817

00 07

823

00 42

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/30/2004-ओ. आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 23th December , 2005

S. O. 4759.- Whereas by notification of the Govemment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1709 , dated the 6th May, 2005, issued urider sub-section (1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 7th May, 2005, the Central Govemment declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai- Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune) to Pakrni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 30th July, 2005;

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

3557 GI /2005-7 13720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA3 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Andwhereas the Central Government , aiter considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline , has decided to acquire the rightof user therein;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the 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 for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Govemment, vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

Taluka : KANTHE MAHANKAL

GatNo ..

SurveyNo.

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

471 TISANGI

484

489

500

639

669

667

665

78 2 GHATNANDRE

183

191

248

257

283

598

595

599

594

817

823 Sub-Division

Area

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

00 02

00 01 19

00 85

02 50

05 43

01 17

00 11 27

00 24 94 Total

00 01 27

00 00 77

00 42

00 01 09

00 01 54

00 01 80

04 06

00 00 20

00 23 25

00 07 83

00 42 83 Total

[No. R- 31015/30/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR, Under Secy .

13721

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 11 जून , 2005

का. आ. 4760- भारतीय रेल अधिनियम, 1890 ( 1890 का 9 ) के अधीन बनाए गए रेल कर्मचारी ( नियोजन के घंटे ) नियम, 1961 के नियम 4 ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार श्रम मंत्रालय के संयुक्त सचिव , श्री जे. पी. पंति को उक्त नियमों के तहत अपील सुनने के लिए अपील प्राधिकारी के रूप में अधिसूचित करती है । [फा. सं. जैड-20025/ 14/2002 - सी एल एस- I ] विनीता अग्रवाल, निदेशक MINISTRY OF LABOUR New Delhi , the 11th June , 2005

S.O. 4760- In exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4 (2) ofRailway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules , 1961 under the Indian Railway Act, 1890 (9 of 1890) the Central Government hereby notifies Shri J.P. Pati, Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Labour as Appellate Authority to hear Appeals under the said Rules .

[F.No. Z-20025/14/2002-CLS.I] VINITA AGARWAL, Director नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4761- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 03/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं . एल-12011 /35/95 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th November, 2005 S.O. 4761 - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 03/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005 .

[No. L - 12011/35/95 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

PRESENT: Sri H.A. Hazarika,

Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum -Labour Court, Guwahati .

Ref. Case No. 3 of 2004

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute Between:

The Management of Union Bank of India, Chandmari

VERSUS

Their Workmen Rep . by the, General Secretary, Union Employees Union, K.C. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati -3 .

Date ofAward : 10-11-2005 .

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , vide its Notification No.L- 12011 /35/95 - IR (B -II) dated 23/05/2002 referred this Industrial Dispute arose between the employers in relation to the management of UnionBank of India and their Workmen for adjudication and to pass an award by exercising power conferred under Clause-(d) of Sub-Section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the 1.D.Act, 1947 for adjudication on the basis of the following Schedule :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India to computerize the Guwahati (Main) Branch of the bank in terms of the settlement dated 29-10-1993 is legal and justified? If not , what relief is the aggrieved union entitled to?"

1.Record put up at " Lok Adalat " (People's Court) today at Vishnu Nirmala Trust (Hall ) , Latasil , Guwahati - 1.

2. Seen the compromise petition jointly signed by Sri R.R. Mahanti , Senior Manager , H.R. for the Management of Union Bank of India and Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union, NER, which is signed and forwarded by the Conciliators, Sri Anilendra Nath Sarma and Sri Phanindra Nath Sarma, both of them are retired Judge of State Labour Court , Guwahati .

3. The compromise petition is accepted. The referred matter is disposed of on compromise with compromise award. Send this to Central Government as per procedure immediately.

H.A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT " BISHNU NIRMALA TRUST " , LATASIL, GUWAHATI, IN RELATION TO THE CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Date: 10-11-2005

Ref. Case No. 3 of 2004 Union Bank of India

-Vs-

Union Bank Employees Union, (N.E.R. ) May it please your honour, 13722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

AND

We the parties above named have arrived at a compromise/settlement in the above referred Case/ dispute as no coercion or force/temptation has been made to any of the parties to arrive at the compromise .

1. Additional Railway Manager South Central Railway Vijayawada, Krishna Dist, A.P. ,

We therefore request to record the compromise/ conciliation/ settlement made before the Lok Adalat and pass order/ award accordingly today itself.

2. Chief Commercial Manager South Central Railway Secunderabad.

Respondents Terms of compromise/conciliation.

We have settled the dispute amically.

Appearances : Sri . G. Vidya Sagar , Sri . K. Udyasree & Sri .

Sd./- Signature of Management/Petitioner. Sd./-

P. Sudheer Rao , Advocates for the Petitioner. Sri . T.S. Venkata Ramana, Advocate & Standing Counsel for the Respondents . AWARD

Signature of Advocate

Sd/- Signature of Workman/ Sd./- Signature of Advocate

Sd./-

Government of India referred this Industrial Dispute for adjudication and to pass an Award in respect of:

Signature of Conciliators . नई दिल्ली, 28 नवम्बर, 2005

Whether the action on the part of the Railway administration in not regularizing the services of the licensed porters (as per the list Annexure ) employed at twenty two railway stations , is justified ?

It not, to what relief these licensed porters are entitled to ?

का. आ. 4762.- 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/सं . I , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई टी -21 आफ 1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. On receiving the said reference from the Government of India notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties made their appearances .

[सं. एल-41014/1/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

3. The averments of the claim statement made by the petitioner are as follows are-

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th November, 2005

S.O. 4762. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. IT No. 21 of 1998) of the Industrial Tribunal No. I, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of South Central Raiiway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-11-2005 .

[No. L-41014/ 1/2005 - IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I, AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: M. Radha Kumari

Chairman, Industrial Tribunal - I , Hyd. Dated 19th day of November 2005 . Industrial Tribunal No.21 of 1998

BETWEEN:

Dakshina Madhya Railway

Porters Karmik Sangh

(BRMS & BMS)

Opp . P.M.R. High School

Ranganayakulapet

Nellore , Rep . by its President

Petitioner

The Petitioner -Union is a registered Trade Union having been registered under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act. The Porters working in Railway Stations referred to reference are members of the Petitioner -Union . The Union has raised dispute with regard to regularization of the services of the licensed porters working at 22 Railway Stations under the jurisdiction of the Additional Railway Manager, Vijayawada vide demand notice dated 8-1-1996 . The dispute was admitted in conciliation on 25-1-1996 . Ultimately the conciliation proceedings ended in failure and a failure report dated 4-12-1996 was submitted by the conciliation officer to the Government of India . The Government was pleased to refer the above dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal . The majority of the Railway Ports referred to in the annexure are working for the last 15 to 20 years and few of other have been working for the last 10 years as on the date of demand in 1996. The licensed porters are engaged in loading and unloading of the goods from the passengers' trains passing through the 22 Railway Stations . Initially they were being paid at the rate of Rs . 700 per month . Subsequently they are being termed as piece rated workers and thereby their monthly income has reduced to Rs . 100 to Rs . 150 per month . The member of the petitioner - union primary job is loading and unloading of the parcels from the break van of the 13723 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/ पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

passenger's trains at different stages . They have been working under the directions and the guidance of the Railway Officials . The nature of the work of the porters of handling is permanent and perennial in its nature and it would keep the members of the Petitioner -Union continuously engaged . The Railway Administration is having control over the staff where the members of the petitioner -Union are performing the work of Railway Parcel Porters . They are being paid a meagre wages without getting the minimum scales of pay on par with regular Railway Parcel Porters engaged in the parcel offices . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Federation of Railway Porters , Vendors & Bearers Vs. Union of India, directed the Railway Administration to absorb the Railway Parcel Porters working in the Railways . Although the Petitioner - Union made a representation to absorb all the porters employed in the 22 Railway Stations , the ' respondent - railway administration has not implemented the judgment and absorbed the members of the Petitioner-Union into the main stream of the Railway. The said action part of the respondent is wholly arbitrary and unjustified. Names of the parcel porters in respect of Akivedu Railway Station are not properly referred to . Similarly in Bhimavaram Railway Station, the names of the following members have not been referred to. The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that the action of the Respondent- Management in not regularizing the services of the Licensed Porters employed at 22 Railwa'y Stations is not justified and consequently direct the respondent- management to absorb the licensed porters by extending the regular scales of pay attached to the post with all consequential benefits and pass such further or other orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case ..

sources in a specific span of time i.e. from passengers for carrying their luggage, from Railways for handling their Railway booked parcels and from Merchant Community for carrying their parcels from Lorry to Parcel Office and Vice -versa . It is correct that Regional Labour Commissioner /Central/Hyderabad by letter dt . 4-12-1996 reported to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi about failure of conciliation proceedings . The Railway Administration has no control over the licensed porters . The remuneration paid to licensed porters is depending upon volume of parcel traffic and their duration of engagement and not otherwise. Over the years , the Railways are losing parcel traffic due to stiff competition from road operators. As such, their engagement time is getting reduced over the years. The payments are being made to the licensed porters in terms of the Railway Board letter dt . 08-06-1971 , which prescribes payment to the extent of engagement . It is incorrect to say that the members of the petitioners - union primary job is loading and unloading of the parcels from the break van of the passengers trains at different stages. It is incorrect to say that the members of the petitioners - union, are continuously engaged by the Railway Administration . It is submitted that they were engaged as and when necessary for short duration in addition to their primary job of licensed porters i.e. carrying passengers ' luggage . It is incorrect to say that members of the petitioners-- union are being paid meagre wages without getting the minimum scales of pay on par with regular Railway Parcel Porters engaged in Parcel Office . It is submitted that they are licensed porters basically meant for carrying passengers ' luggage. The Railway Administration has been utilizing the services licensed porters intermittently for parcel handling at 22 stations over Vijayawada Division of South Central Railway where there are no permanent Railway Stiff to handle parcels . In fact, the Railway Administration has been keeping its own staff to handle parcel traffic where there is a justification for posting of the Railway Staff. In other words, the Railway Administration has been utilizing its own employees to carry parcels from parcel office to Brake-van of passenger carrying train and vice -versa , where there is absolute justification for creation of such posts . The licensed porters are not being engaged by the administration for whole of the day. Their services are being engaged as and when Passenger Carrying train comes to station , to load and unload the parcels from brake- van attached to the passenger train . In other words , in a day except in the short duration of time their services are not being utilized by the Railway Administration . The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Federation of Railway Porters , Vendors and Bearers is not applicable to this instant 4. It is correct that the said union raised a dispute dated 8-1-1996 before Regional Labour Commissioner/ Central/Hyderabad duly claiming regularization of 479 licensed porters engaged in loading and unloading of Railway parcels at 22 Railway Stations over Vijayawada. Division. It is pertinent to mention here that they are licensed to carry luggage of the passengers on Railway Platforms on payment of porterage charges by the passengers themselves . The Railway Administration has also been utilizing their services for short duration's intermittently for loading and unloading of railway parcels from break van of passenger carrying trains , if necessary, on payment of remuneration for the time engaged on the basis of Railway Boards letter dt. 8-6-1971 . This engagement is only to supplement their source of income and not otherwise . The parcel handling work is neither their main job nor full time employment . The licensed porters are getting income from three 13724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)] case. The facts and circumstances of the said case are different from this case . In that case , the persons engaged for parcel handling are engaged by the Railway Administration on contract basis and more over their engagement is exclusive for parcel handling in nature . Whereas in case of licensed porters of 22 stations of South Central Railway their engagement is only supplementary in nature , in other words it is not their whole time job . Their main job is carrying passengers ' luggage . As such the circumstances are different between these two cases and that judgment cannot be applicable to the facts of this case. It is pertinent to mention here that the licensed porters of Vijayawada Division had already approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court through W.P. No. 480 of 1990 for absorption into the Railway Establishment , but the Hon'ble Court rejected their claim by the judgment dated 6-5-1991 . Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by its judgment dated 10-2-1997 in CA No. 752-753 of 1997 rejected the Central Administrative Tribunal / Hyderabad's Judgment in T.A. No. 3 of the 1992 , wherein Tribunal directed the Railways to pay wages @ 1 /30th of the minimum of the scale of pay of the luggage porter, to the licensed porter, when he was engaged for parcel handling for 8 hours a day. In view of the above pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court , the Railway Administration need not pay the scale of regular employees to the Licensed Porters. However , it has been paying the licensed porters on hourly basis basing on the local market rate fixed by the District Collector, from time to time, in terms of Board letter dt. 8-6-1971 . The Tribunal may be pleased to dismiss the Industrial Dispute with costs .

5. WWIto WW4 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and Exs -W1 was marked. MW1 to MW4 were examined on behalf of the respondents and Exs -M1 to M8 were marked. The learned advocate for the petitioner as well as the learned advocate for the respondents submitted their written arguments and they are part and parcel of the record .

goods . They performed duties as per the instructions of the railway authorities . In spite of repeated requests the authorities are not paying the minimum wages to them. Their duty hours are from 8.00 AM to 8.00 PM. The respondents are not assigning any reasons for not regularizing their services . All the porters concerned are working continuously without break of service . The porters who are working since four to five years at Vishakapatnam and Godavari Railway Stations and also Northern Zone were regularized but they were not regularized even for working since twenty to twenty five years in twenty two Railway Stations . WW1 admitted in his cross examination that they were getting less or more of Rs. 150 per month . He is not in position to give any reason for receiving such an amount . He also admitted that Muster Rolls would be maintained for licensed porters who were working in the parcel office. At this juncture , it is to be mentioned, as argued by the learned advocate for the respondents , that they have not chosen to get the said Muster Rolls Pay Acquaintance Registers etc. , to show that they are under the direct control of the respondents - railways . WW2 admitted in his cross examination that initially they were appointed to carry the passenger luggage only and since 1976 they are carrying the luggage in parcel van . He further admitted that they were being paid basing on the quantum of work of loading and unloading the material which is being loaded belonging to the private parties . They will carry the same to the Platform even though he is saying that they are not collecting any amount from the private parties and they would carry the same on the instructions of the parcel clerk . According to WW1 to 4 they are working under the supervision of the parcel clerk and not carrying the passenger luggage . As already observed if they are working under the supervision of parcel clerk who is a permanent employce of the respondent - Central Government, there must be a Muster Roll showing the allotment of work to them but the petitioner has not chosen to get such Muster Roll from the office of the respondents . WW4 the Senior Assistant of APSRTC deposed that the petitioner union porters would carry the goods from the parcel office to the goods train vice -versa and they are working more than twenty years without any break and they have no time to attend the passengers work . He further deposed that they would work on the instructions of the Chief Parcel Officer . In the cross examination he deposed that he is going once in a month to the Railway Station and verified himself and he has seen the Muster Rolls in the Labour Department but those Muster Rolls are not forth- coming before this Court . He further deposed that he does not know whether there are any permanent porters in the Railway Stations . He denied the suggestion made 6. WWI D. Souri is the licensed railway porter in Parcel Office , Nellore Railway Station . WW2 T. Kotayya is the porter at Chirala. WW3 is the licensed porter of Ongole parcel office. WW4 is the Sambasiva Rao , Senior Assistant of APSRTC at Nellore . As per the evidence of WW1 to 3 the railway porters in twenty two Railway Stations are working since twenty to twenty five years and few of them only since ten years. According to them the duty of the licensed porters of the parcel office is to load the parcel into the concerned train and receive the load and deposit the same in the parcel office. The parcel clerk assigned duties to them . They are being paid at Rs. 150/- (Rupees one hundred fifty only ) per month. Their duty is only to loading and unloading parcel to him that the petitioner union is engaged only to the 13725 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927.

loading and unloading of the passenger luggage for which they are being paid by the passengers and that the parcel porters work is noly a part time work but not full time work . On perusing his entire evidence I am of the opinion that he does not know anything and he deposed only to favour the petitioner union .

porters do the service in rotation as per their own adjustments and they also attend to loading and unloading of the passengers luggage for which they received remuneration from the passengers . They have no control over the petitioner - porters and they themselves fixed the shift system . They are being paid on hourly basis.

9. WW3 is the Chief Commercial Inspector of twelve stations parcel booking and other commercial transactions . He also deposed like that of the other two. witnesses that the petitioner - porters are only the part time porters as they would come after the announcement ofthe train and leave the parcel office after train leaves the station . They also carry the passenger luggage and collect money from them . They would attend the work in batches as decided by their maistry and they have no control over them. The payment would made on hourly basiş.

10. MW4 is the Assistant Commercial Manager of Vijayawada Railway Station . He deposed like that of MWs 1 to 3 by stating that they have no control over the petitioner porters and they would work maximum of fifteen minutes . They are being engaged mainly by passengers for carrying their luggage and being paid by them. Merchants also engaged them for carrying their luggage to parcel office and pay them . Except at the time of the arrival of the train they do not have any control over the -porters . He produced the conditions of the licensed porters, under Exs -M1 to M3 . Ex- M4 is a time table in respect of porters rate charges and M5 is the list of licesed-porters at twenty two Railway Stations .

7. Coming to the evidence of the respondents , MW1 is the Chief Parcel Supervisor at Eluru Railway Station . His evidence is important to say how the petitioner union porters are working and how they are not entitled for the relief claimed by them. He deposed that he has got four parcel Supervisors and Assistants who work round the clock in shift system . The weighment of parcels would be done by parcel clerk. The merchants and others generally engaged licensed porters to carry the goods out of the station to parcel office weighing machine . After weighment and collection of charges the parcels would be kept in the parcel office . After announcement of the train tire licensed porters would carry the parcels and put them' it the parcel van in the train . The batch maistry would come and allot the number of porters required for each train. The Railways would pay them according to the number of hours engaged. There are forty porters at Eluru Railway Station and each porter would work in an average for two hours per day. Average income for each porter is Rs . 300 to 400 per month. He further deposed that they would attend to the passenger luggage for loading and unloading also by adjusting themselves . There are no permanent porters attached to the parcel office . These porters after loading and unloading free themselves and do any other work. He further deposed that the private persons themselves engaged the porters for taking the goods from parcel office to out of the station and they themselves pay to the porters . The petitioner union porters are not under their control. In the cross -examination also he deposed that they are paying to the petitioner-porters on hourly basis and denied the suggestion made to him that each batch works continuously for twenty hours and even for six to eight hours . He also denied the suggestion made to him that these porters do not attend to the loading and unloading work of the passengers luggage . He further deposed that the permanent porters at Station like Rajahmundry, Godavari , Vijayawada etc. , only under their control and they are not being permitted to carry the luggage of the passengers. So on perusing his evidence it is clear that the petitioner -porters are not under the control of Railways and they are not full time workers like that of permanent porters and they would work for only few hours at the instructions of their maistry at the time of loading and unloading of parcels .

11. On perusing the entire evidence discussed above it is clear that the contention of the petitioner- union porters is that they are working since twenty to twenty five years under Twenty two Railway Stations as porters under the control of the booking clerk and exclusively doing the work of the railways and thereby they are liable to be regularized in par with the regular porters . According to them they are not being' attending the work of the passengers in loading and unloading and carrying their luggage and not being paid by them. At the outset except the interested version of WWI to WW3 there is no evidence to prove the same . If really they are the full time workers of the respondents , as admitted by them , there is a Muster Roll and they have not chosen to get the same before this Court . Merely because they are working since a long time they are not entitled to be regularized as they are being engaged by their maistry only and they are not under the control of the respondents from the evidence discussed above . On perusing the evidence of MWs 1 to 4 it is clear that they are only part time workers having work for fifteen 8. MW2 is the Chief Parcel Supervisor , Nellore Railway Station and he also deposed that the petitioner- 13726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] minutes only and they would leave after the train leaves and attend their own work mainly the work of the passengers and merchants etc. , and being pain by them. MWs 1 to 4 are official witnesses and no motive was attributed to them to speak falsehood against the Petitioner- Porters and I have no reason to disbelieve them coupled with Exs -M1 to M8 etc.

applicable to the facts of the present case and on the other hand on perusing W.P. No. 480/1990 dated 6-5-91 relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents itis clear that the licensed porters have raised all these pleas before the Apex Court and the Apex Court was pleaded to dismiss the said writ petition through the order dated 6-5-1991 . On perusing the said decision it is clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India not accepted the claim of these licensed porters in the said writ petitions . On that ground itself this Industrial Dispute must be dismissed. The learned advocate for the respondnets also brought to the notice of the Court that the judgement of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos . 9378/95 and 9379/95 dated 30-10-1996 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India opined that the Casual Labour having temporary status is not entitled to the wages at par with the licensed porters and further held that the licensed porters cannot be treated at par with even the casual labour engaged by the railways . In view of my above discussion it is clear that there no merits in this Industrial Dispute and thereby liable to be dismissed.

14. In the result, the Industrial Dispute in I.D. 21 / 1998 is hereby dismissed answering the reference that the action of the Railway administration in not regularzing the services of the licesed porters employed at twenty two Railway Stations is justified and they are not entitled for any relief.

Dictated to the Junior Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and the seal of this Court on this the 19th day of November , 2005 .

M. RADHA KUMARI , Chairman APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

for Petitioner

Witnesses Examined for Respondent

WW1 D. Souri

MWI T. Saigopal

WW2 : T. Kotaiah

MW2 : K. Madhava Rao

WW3 : V. Veeriah

MW3 S. Siva Prasad Reddy

WW4: G.V. Sambasiva Rao MW4 : M.Papa Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI : Conciliation Failure Report.

Documents marked for the Respondent (By consent)

Ex.M1 : Xerox copy of license issued to K.M. Kotswar Rao

Ex.M2 : Xerox copy of license issued to G. Chandra Mohan.

12. According to the respondents, the petitioner- porters are not under their control and they being engaged by their maistry only whenever there is necessity of loading and unloading at the parcel office on the arrival of the train and they would attend for a while of fifteen minutes and not full time porters as that of permanent porters who would attend the work of loading and unloading normally and occasionally only they are utilizing services of these porters . They are mainly attending and carrying the luggage of passengers from Railway Station to the outside after being loading and unloading . They are getting income from three sources (1 ) from the passengers for carrying their luggage (2) from the merchant for carrying their parcels from outside parcel office to parcel office and vice -versa (3) from the railways for carrying their parcels from parcel officeto break work. On perusing the evidence discussed above it is clear that the petitioner- porters were never under the Pay Rolls/Muster Rolls and under the control of the railways . As argued by the learned adocate for the respondents the petitioner has not produced any appointment orders , salary slips etc. , to show that they working like that of permanent porters . As per the arguments of the learned advocate for the respondents as per the Circular dated 18-11-2003 of the railways instructing not to utilize the licensed porters for parcel handling and thereby they stopped utilizing their services at twenty two railway stations for loading and unloading of parcels into break van and he produced the said circular before the Court . So in view of my above discussion it is clear that the petitioner - porters are not under the control of the respondents and they are only part time porters being engaged by themselves on the arrival of the train to the parcel and their inain source of income is from the passengers and merchants for carrying their luggage and parcels respectively from outside the station to the station and vice - versa and being paid by them only. They are not under the control of and Muster Rolls of the respondents . So it is not possible for the respondents to regularize all these porters as that of permanent porters as claimed by them and to pay as that of the permanent porters even though there is no work to them and they are doing their own work of carrying passengers luggage merchants parcels ctc. , as enumerated above .

Ex.M 3 : Xerox copy of license issued to P. Venkateswara Rao .

13. As arged by the learned advocate for the respondents, the decision of the Apex Court in W.P. No. 507/1992 along with W.P. Nos . 415/92 and 82/93 are not

Ex.M 4 : Xerox extract of time table and charges .

13727

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष, 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Ex.M 5 : Statement of Licensed porters.

Ex.M 6 : Statement of Trends in Parcel Traffic.

Ex.M 7 : Statement.

Ex.M 8 : Xerox copy of licensed Remuneration Bill .

नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4763.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, गुवाहटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/131 /2003- आई.आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधर , सचिव New Delhi, the 29th November, 2005~ S.O. 4763. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award [Ref. No. 19/2004] of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of Union Bank of Inflia and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-11- 2005.

[No. L- 12011 / 131/2003 - IR (B -II)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

Sri H.A. Hazarika,

Presiding Officer,

between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their Workmen for adjudication and to pass an award by exercising power conferred under Clause (d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub -section (2A) ofSection 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication on the basis of the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India by not filling up the post of Head Cashier Category ' E ' at the erstwhile SSB , Chandmari Branch, Guwahati on permanent basis (thereby discontinuing the officiating arrangement) w.e.f. 17-9-2001 is justified ? if not, what relief the eligible employees are entitled to ?"

2. Record put up at " Lok Adalat " (People's Court ) today at Vishnu Nirmala Trust (Hall) , Latasil , Guwahati - 1 . 3. Seen the compromise petition jointly signed by Sri R.R. Mahanti , Senior Manager, H.R. for the Management ofUnion Bank of India and Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union, NER, which is signed and forwarded by the Conciliators , Sri Anilendra Nath Sarma and Sri Phanindra Nath Sarma, both of them are retired Judge of State Labour Court, Guwahati .

4. The compromise petition is accepted. "The referred matter is disposed of on compromise with compromise award. Send this to Central Government as per procedure immediately.

H.A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT " BISHNU NIRMALA TRUST" , LATASH , GUWAHATI, IN . RELATION TO THE CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Date: 10-11-2005

Reference Case No. 19 OF 2004

Union Bank of India, Guwahati

Vrs .

G.S.U.B.T. Union,

NER, Guwahati

CGIT-cum -Labour Court, Guwahati

Reference Case No. 19 of 2004

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

The Management of Union Bank of India , Chandmari .

Vrs .

Their Workmen rep . by the

General Secretary. Union Employees Union , K.C. Road . Fancy Bazar , Guwahati -3 .

Dated of Award : 10-11-05

AWARD

1. The Government of India . Ministry of Labour New Delhi , vide its Notification No. L- 12011/ 131/2003 - IR (B - II) dated 18-09-2003 referred this Industrial Dispute arose 3557 G1/2005-8

May it please your honour,

We the parties above named have arrived at a compromise/settlement in the above Referred Casc dispute. No coercion or force / temptation has been made to any of the parties to arrive at the compromise.

We therefore request to record the comproinise/ conciliation/ settlement made before the Lok Adalat and pass order/award accordingly today itself Terms of compromise

We have settled the dispute amicably

Signature of Workman/ Sd./-(illegible) Sd./-(Illegible) Signature of Management/ Complainant/Petitioner. Opposite party:.

Signature of Advocate Signature of Advocate

Sd./-(Illegible)

Signature of Conciliators .

13728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर , 2005

management of Union Bank of India and their Workmen for adjudication and to pass an award by exercising power conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-section ( 1 ) and Sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act , 1947 for adjudication on the basis of the following Schedule SCHEDULE

का.आ. 4764- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीष, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकारण/ श्रम न्यायालय गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/53/2003- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in not appointing Smt . Menaka Das and Shri Parashu Ram Mudoi as Computer Operator w.e.f. 10-8-1999 and 24-12-1999 respectively and also action of the management in imposing bar on Smt. Das and Shri Mudoi against their appointment as Computer Operator is justified? If not, what relief Smt. Das and Shri Mudoi is entitled to? "

NewDelhi, the 29th November, 2005

S. 4764 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 16/2004 of the Cent.Govt . Indus . Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005 ,

2. Record put up at " Lok Adalat " (People's Court) today at Vishnu Nirmala Trust (Hall ), Latasil, Guwahati- 1. 3. Seen the compromise petition jointly signed by Sri R.R. Mahafiti , Senior Manager, H.R. for the Management of Union Bank of India and Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union, NER , which is signed and forwarded by the Conciliators. Sri Anilendra Nath Sarma and Sri Phanindra Nath Sarma , both of them are retired Judge of State Labour Court . Guwahati .

[No. L- 12011 /53/2003 - IR (B- II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

4. The compromise petition is accepted. The referred matter is disposed of on compromise with compromise award. Send this to Central Government as per procedure immediately.

H.A. HAZARIKA, Presiding Officer IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present:

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT "BISHNU NIRMALA TRUST " , LATASIL , GUWAHATI, IN RELATION TO THE CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Dated: 10-11-2005

Ref. Case No. 16 of 2004.

Sri H.A. Hazarika , Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum-Labour Court, Guwahati

Union Bank of India , Guwahati

Ref. Case No. 16 of 2004

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :-

Vs. Workmen represented by G.S. Employees Union , NER, Guwahati

May it please your honour ,

TheManagement of Union Bank of India , Chendmari.

Vrs.

We, the parties above named have arrived at a compromise/settlement in the above Referred Case. No coercion or force/temptation has been made to any of the parties to arrive at the compromise/conciliation .

Thais Workmen rep. by the, General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union, K.C. Road, Fancy Bazar , Guwahati-3.

We, therefore, request to record the compromise/ conciliation/settlement made before the Lok Adalat and pass order/award accordingly today itself. Terms of compremise

We have settled the matter amicably Dated ofAward : 10-11-2005 AWARD

Sd./-(legible)

Sid:/-(Illegible)

Signature of Workman/

Signature of Management/ Complainant/Petitioner.

Signature of Advocate

Opposite party. Signature of Advocate

Sd./-(Illegible)

1. The Gancrement of India, Ministry of Labour,New Delhi , vide its Notification: No. L- 12011 /53/2003 - IR (B - II) dated 24-06-2003 and 18-7-2003 referred this Industrial Dispute arosebetween the employers in relation to the

Signature of Conciliators.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005 /पौष 3, 1927

13729 नई दिल्ली, 29 नवम्बर, 2005

today at Vishnu Nirmala Trust ( Hall ) , Latasil . Guwahati- 1 .

का. आ. 4765- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( औद्योगिक विवाद धारा 33ए के अंतर्गत औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 02/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

3. Seen the compromise petition jointly signed by Sri R. R. Mahanti , Senior Manager , H. R. for the Management of Union Bank of India and Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, General Secratary, Union Bank Employees Union , NER, Which is signed and forwarded by the Conciliators, Sri Anilendra Nath Sarma and Sri Phanindra Nath Sarma , both of them are retired Judge of State Labour Court, Guwahati .

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

NewDelhi , the 29th November, 2005

4. The compromise petition is accepted . The case received is disposed of on compromise with compromise award. Send this to Central Government as per procedure immediately.

H. A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT " BISHNU NIRMALA TRUST", LATASIL, GUWAHATI, IN RELATION TO THE CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

S.O. 4765. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Cent . Government Indus . Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Guwahati (filedunder Section 33 -A in the matter of Ref. No. 02/2004 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005.

Dated: 10-11-2005 Case No. 2 of 2004 [No. L- 12025/3/2005 - IR (B - II )] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

Union Bank of India, Vrs.

ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

G. S. Union Bank Employees ' Union , NER .

May it please your honour,

PRESENT: Sri H.A. Hazarika, Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum -Labour Court, Guwahati

Case No. 2 of 2004

In the matter of a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act between :-

We the parties above named have arrived at a compromise/settlement in the above Misc . Case/Case/ Dispute . No coercion or force/temptation has been made to any of the parties to arrive at the compromise/ conciliation.

Union Bank Employess Union (NER) , K. C. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati - 1 Vrs.

We therefore request to record the compromisc/ conciliation/settlement made before the Lok Adalat and pass order/ award accordingly today itself.

The Management of Union Bank of India , Chandmari .

Terms of compromise

Date of Award : 10-11-2005 AWARD

We have settled the matter amicably

Signature of Wortan Opposite

Signature of Management/ Complainat/Petitioner.

1. 12-5-04 Received an application Union Section 33 -A of the Industrial Dispute Act apprehending violation of condition of service during the pendency of the Ref No. 10 ( C)/02.

The case is registered and number as Case No. 15(C) of2004.

Signature of Advocate Signature of Adver Signature of Conciliators. नई दिल्ली , 29 नवम्बर, 2005 Now issue notice to the opposite party to opposite party to file their objection on or before 18-5-2004 and objection hearing.

का. आ. 4766.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केके बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 2 H. A. HAZARIKA, Presiding Officer Record put up at " Lok Adalat" (People's Court) 13730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

अधिकरण गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( औद्योगिक विवाद धारा 33 ए के अंतर्गत औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 03/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकारको 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-12025 /3/2005- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव NewDelhi , the 29th November, 2005 S.O. 4766.-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- cum- Labour Court , Guwahati ( filed under Section 33 - A in the matter ofRef. No. 03/2004) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofUnion Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005 .

[No. L- 12025/3/ 2005 - IR (B - II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM PRESENT: Sri H.A. Hazarika ,

Presiding Officer, GIT-cum - Labour Court , Guwahati

Case No. 3 of 2004

In the matter of a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial Dispute Act between :-

The General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union , K. C. Road , Fancy Bazar, Guwahati -3

Vrs.

The Management of Union Bank of India , Chandmari .

Date of Award : 10-11-2005

AWARD

16-6-04 Received a petition Under Section 33 -A of the Industrial Dispute Act filed by the Secy. Union Bank Employees Union- Petitioner alleging that the management has violated the prohibitory order as passed on 18-5-2004 by this Tribunal.

Registered a Misc Case No. 16 ( C ) of 2004 .

Issue show - cause notice upon the management- Q.P.to show cause as to why a appropriate action should not be taken fixing 9-7-04 .

H. A. HAZARIKA . Presiding Officer

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) | BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT " BISHNU NIRMALA TRUST", LATASIL, GUWAHATI, IN RELATION TO THE CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI

Date: 10-11-2005 Case No. 3 of 2004

Union Bank of India,

Guwahati

Vrs.

G. S. Union Bank Employees Union NER.

May it please your honour ,

We the parties above named have arrived at a compromise settlement in the above Case mentioned below. No coercion or force/temptation has been made to any of the parties to arrive at the compromise .

We therefore request to record the compromise/ conciliation/settlement made before the Lok Adalat and pass order/ award accordingly today itself.

Terms of compromise/Conciliation .

We have settled the matter amicably

Signature of Management/ Complainat/Petitioner.

Signature of Workınan/ Opposite party.

Signature of Advocate

Signature of Advocate Signature of Conciliators .

नई दिल्ली , 29 नवम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4767.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( औद्योगिक विवाद धारा 33 ए के अंतर्गत औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 01/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12025/3 /2005- आई.आर. ( बी -11 ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th November , 2005 S.O. 4767.-In purance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1047 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publisher the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Guwahati ( filed under Section 33 -A in the matter of Ref No. 01/2005) as shown in the Annexure in the Industria! Dispute between the omployers in relation to the management ofUnion Bank of India and their workman, which ivas received by the Contral Government on 28-11-2005 .

No.L- 12 (125/3/2005 - IR (B- 110 ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy:

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

13731

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

PRESENT: Sri H.A. Hazarika, Presiding Officer, CGIT- cum-Labour Court, Guwahti .

Case No. 1 of 2005,

In the matter of a complaint under Section 33A of the Industrial DisputeAct

BETWEEN:

TheGeneral Secretary, UnionBank Employees Union, K.C. Road, FancyBazar, Guwahati -3 .

VRS

The Chairman & Managing Director of Union Bank of India, Chandmari .

Date ofAward: 10-11-2005.

AWARD

1. Seen the petition U/ s 33 -A of the Industrial Dispute Act . 1947 , filed by the General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union (NER) Ghy.

Heard Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty. The petition is admitted for hearing . Register it as a Case and issue notice to the O.P. to show cause as to why the prayer of the petitioner should not be allowed fixing 04-04-2005 .

Petitioner will take steps within 3 days.

H.A. HAZARIKA, Presiding Officer 2.Record put up at " Lok Adalat " (People's Court ) today at Vishnu Nirmala Trust (Hall ) , Latasil , Guwahati - 1 .

3. Seen the compromise petition jointly signed by Sri R.R. Mahanti , Senior Manager, H.R. for the Management of Union Bank of India and Sri Jagannath Chakrabarty, General Secretary, Union Bank Employees Union , NER, Which is signed and forwarded by the Conciliators , Sri Anilendra Nath Sarma and Sri Phanindra Nath Sarma, both of them are retired judge of State Labour Court , Guwahati .

4. The compromise petition is accepted . The case received is disposed of on compromise with compromise award, Send this to Central Government as per procedure immediatly.

H.A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE LOK ADALAT AT "BISHNU NIRMALA TRUST" LATASIL, GUWAHATI, IN RELATION TO THE CGIT-CUM -LABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI,

Date:-10-11-2005 .

CaseNo:- 1 of2005 .

Union ofIndia -vs- G.S.Union Bank

EmployeesUnion ,NER May it please your honour,

We the parties above named have arrived at a compromise/ settlement in the above Case dispute as per No coercion or force/ temptation has been made to any ofthe parties to arrive at the compromise.

We therefore request to record the compromise / conciliation/settlement made before the Lok Adalat and pass order / award accordingly today itself.

Terms ofcompromise,

Wehave settled the matter amiocably

Sd./-Illegible Signature ofmanagement Complainant/Petitioner Signature of Advocate

Sd./-Jagannath Chakraborty Signature ofWorkman. Opposite party. Signature ofAdvocate. Sd/-

Signature ofconciliators.

नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4768.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई न ० 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2001 )को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-31011 /1/2001 - आई.आर. ( एम. ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi the 30th November 2005 S.O. 4768. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/ 2001) ofthe Cent . Govt. Indus . Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Mumbai Port Trust, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 30/11/2005

[No- L- 31011 /1 /2001 - IR(M)] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

13732

ANNEXURE

MBPT led the evidence in the form of affidavit sworn and affirmed by Shri Ramesh Shivaram Gadawale.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI

7. The parties have also filed written submissions. Ihave also heard oral submissions made by the parties. I have also perused the records .

PRESENT:

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT - 12 OF 2001

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management

ofMumbai Port Trust

AND

Transport and Dock Workers Union.

Appearances :

: Mr. M. B. Anchan , Adv .

Forthe Management

For the Union

Mr. koyande Adv.

: Maharashtra

State

Mumbai the 8th day of November, 2005 .

AWARD

1.This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub section 1 ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short) vide Government of India , Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi Order No. L - 31011 / 1 /2001 /IR (M) dated 20/3/2001 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of MBPT in deducting 20 days wages from 1-8-1998 to 20-8-1998 of General Purpose Mazdoors ( GPMs ) and not paying the difference of wages from 1-3-1994 for having deployed in place of Sr, Workers is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

2.The Transport and Dock Worker's Union, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ' Union " ) filed the Statement of claim dated 28-9-2001 through its President.

3. In reply to the aforesaid Statement of Claim , the Mumbai Port Trust ( hereinafter referred to for short as MBPT has filed the Written Statement dated01-5-2002.

4. The Union filed a Rejoinder dated 05/9/2002 . The Predecessor in Office framed the following Issues on 28-10-2002.

(a) Whether the Mumbai Port Trust had paid the differential wages for taking the work of senior workers (i.e. Stevedore workers like Winch drivers , Hatch Foreman, and Tindels ) from General Purpose Mazdoors from 1-3-1994 as and when the work was taken from them ?

8. The case of the Union is that the workman employed by MBPT are distributed in different categories . Each category has approved duty list and the concerned workmen are deployed for work accordingly. The category included in the instant reference is General Purpose Mazdoors (GPM) . They were registered as GPMs with Ex . Bombay Dock Labour Board (Ex - PBDLB) on 01-6-1983 . After the registration a meeting was held on 09-12-1986 with the management and approved duty list was prepared. The BDLB was merged in the MBPT on 01-4-1994 and all categories ofworkmen registered with the Board were absorbed as employees of MBPT and thus they became employees of MBPT. In the year 1993 , about 640GPMs were promoted to the category of Senior workers . They have different wage scales . In respect of the promotion there was shortage in supply of Senior workers , Winch Drivers , Hatch Foreman , and Tindels , Therefore , large number ofGPMs are deployed to work as Senior workers on day to day basis . The GPMs duty list does not include theduties of the work performed by the Stevedore workers i.e. Senior workers , Winch Drivers , Hatch Foreman and Tindels but with the intention that the work may not hamper; The Union agreed to the proposal of MBPT that GPMswill perform the duties of Senior workers for which they will be paid higher wages . The GPMs were deployed as Senior workers but they have not been paid the differential wages w.e.f.01-3-1994. However, the GPMS continued to work as Senior workers . In the year 1997 , a meeting to resolve the dispute of non - payment of differential wages was held with the MBPT and it was agreed that the differential wages would be paid . Accordingly, a committee was formed consisting of Dy. Manager (OBL) and CPIRM both Officers of MBPT and a Senior Representative of the Union . However, MBPT calculated the amount of differential wages on its own without consulting the Union and paid the differential wages which were not sufficient. The demand for non- payment went on . At last, the GPMs refused to work as Senior workers w.e.f. 01-8-1998 , They did not refused to work to the duties of G.P.Ms. They did not resume the work of Senior workers upto 20-8-1998 . Thereafter, they resusmed duties on receiving a warning letter fromt he MBPT. The management deducted the wages for the aforesaid period ,.

(b) Whether the Mumbai Port Trust authorized to deduct wages of 20 days for the period of 1-8-1998 to 20-1-1998?

9. The contention of the Union is that it appears to be wrong on the face of it on the part of the management for not paying the differential wages to the GP Ms who hadbeen deployed to work as Senior workers as compact gang, since it is the admitted position that the differential wages have been paid to the GPMs when they are being 6. The Union led evidence in the form of affidavit sworn and affirmed by Shri . Ram Kanaiah Yadav. The [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

13733

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

anyother work on the same basis of the manning scale in case thejobs for which they were booked originally cannot be carried out . " deployed in case of short supply of one or two senior workers. The GPMs never refused to perform duties of GPMs as such and hence the action of the management in deducting the wages is illegal.

8. G.P.Ms shall carry out such other work as duly approved from time to time . Whenever it is found that B.P.T. shed is either congested and/or otherwise diffeculties are there for making the room for receipt offurther cargo the G.P.Ms on specific instructions being issued in this regard shall carry out such work and do everything with a view to cause room being created for receipt of such cargo. "

10. The contention of the management is that whenever the GPMs are booked in the Stevedoring gang dueto shortage of Stevedoring workers as a replacement. they are being paid the differential wages of Senior stevedore workers ; but if they are asked to work as a Compact gang for stevedoring , work, they are not entitled for differential wages on account of their deployment in accordance with duties and the manning scale of GPM workers . As per Memorandum of Agreement dated 03-12-1991 the condition of inter changeability was agreed uponby Clause (ii ) and Clause ( iii) of the said agreement which are quoted as below :

11. In view of the above , the management has alleged that it had the right to deploy the G.P.Ms as Compact gang to work as Senior workers since the approved manning scale of 1 + 7 i.e. One Tindel and 7 G.P.M. at Sr. No. 8 of the manning scale was there as part of the duty list for the G.P.M.s to work in place of Stevedoring work. Since G.P.M. refused to work in place of Stevedoring work for the admitted period w.e.f. 01-8-98 to 20-8-98, the management was right in deducting the wages keeping in mind the formula of" No work , No Pay " . The refusal on the part of the Union for the aforesaid period was illegal . The management also alleged that in view of the meeting with the Union on 26-5-1998 , the management decided to form 80 gangs ofG.P.Ms but the gangs could not be actually formed in view of stiff resistance from the warring groups of the workers .

FINDING:

Clause ( ii ): The workers agree to do work allotted to them by the Bombay Dock Labour Board and no distinction will be made of separate Schemes as existed hereinbefore. All Schemes other than " Chipping and Painting Workers Scheme " would be merged as one single scheme for cargo handling workers of Port and appropriate amendments would be made in the respective Schemes to ensure that the schemes are merged into one. Chipping and Painting Workers will be absorbed in the CME's Department of the Bombay Port Trust as and when the scheme becomes viable . However workers in higher grade would not be asked to carry out work done by lower grade workers except in cases where the workers are upgraded as per the agreement with the Unions . It is hereby understood clearly that there could be interchangeability between workers belonging to different schemes such as Clearing and Forwarding , Food grain , GPM and Senior workers of Stevedoring scheme , etc. "

Clause ( iii) : Any labour which in the opinion of the Bombay Dock Labour Board is rendered surplus will be suitably redeployed after necessary training is given to them"

The duty list and the manning scale were approved inthe meeting dated 09-12-1986. The duties of the G.P. Ms are as follows:

Work.on Shore

12. On the basis of the evidence filed on record, this much is clear that the G.P.Ms were deployed to work asSenior workers as and when shortage of senior workers was there . The deployment had been sometimes by replacing one or two workers only and sometimes as a Compact Gang which consisted of 1 + 7 in accordance with the manning scale . It is also the admitted position that whenever the G.P.Ms were being deployed as replaced to cover up the shortage of one or two Stevedoring workers. the differential wages were paid by the management to the G.P.Ms. The dispute which lies in between the workers and the management is with respect to non - payment of differential wages when the G. P.Ms were being deployed to work as Senior workers as a Compact gang.

"All types ofjobs which are not carried out either by the registered Stevedore workmen or B.P.T. workmen or Chipping & Painting Workers, shall be done by the G.P.M. Workers including the following:

7. "Whenever the work at a point is completed and/ of otherwise the work on the vessel is completed the G.P.Ms shall go over to any other point or vessel under the same Registered employer. WheneverG.P.M. gangs and Complement thereto afre booked for specific jobs as per manning scale , such workmen shall carry out

13. The contention of the management appears to be right in view of the meetings with the Union from time to time. The relevant portions have already been quoted above . The manning scale is admittedly there . The duties ofthe G.P.Ms at Serial No.8 clearly implies that the G.P.Ms couldbe well asked to work as compact gang i.e. 1 + 7 for stevedoring work. In this view of the matter the Union has no right to raise the objection . However, I feel that the objection of the Union appeared to be right if the legal position of "Equal pay for Equal work" is kept in mind and thatbeing so the management should pay the differential 13734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

wages to the Compact gang as well and cannot escape the liability by saying that it would amount to promotion of the entire lot. But the agreement arrived at in between the Union and the management debars the Union from claiming the differential wages as a right if the G.P.Ms are asked to work as a Compact gang for stevedoring work . Had there been no agreement in between the Union and the Management for manning scale of duties etc. the Union would have been right in claiming the differential wages . The management also realized the grievances of the workers and for this another meeting was held in 1998 and to help the workers , it was agreed to form 80 Gangs . However, this formation of gang could not be materialized inview of stiff resistance by the erstwhile warkers . The matter is still hanging on. It needs consideration for early solution of the problem on the part of the management . Till the solution is made, I feel the Union in the instant reference cannot claim as of right the differential wages to the G.P.Ms who were deployed to work for Stevedoring as a Compact gang .

14. Since the workers under the reference admittedly refused to work as Senior workers for the period in question i.e. 01-8-1998 to 20-8-1998 their refusal cannot be said to be justifiable . No doubt , they were ready to perform the duties of G.P.Ms but they were not doployed as such but they were asked to work for stevedoring to which the workers admittedly refused. Hence the management was right in deducting the wages. It may also be mentioned that some of the workers who opted for booking work were actually paid the wages . The ruling relied upon by the Union reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 2010 Union of India vs. K.V. Janakiraman does not help them on the facts and circumstances of the present case where the Supreme Courtobserved in the aforesaid ruling that normal rule of No work no pay is not applicable to the cases where the employee although willing to work was kept away from workby theAuthority for no fault ofhis. Here , the workers refused to work for Stevedoring for which they had no right and in fact they were duly performing such duties frombefore . All of a sudden they resorted to no work . It was their fault and hence they were rightly not paid the wages for the period in question.

15: In view of what has been discussed above , conclude that the action of the management of MBPT in deduction 20 days wages from 01-8-1998 to 20-8-1998 of the G.P.Ms and not paying differential wages w.e.f. Ist March 1994 for having deployed in place of Senior workers islegal and justified Hence the workmen are not entitled to any relief by this tribunal .

16. The reference is accordingly answered.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, PresidingOfficer

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4769.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ ट्रावनकोर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , कोझीकोडे, केरल स्टेट के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या आई डी ( सी) -1/04 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

1 [सं ० एल-12012/209/2003- आई आर( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st December 2005

S.O. 4769-. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award. [ I.D. (C) No 1/04 ] 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 State Bank of Travancore and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-11-2005.

[No. L- 12012/ 209/2003 - IR(B. - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, KERALA STATE

Dated this the 18th Day of November, 2005. PRESENT: SHRI K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, B.Com. , LL.B. , PresidingOfficer . LD. (C) No. 1/04

BETWEEN:

1. The Chairman, State Bank of Travancore , HeadOffice, Poojappura, Trevandrum - 695012 .

2. The Assistant General Manager , Region- III , State Bank of Travancore , Zonal Office , P.B. No. 25 , Kozhikode-673004 . ....Management AND

A. Balakrishnan,

Sangeetha,

....Workman Ambalapady, Thullissery Road, Wandoor.P.O. , Malappuram-679328.

Representations:-

SriK.P. Damodaran Nambiar, Advocate, Calicut

... ForManagement .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

13735

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

Sri P. Muhammed Haneef, Advocate , Calicut

....For Workman,

AWARD

This reference was made by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour u/ s 10 ( 1) ( d) and Sub Section ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act to adjudicate the justifiability and correctness of the action of the management in disniissing the worker by name , Sri Balakrishnan from service and to pass further reliefs .

2. The worker by name Sri A. Balakrishnan while employed as a clerk/ cashier in the Manjeri branch of the management Bank was dismissed from service on the charge ofunauthorised withdrawal and mis - appropriation of funds front the customer's accounts through fictitious and fraudulent means and destroying some documents to cover up the fraud committed. Punishment was imposed after conducting a domestic enquiry through a senior officer of the Bank who held the worker guilty of all the charges . Ultimately the industrial dispute raised by the worker was referred to this Court and accordingly this I.D. was registered .

3. On appearance the worker challenged the very impartiality of the Enquiry Officer and the validity and propriety of the enquiry on various grounds. On the other hand, the management filed a statement supporting the correctness of the procedure of enquiry and conclusions entered by the Enquiry Officer. The validity and fairness ofthe enquiry was considered as a preliminary point . After enquiry the enquiry was found to have been fairly and properly held in accordance with law and majority of charges stands proved by legal and factual evidence. After upholding the enquiry bolk parties were heard on the proportionality of punishment .

4. The only point for consideration is:-

Whether or not the impugned punishment was just and proper?

5. It was contended by the worker in his statement that the capital punishment of dismissal from service is illegal , improper unwarranted and unjustifiable . It was further stated that the worker being a physical handi- capped person having a clean service record and his whole family are dependent on him. On the other hand, management contends that the punishment awarded commensurates with the gravity of mis - conduct proved against the workman and in terms of the bi -partite settlement and if such dishonest and disloyal workers are treated with leniency, it will have a demoralising effect on the employees working honestly. No doubt, physical disability of an errant worker cannot be a licence for the commission of any malpractice or fraud . But in this case it could be seen from evidence that it was impossible to commit the alleged fraud without the active or passive connivance or knowledge of co -workers . I have also he'd 3557 G1/2005-9

that the management has not succeeded in proving the charge of distruction of evidence to conceal fraudulent acts . There is also no evidence to show that the Bank has sufferred any monitory loss on account of the misdeeds committedby the worker as have been repaid . The worker has also long unblemished service of more than two decades . So the facts and circumstances do not warrant imposition of extreme penalty of removal from service which appears to the shockingly disproportionate to the misdemeanour committed. Interest of justice could be adequately met by reinstating the worker in service and forfeiting his entire backwages, and seniority by way of punishment .

6. In the result, an award is passed setting aside the action ofthe management Bank dismissing the worker from service. In lieu there of management is directed to reinstate the worker in service by forfeiting the entire backwages and seniority by way of punishment within 30 days of pronouncement of award .

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , transcribed by her, revised, corrected and passed by me on the 18th day ofNovember, 2005 .

K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, PresidingOfficer Appendix

Witnesses examined from the side of the Worker:- WW1 Balakrishnan.A. Witnesses examined from the side of the Management: - MW1 Sethumadhavan.P. Documents marked from the side of the Worker:- NIL. Documents marked from the side of the Management:-- Ext. Ml Register of Eenquiry Proceedings and depositions .

Ext. M2 File of Charge sheet , Reply to charge sheet, Report ofEnquiryOfficer, Preliminary Order, Final Order and Order of the Appellate Authority.

Ext. M3 File containing marked documents of the Enquiry Officer. (Ext.Pl to P31 )

नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4770.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी -168/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-41012/91/2001- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी 13736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 1st December, 2005

S.O. 4770. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID. No. 168/2001) 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 Central Railway and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 30-11-2005

[No. L- 41012/91/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ]

nor has been appointed as MRCL although he has been successful in the medical examination and is as such eligible for being appointed as MRCL . It is alleged that action of the opposite party in not granting the MRCL status to the worker and not appointing him as such is arbitrary, illegal , unjust and unfair and discriminatory as other workers have been allowed to work and given appointment in subsequent years . Worker has therfore prayed that the court be pleased to declare that the termination of the worker from 28-7-89 is illegal and worker be declare to be in continous employment of the opposite party. Accordingly, the worker has prayed for all consequential benfits .

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

Shrikant Shukla , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 168/2001

Ref. No. L -41012 /91 /2001 - IR(B - I ) dated : 15-11-2001

BETWEEN:

Shri Anil Jantes

S/o. Shri Hundry Nikil House No. 2.Gopal Nagar Mathura - 281001 .

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager ( P)

CentralRailway.

Jhansi - 284001 .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide their order No. L 41012/91/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) dated: 15-11-2001 has referred following dispute for adjudication to the Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal- eum -Labour Court . Lucknow for adjudication.

The opposite party has filed written statement and has submitted that requirement of casual water workman varied from year to year and on every station before the beginning of the season list of casual water man was pasted and the workmen who had worked as casual waterman in the preceding year work to contact the concerned station master/ manager for re - engagement as casual water man . The concerned workman has never approached the concerned station master /manager. It is also mentioned that the workman who were senior on call were given engagement as casual waterman as every year because ofimplantation of water coolers and other drinking water facilities at various stations the requirement of casual water workman gradually reduced therefore the concerned workman was not given re -engagement in the year 1990 onwards . The engagement of the casual waterman was strictly for a limited period beginning April and ending on the onset of mansoon . In the engagement letter it is a condition precedent that the services of the casual watermen willbe for a specific period and will automatically come to an end on the specific date mentioned in the engagement letter or on the onset of monsoon whichever is carlier. In the circumstances , the opposite party has neither acted arbitrarily illegal, unjust and unfair nor has done any discrimination with the concerned workmen for not granting him the MRCL status , as he was not found cligible for grant of MRCL status . The worker filed rejoinder.

"क्या मण्डल रेल प्रबंधक, मध्य रेलवे, झांसी द्वारा कर्मकार श्री अनिल जेम्स को दिनांक 28-7-89 से सेवा समाप्त किया जाना एवं पुनः सेवा में नहीं लिया जाना न्यायोचित्त है ? यदि नहीं तो सम्बंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "

The worker did file statement of claim that he was appointed as casual labour by the opposite party on 26-6-85 and continued to work till 14-7-85 . He was again appointed as casual waterman on 1-4-86 and continued as such. till 27-7-86 . He was also engaged on 6-4-87 and continued as such till 27-7-87 . Thereafter, he was again appointed as causal water man on 15-4-89 and continued as such till 27-7-89 . It is alleged that the termination of appointment of the worker from 28-7-89 by the opposite party is illegal . It is further alleged that the worker has neither been appointed as casual waterman after 27-7-89

On 26-10-2005 the worker requested time to get the matter settled in Lok Adalat scheduled to be held today i.e. 23-11-2005 . The worker was allowed to compromise the case in Lok Adalat scheduled today and at the same time it was ordered that in default the court shall proceed to decide the case according to law. Today is date fixed for compromise in Lok Adalat, alternatively for the disposal of the case . The worker has not turned up nor his representative has turned up . However , one Ajay Kumar, Advocate states that he is junior to Sh . Devesh Agnihotri and moved application C -41 . He has stated that worker has been offered service in Railway department therefore, worker does not wish to adjudicate the case . Application C-41 moved by Sh . Ajay Kumar is not maintainable in as much as he has not been authorised by the worker to [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

13737

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

AYE- AMM / 5. श्री भवानी दीन OBC 05-10-64327102

21-10-05 Two ETD/ CNB पुत्र श्री राम टहलू

6. श्री अनिल जेम्स UR

13-11-66 327099

24-10-05

Bee- DY CMM / Two JHS पुत्र श्री हैन्डी

माईकल

AYE- DY CMM/ 7. श्री राजकुमार SC 05-11-67 327104

Two JHS

21-10-05

पुत्र श्री रघुवीर

8. श्री राम प्रकाश SC 01-12-61 327110 Bee- DY CMM/

27-10-05 One JHS पुत्र श्रीमातादीन

appear for him . Thereafter, Sh. S.N. Mishra, Law Asstt. filed application A -40 along with photo stat copy of appointment letter in respect of Anil James which is paper No. 42. By perusal of letter A -42 it is clear that the worker, Sh . Anil James S/o Hundry Michel has been appointed as regular worker ( Kanisht Khalasi ) in scale of Rs . 2550- 3200 ( RSRP ) . The worker has also sent the application to the effect that he has been appointed in the regular scale as such he has resumed his duties as regular worker of railways . He has also stated that now there exists no dispute between parties and the dispute be closed .

In the circumstances mentioned above No Claim Award is passed in view of application worker , A-40 and appointment letter, A -42 .Award passed accordingly. Paper No. A-40 and A-42 should be the part of Award .

Lucknow 23-11-2005

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer

उत्तर मध्य रेल भण्डारविभाग भण्डारडिपो,झांसी वा.आ. सं. 81 , वर्ष 2005

(वर्ग घ)

निम्नलिखित अभ्यर्थियो को मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक/कार्मिक झांसी के पत्र सं. झांसी/पी161 कै.ले./भर्ती दि. 19-04-2005 एवं 31-05-2005 के अनुसार स्क्रीनिंग में उपयुक्त पाया तथा पत्र सं. झांसी/ पी/161/कै.ले./वर्ग घ/ भर्ती दि. 10-06-2005 के अनुसार ज्ञातव्य कराया किमहाप्रबन्धक/उ.म.रे/ इलाहाबाद ने पत्र संख्या 797/ई/उ.म.रे/ कै.ले./ ग्रुप डी/03 दि. 19-11-03 द्वारा भूतपूर्व कैजुअल लेबर/ ग्रीष्म कालीन पानी वालों को नियमित करने हेतु स्क्रीनिंग कमेटी अनुशंसा को अनुमोदन प्रदान किया है ।

इन्हें भण्डार यूनिट झांसी में कनि. खलासी वे.मा. रु. 2550-3200 ( RSRP ) में उनके समक्ष दर्शाये डिपों में पदस्थ किया जाताहै ।

चिकित्सा

क्र. अभ्यर्थी एवं

सं पिता का नाम

जाति जन्म तिथि प्रमाण पत्र

सं एवं दि.

चिकित्सा सदस्य एवं उत्तीर्ण पदस्थडिपो/. श्रेणी कार्यालय

3 4

7 1. श्री रामस्वारूप SC 21-03-60 327105 AYE- DY CMM/

Two JHS

21-10-05

पुत्र श्री गंजू

AYE- DY CMM/ 2. श्री कुन्जीलाल SC 01-07-62 327103

21-10-05 Two JHS पुत्र श्री हरचरण

नोट:-

01. कर्मचारियों की नियुक्ति पूर्णतया अस्थायी है एवं 14 दिन के नोटिस देकर अथवा 14 दिन का वेतन देकर सेवा समाप्त की जा सकती है ।

02. कर्मचारी को भण्डार यूनिट झांसी में कहीं भी स्थानान्तरित्त किया जा सकता है ।

03. कर्मचारी की वरीयता भण्डार यूनिट में पद ग्रहण करने की तिथिसे मानी जायेगी ।

04. क्रम सं. 01 , 02 , 03, 06, 07 एवं 08 को रद्दी अनु. में पदस्थ किया जाता है ।

उ. म. रेल

कार्यालय

उप मु. सा. प्र./झांसी मंमो झां/ई/127

दि. 28-10-2005 प्रतिलिपि

01. मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक कार्मिक /झांसी- सूचनार्थ एवं व. सं. झांसी/पी/ 151/वर्ग/ ध/के. ले./ भर्ती दि. 19-04-05 एवं 31-05-05

02. मुख्य कार्मिक अधिकारी/ भण्डार/इला.

03. भण्डार नियंत्रक/उ. म.रे. /इला.

04. मण्डल सामग्री प्रबन्धक झांसी/ आगरा छा. /इलाहाबाद 05. सहा.सा.प्र. ई. एल. एस/डी/आर. एस. के. ई. टी. डी. झांसी, सिथौली,कानपुर

06. कार वित्त प्रबन्धक सहायक वित्त प्रबन्धक झांसी, सिथौली 07. डी. एम. एस. /डीजल/ आगरा छा. ग्वालियर रददी/ पूल अनुभाग झांसी

3. श्री जगदीश SC 01-07-62 327107 21-10-05

AYE DY CMM/ Two JHS प्रसाद पुत्र श्री

विपतसिंह

4. श्री छोटे लाल OBC 20-02-63 327106 21-10-05

पुत्र श्रीमोहन

RSK/ STLI AYE- AMM Two

08. सूचना पट्ट

09. सचिव एन. सी. आर. एम. यू ( EMS- II )/एन. सी. आर. ई. एस. /एस. सी. एस. टी./ओ . बी. सी. एशोसियेशन भण्डार शाखा झांसी 13738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

10. कार्यालय अधीक्षक समयपाल झांसी

11. सम्बन्धित कर्मचारी

12. फाइल सं झां/स्था/ 159 चतुर्थ श्रेणी/ 117. डी

सहा. सा. प्र. पी. डब्लू. डी/झांसी सेवामें,

पीठासीन अधिकारी

सी जी आई टी एवं लेबर कोर्ट

लखनऊ

महोदय,

निवेदन है कि मेरा प्रकरण आपके समक्ष नौकरी पर पुनः लिया जाने हेतु विचाराधीन है । झांसी मंडल पर मंडल स्तर पर जो केजुअल लेबर सेवा से बाहरं थे एवं जिनके नाम लाईव रजिस्टर पर थे उनको नौकरी पर लिये जाने के लिये प्रशासन ने निर्धारित शर्तों पर स्क्रीनिंग की थी प्रार्थी ने भी रेगुलर किये जाने/नौकरी में पुनः लिये जाने के लिये आवेदन किया था मुझे स्क्रीनिंग कमेटी ने योग्य पाया ।

मुझे उप मुख्य सामग्री प्रबन्धक झांसी के कार्यालय आदेश संख्या 81, वर्ष 2005 मेमू संख्या झांसी ई/ 127 दिनांक 28-10-2005 के द्वारा खलासी वेतनमान रु. 2550-3200 ( आर एस आर पी ) में नियुक्ति दी जाचुकी है तथा मैंने दिनांक 29-10-05 से पदग्रहण कर लिया है तथा मैं नियमित रूप से सेवा कर रहा हूँ ।

प्रार्थना

अतः श्रीमान जी से प्रार्थना है कि आपके समक्ष विचाराधीन विवाद को समाप्त करने की कृपा करें । मेरा प्रशासन के बीच अब कोई भीकिसी भी प्रकार का विवाद नहीं रहा है ।

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the Ist December, 2005 S.O. 4771. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (C. R. No. 53/04) 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 South Western Railway and their workmen, which was receivedby the Central Government on 30-11-2005

[No. L- 41012/8/2004- IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT "SHRAM SADAN" ,

III Main , III Cross , II Phase , Tumkur Road , Yeshwanthpur, Sangalore -560022.

Dated: 14th November , 2005

PRESENT :

Shri A.R. Siddiqui . Presiding Officer

C.R.No. 53/04

I PARTY

II PARTY

Shri M. C. Rajendran,

TheDivisional

Tailor, Uniform Cell

RailwayManager , Senior Divisional Personnel

South Western

Officer's Office , Divisional Office , Railway, Divisional

Personnel Branch, South Western Office , Personnel

Railways , Hubli

न्यायहित में कृपया लम्बित वाद को समाप्त करने की कृपा करें । यह मैं बिना किसी दबाव के स्वेच्छा से लिख कर दे रहा हूँ । दिनांक 18-11-05

स्थानः-झांसी

प्रार्थी

अनिल जेम्स पुत्र,

श्री हेन्ड्री माईकल

उप- मुख्य सामग्री प्रबन्धक झांसी नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 4771 (अ). औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार साउथ वेस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकररण/ श्रम न्यायलय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी आर-537 04) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं . एल -41012/8/2004-आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

Branch, Hubli

AWARD

1. The Central Governmentby exercising the powers conferredby clause ( d ) of sub- section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 has referred this dispute vide order No. L -41012/ 8 /2004 D - IRCB - I ) dated 30thSeptember, 2004 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of South Western Railways in denying promotion to Shri M. C.Rajendran, to HSK II Grade is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. The case ofthe first party workman as made out in the Claim Statement , in brief, is that he joined the services of the management as Tailor w. e . f. 14-6-1978 and was granted temporary status in Unskilled Grade in the grade of Rs. 195-232 erroneously instead of pay scale in the grade of Rs . 260-400 . He was working as Tailor in Uniform Cell from the date he joined the services in which Cell there were 3 posts of Tailors in Grade HSK- 1 , HSK - II and Skilled HSK - 1 which was vacant on account of death of 13739 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

second partyto regularize the services of ELR tailors with effect from 14-10-1978 on pay scale of Rs . 260-400, notionally and to pay the arrears of one year from the date priorto the filling QA No. 319/94 . Further direction was issued to create four posts of tailors in scale of Rs. 260-400. Accordingly the pay offirst party was fixed onproforma basis from 14-10-1978 with arrears from 7-3-1993 . Thereafter the first party workman screened and his services were regularized temporarily as skilled Artisan (tailor) and the first party was transferred to mechanical department till the creation of post in Uniform Cell , Divisional Office , South Central Railway, New South Western Railway, vide memorandum No. H/P535/1/ 1 / Tailors/Vol . 1 of30-7-1997.

That the Railway Board vide memorandum No. 14/ 1999-2000 (UBL2) dated 2-2-2000 communicated the sanction ofpost of two tailors in scale of Rs. 260-400 for South Central Railway now South Western Railway of Hubli Division . Accordingly the first party. was retransfrerred from mechanical department to Uniform Cell of divisional office, as tailor. In view of the creating of additional posts in Rs . 260-400 ; scale revised to 3050-4590 . The total sanction post of tailor thus were uncreased to three , in the cadre of tailors . Further a proposal was sent to Associated Accounts Department during 19-6-2001 to restructure the post of tailor as under:-

TailorArtisan 3050-4590

30% 1Post

30%

Tailor Artisan

1Post

Tailor Artisan

30% 1Post

4500-7000

TailorArtisan

0Post Shri N. Nagaraj on 30-6-1999. The promotion of the other two skilled posts should have been carried out , immediately, so as to fill up the cost of HSK- 1 which was falling vacant and there was ng move for promotion from HSK - 1 and Skilled HSK - II and post of HSK- 1 was kept vacant and so also ofHSK-2 ; that vide official memorandum dated 2nd February, 2000 creation of additional posts of Tailors for Uniform Cell of Hubli Division is sanctioned vide Annexure -Al and thereafter a note dated 14-7-2002 has been submitted as per Annexure - A2 which pertains to non implementation of promotions in cadre of Tailors; that first party gave a representation to management to promote him and remove the gross injustice done to him and since it was not done , he had to raise the dispute on hand; that the management had addressed a letter dated 8th October, 2002 stating that in Hubli Division, 3 posts of Tailors are available in the grade of Rs . 3050-4590 and proposals were sent to accounts treating the Tailors as Artisans and fixing the percentage as per the Railway Board letter dated 27-1-1993 making it clear that the Tailors can be treated as Artisans; that apart the management board has created 3 additional posts of Tailors in the grade of above said grade in Uniform Cell, Hubli Division; that on 18-7-84, the first party has passed the trade test ; that in pursuance ofthe directions given by the CAT Skilled grade has been granted to the first party from the date of his temporary status and he had been fully recommended for promotion to the next higher cadre as per the letter dated 14-7-2002 . Therefore , the first party is fully qualified and eligible to be promoted to the next higher grade and the management with mala fide intention has denied him the promotion causing him undue misery and hardship . Therefore, he is entitled to be promoted to the next higher grade and highly skilled Grade- II andHighly SkilledGrade- I from the date of which he was qualified to be promoted and to get his pay fixed in the promotions cadre alongwith, arrears of the salary.

3. The management by its Counter Statement resisting the claim of the first party as follows:-

That the first party workman joined as EIR Tailor with second Party management with effect from 14-06-1978 . As a matter of fact when the first party workman joined as ELR Tailor, only one sanctioned regular post of tailor was in existence , in Uniform Cell of the division office . In addition to that there were four tailors ELR. Since no vacancy was available to regularize the services of ELR . Their services were not regularized and they continuedto work as ELR tailors .

The Associated accounts department having concurred with the aforesaid proposal suggested to obtain the sanction form the Senior DPO as per the Schedule of powers since he was the competent authority to accord administrative approval for revised percentage of distribution of posts . Further, a clarification was sought by the Sr. DPO/Hubli from the Associated Accounts that in view of the annual review are suspended till further instruction as per serial circular No. 9/93 . As such , the two postconcurred by the Accounts earlier have any impact. by this circlar No. 9/93 , since the two posts were created during 2000. Hence the accounts department have withdrawn their earlier redistribution for the 3 posts as stated above vide this letter dated 5-2-2002 . The said circular and letter in respect of redistribution of tailors post vide No. APE : UBL/Uniform dated 28-7-2001 are herewith produced and marked as document No. 1 and 2 .

That the ELR tailors had failed the application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad , for regularization ofservice in Scale ofRs . 260-400. The tribunal vide order dated 14-11-1995 was pleased to direct the

That in the meanwhile the workload oftailors in the Uniform Cell of divisional office had drastically reduced in view of handing over of stitching of uniforms to handicrafts centre and contractors . The existing tailors in 13740

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

On 16-9-2005 once again the first party and his counsel have remained absent and there was no representation on their behalf. It was taken that first party has no evidence to lead. On6-10-2005 I have heard the learned counsel for the management as the learned counsel for the management as the first party and the counsel representing him once again remained absent before the court.

the second party management found to be more. Therefore , as a part of right sizing of the administration due to manpower planning , the one post of Tailor Artisan was surrendered vide memorandum No. UBL/ 13-2002-2003 dated 28-3-2003 . The copy is marked as document No. 3. Accordingly the second party management has accorded concurrence to the revised distribution of two posts as here under subject to obtaining a clarification from CPO/ SWR as to whether the tailor category falls under Artisan. The said letter is herewith produced and marked as document No. 4 .

Tailor Artisan 3050-4590 30% OnePost 1

Tailor Artisan

4000-6000 30% One Post

The CPO had clarified in pursuanace to the letter of the Second Party that the post of tailor was in fact Artisan. Accordingly, the first party seniority was fixed, since , only two posts were available in the said category and the first partybeing second in seniority in Artisan Gr. Il the first party was not promoted to the said post . Therefore, the first party cannot have any grievance against the Second Party so far as his promotion is concerned as there was no vacancy available to promote the first party to the said grade. And further the first party had not disputed and challenged the withdrawal of concurrence vide letter dated 5-2-2002 No. A/FE /UBL/ Uniform , if at all the first party had any grienvance as to the promotion in respect of withdrawal of concurrence the first party ought to have challenged the same before appropriate authority and court as this Hon'ble tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into legality ofthe letter dated 05-02-2002 .

That the Second path had complied with all the directions issued by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 319/93 . Accordingly the services of the first party were regularized in the Cadre as Tailor in Scale ofRs. 3050-4590. Therefore , the averments made in Para 5 and 6 of Claim Petition to the effect that the first party was denied promotion inspite of representation made by him to the Second party are denied as being false and baseless and the first party is put to strict proof of the same . However, the first party workman was extended the benefit of financial upgradation with effect from 4/5-8-2004 vide memorandum No. WP. 535 / 1 / 1 / Tailor/Vol. 1 .

5. Learned counsel for the management in his arguments submitted that keeping in view the statement ofMW1 in his examination chief made by way of affidavit evidence and the documents at Ex. M1 to M4 which have gone unchallenged and uncontroverted on the part of the first party workman , his claim for promotion must fail , particularly, when there is no oral or documentary evidence produced by the first party to substantiate the various contentions taken by him claiming the right of promotion inhis statement of claim . I find substance in his arguments . The case of the management as made out in the Counter Statement brought on record in details above , would make it clear that promotion was not given to the first party as there was no vacancy available to promote him to the higher gråde as claim made by him. It is made clear by the management that as per the clarification given by the CPO in response to the management letter post of the Tailor was infact treated as a post of Artisan . It is also made clear that accordingly the first party's seniority was fixed and since only two posts were available in the said category and the first party being second in the Seniority in Artisan Grade - II , he was not promoted to the said post . Above statement made in the Counter Statement by the Second Party has been repeated in the affidavit of the management witness supported by the abovesaid documents at Ex . MI to M4 and as noted above , has gone undenied and uncontroverted, there being no cross examination to MWI and genuineness of the aforesaid documents again remained unchallenged. That apart , it was also incumbent on the part of the first party workman who have established his claim and right of promotion by leading his own oral and documentary evidence . As could be read from the order sheet maintained by this tribunal , the first party has remained very much indifferent to the proceedings pending before this tribunal and has remained absent before this tribunal till the matter was taken closed for evidence and arguments well heard , advanced for the management . Therefore, what appears from the conduct of the first party is that he is no more interested in the prosecution of the claim put forthby him by way of Claim Statement . In the result , it must be held that he fails to substantiate his claim ofright ofpromotion as asked for and hence the reference

deserves to be rejected . Hence the following award:

AWARD

The reference is rejected . No order to cost .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 14th November 2005) .

4. During the course of trial, the management examined one witness by filing the affidavit evidence . almost, reiterating the various contentions taken by it in its Counter Statement . On 26-7-05 when the matter came to be posted . MWI was further examined in chief and documents at Ex . MI to M4 were marked. As the first party and his counsel remained absent on the abovesaid date , case was adjourned of or cross examination of MW.1 giving the next date of hearing as 23-8-2005 . On which date MW1 was present but there was no representation on behalf of the first party. Therefore . MWI was discharged and case was posted for evidence of first party.

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

13741 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 4772.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की नारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/1993 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/7/1992-आई आर( विविध)/ आई आर (सी -1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st December , 2005

S.O. 4742. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 18/ 1993) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Mumbai I now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-11-2005.

[No. L - 11012/7/ 1992 - IR(Misc) /- IR(C - 1 ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI PRESENT

Shri Justice C. V. Govardhan PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT - 18 OF 1993 .

ofAir- India

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management And

Their Workman.

APPEARANCES :

For the Management

Shri . Swamy, Advocate.

For the Workman

: Shri . R.S. Pai , Advocate .

: Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 9th day of March, 1999 . AWARD - I

1. The Central Govermnent has referred on 23-2-1993 the following dispute between the management of Air- India and their workmen for adjudication by this Tribunal .

"Whether the action of the management ofAir- India

Services of the employer Corporation by its order dated 4-7-1986 purported to have been issued under Regulation 43(A) suspended the workman from service on a suspicion inrespect oftheft ofone saree from a passenger baggage . The workman was issued with a charge sheet dated 15-7-86 alleging that on 30-6-1986 when the workman was on duty he was alleged to have removed a saree from the suit case belonging to a passenger of the employer. Particulars of the name of the passenger or any complaint has notbeengiven to the worker. The workman sent reply on 21-7-86 denying charges levelled against him . He has pointed out that he had been victimised at the instance of oneMr. Nail Singh , Head Security Guard of the employer. He has pointed out that he has been falsely implicated in the charges on accont of personal bias ofMr. Nail Singh. The Deputy Director , rejected the explanation of the workman. The said authority appointed two Officers as members of the enquiry committee to hold an enquiry against the workman in respect of the charges levelled against him. The Convenor of the enquiry committeeMr. Gaikwak intimated the first date of enquiry fixed by him to the worker. The enquiry commenced on 19-12-86 and concluded in the month of August 1987. The enquiry is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice , bias and malafides on the part of the enquiry committee. There was no Presenting Officer to conduct the case on behalf of the employer, no witnesses were called in for production of documents referred to at Exhibit M- 1 to M- 10 before the enquiry committee . The enquiry committee examined witnesses on behalf of the employer Corporation and thus acted simultaneously as a Prosecutor and a Judge. The enquiry committee failed to examine material witness Mr. D. C. Dholi and it should the bias attitude of the committee . The committree have a finding that the charges levelled against the workman have been proved. The finding is biased. The Dy . Director who has acted as disciplinary authority did not forward a copy of the report and the findings ofof the enquiry committee to theworkman. No opportunity was given to the workman to offer his comments . The Authority purported to exercise powers under the Regulation, dismissed the workman from service by its order dated 12-11-87 . The employer filed an application for approval under Section 33 ( ii ) (b) of the I.D.Act. The said application was ordered as the Tribunal had only a limited jurisdiction under Section 33-2 (b) . The workman addressed a letter to the Director, Ground Handlling Department of the Employer dimanding reinstatement with full back wages: but it was not completed. The workman has therefore , raised the dispute . The tribunal may be pleased to quash the dismissal order and reinstate the workman with back wages and other. benefits.

3. The management in their witten statement contends as follows:

in terminating the services of Shri.A.D. Abreo, Loader justified? If not, to what relief the workmen is entitled ?"

2. The averments in the claim statement of the workkman is briefly as follows:

The workman is a confirmed loader in the services of the employer w.e.f. 01-7-79 . He was working in the Groundservice department. The Dy. Director , Ground

The dispute has been raised after a lapse of four years from the date of termination . The reference, therefore , suffers from delay and latches . The reference is therefore , to be dismissed on this ground alone . The workman committed theft of property entrusted to the Management on 29-6-86 , When he was allocated duty of 13742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

hadgiven a finding that the charge against the workman has been proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the said finding and awarded punishment of termination of service contending that considering the age of the workman, a lenient view is taken on him . Subsequently the management has also filed an application for approval under Section 33 ( ii ) (b) and this tribunal has approved the order passed by the management. Therefore , this present dispute has been raised by the workman seeking reinstatement with back wages and other benefits . The management has opposed the same by contending that the dispute has been raised bilatedly by the workman that this tribunal has given a finding in the approval application that the charge against the workman has been proved and therefore, the reference is to be dismissed.

off- loading the baggages from the cargo hold of Air India Flight No. A1 812 on that date . Around 3.20 a.m. on 30-6- 86 it was observed by the Security Personnel on duty near theAircraft that the workman was removing something form suit case of the passenger with duplicate keys. On personal search carried out on the person of the workman , itwas found that he was in possession of a red colour Nylon Saree hidden below his pant . The wordman was also found in possession of big bunch of keys of various types . When the Security interrogated the wordman he admitted having removed saree and concealed it under his pant. On the basis of the above incident he was suspended and charge sheeted by the competent authority. The allegation that the charge sheet is false is not true. It is irrelevant to find out as to whether name of the passenger was giveri or not . The allegation that the enquiry proceedings are vitiated on account of principle of natural justice, bias and malafides on the part of the enquiry committee is denied . The domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with requirement set out in the service regulations that are applicable to the workinan. The workman was allowed to be represented by his defence counsel one Mr. Fernandes . The workman was given opportunity to defend himself and examine his own witness. The enquiry does not suffer from any infirmity. The allegation that it was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice is not true. From the enquiry procceeding dt 4th , August , 1987 a reference was made from Mr. Dholi who was supposed to be a witness for the workman; but he did not attend . The workman failed to bring his witness . The enquiry committee has written a latter toMr. Dholi asking him to appear before the enquiry committee; but he did not attend. The CGIT No.1 has approved the action taken by the management in terminating the service of the workman by its order dt.3rd June, 1991. It has upheld the domestic enquiry conducted inthe case ofthe workman . The allegation that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse , bias and one sided is not true , Considering the age of the workman , the competent authority has decided to award a lesser punishment of removal from service as provided under regulation 43 -A and the allegation that the punishment is not proportionate to the conduct of the misconduct is denied . The reference is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

4. The only point for consideration is whether the action ofthe management in terminating the service of the workman is justified and if notto what relief the workman isentitled?

The Point

5. Before proceeding to decide whether the enquiry conducted against the workman was legal and proper and whether the finding of the enquiry officer is proper , I think it is necessary to decide the two preliminary objections raised by the management as inentioned supra . The first and foremost objection raised by the management it is that the dispute has been raised by the workman belatedly after a lapse of4 years from the date oftermination . It is to be noted that after the order of termination issued by the management they have filed an approval application before this tribunal and the same was disposed by the tribunal only on 03-6-91 . The workman has addressed a letter to the Director, Ground Handling Deepartment demanding reinstatement by a letter dt. 12-6-91 and at the same time he has also forwarded a copy to the Regional Labour Commissioner raising this dispute . Therefore , the contention of the management that 4 years after the order of termination the workman has raised this dispute and therefore it suffers from delay and latches cannot be appreciated. The pendency of the approval application before this tribunal for nearly 31/2 years is to be taken note. In the view 1 am of opinion that the first preliminary objection raised by the management that the reference suffers delay and latches on the part of the workman cannot be sustained. This fact also answers the other preliminary objection raised by the management that this tribunal has upheld the fainess or otherwise of the domestic enquiry and also the finding ofthe enquiry officer has been upheld by the tribunal . It is a recognised principle of law that finding in an approval application filed under section 33-2(b) cannot be considered as resjudicata in a reference under the I.D. Act . 1 wish to refer to the decision reported in 1991 I CLR Page 886 between Amarsingh Vs. Judge , Labour Court , Bharatpur. In the above decision the Rajasthan High Court has held as follows:

"Findings of Labour Court granting approval under Section 33-2(b) of the Act are only prima facie conclusion . Nothing is decided by Labour Court except granting approval and removing bar of termination . Approval granted is not resjudicata to real issue of adjudication of real and real conflict between the parties . Orders of termination is still open to challenge in any adjudication in appropriate proceedings before Labour Court when matter is referred to the Labour Court . "

The workman was a confirmed loader in the Ground service department of Air India . The management has suspended the workman by its order dt . 4-7-86 on an allegation that he has committed theft of a Saree of one of the passenger of the management and on that basis the charge has also been framed against the workman. The workman has denied the charge framed against him and therefore, the disciplinary authority has appointed an enquiry committee consisting of two officers to hold an enquiry against the workmen on the charges levelled against the workman . The enquiry committee after enquiry

Therefore, the preliminary objections raised by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

management with regard to the maintainability of this dispute on the ground of delay and latches on the part of the workman and on the ground that approval has been granted by this tribunal in an application filed under Section 33 ( ii ) (b) of the I.D. Act are without merits .

The learned Counsel appearing for the workman challenges the finding of the Enquiry Officer as a perverse one, by contending that the enquiry committee has taken the role of the Presenting Officer and failed to examine a loader by name, Mr. Dholi who was also present on duty atthe time and place where the alleged theft is said to have taken place. According to the learned advocate the enquiry committee has failed to appreciate the evidence of the management witness Mr. Katkar and failed to appreciate the claim of the worker that the keys were planted and finally the finding ofthe Enquiry Officer has not been furnished before the disciplinary authority has taken a decision with regard to the proof or otherwise of the charges against theft .

6. As regards the contention of the learned counsel that the enquiry committee has taken the role of Presenting Officer when the management has not appointed any Presenting Officer and the Committee itselfhas produced the documents and examined witnesses is concerned , I am of opinion that there is no merits in this contention in view of the decision reported in 1975 Supreme Court page 2125 between Moolchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. vs. the Workman in which it has been held that the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry can put questions to the witnesses for clarification wherever necessary and if he allows the witnesses to be cross- examined thereof, the Enquiry proceedings cannot be impeached as unfair. In the decision reported in 1995 II LLJ between Pravin Rathilal. Dhudra and Municipal Corporation ofGreater Bombay, the Bombay High Court has held that the fact that a Presenting Officer was not appointed during the enquiry would not vitiate the Proceedings and the Enquiry Officer did not over step him to put any questions and merely asked for clarificatory questions of the witnesses. In view of the above two decisions the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the worker that the enquiry committee has taken the role of Presenting Officer and acted as a Prosecutor as well asjudge and therefore , the enquiry is vitiated cannot be accepted. It cannot be stated that the method of conducting the enquiry is improper when the enquiry committee had put questions to the witness and recorded the same.

7. The next ground of attack by the learned counsel appearing for the worker is that the enquiry committee has not examined the witness by name Mr. Dholi to explain the incident and it is a failure to give proper opportunity to the worker to defend himself in the enquiry. The workman has been examined as WW- 1 before this tribunal . He has stated during cross-examination that he did not produce Mr. Dholi as his witness but he asked the management to produce Mr. Dholi as their witness but they declined to do it. The worker cannot compel the employer to examine a particular person on their behalf, If he is interested in examining a particular person , it is for him to produce the 3557 G1/ 2005-10

13743 said person , but the worker has not chosen to examine Mr. Dholi . He has admitted in cross- examination that he did not requested the enquiry committee to re - open the enquiry with a view to enable him to produce Mr. Dholi as a witness . Subsequently he has also stated that he had requested the management to re -open the enquiry and after he write the letter, the enquiry was re- opened and even after re -opening he did not examine Mr. Dholi . According to the worker it is correct that the enquiry committee sent letter to Mr. Dholi to come and depose before the enquiry committee when Mr. Dholi did not appear before the enquiry committee. The enquiry committee gave him one more day and wrote to Mr.Dholi to appear before it and gave a copy of the said letter to him to be handed over to Mr. Dholi and yet Mr. Dholi did not appear before the enquiry committee . This evidence of WW- 1 during cross -exantination before this tribunal would show that the management did not examine Mr. Dholi . He wanted to examine Mr. Dholi as one of his witnesses and the enquiry which was closed was actually re -opened and he was given opportunity to examine Mr. Dholi and evern a letter requesting MR. Dholi to attend the enquiry was written by the enquiry committee and handed over to the worker. In the above circumstances the contention of the worker that he was not given an opportunity to examine a witness of his choice and it amounts to denial of opportunity to defend himself properly is without merits.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the worker had argued that the evidence placed before the enquiry committee has not established that the worker has committed the misconduct of theft as alleged in the charge sheet and purely on suspension a charge of theft has been framed against the worker and witness were examined and the enquiry committee has also given a finding that the charge has been proved without considering the evidence correctly, and without considering the materials in favour of the worker and the conduct of the committee was very unfair, and it is because of the same , the finding has also beengiven a perverse manner. Since the learned counsel appearing for the worker has stated that the charge has been framed under suspicion and evidence of witness has not beenproperly considered, I am of opinion that it is necessary for us to analyse the evidence before the enquiry officer also . The learned counseľ appearing for the management would argue that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply and all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible and relies upon the decision reported in 1977 Supreme Court 1512 between State of Haryana and another Vs. Rattan Singh for the above proposition. Let us consider the evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer to find out whether the same satisifies the Rule of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision .

9. It is the case of the management that the employee was caught red handed by the Head Security Guard Mr.Nainsingh on the noght of 29th June , 1996. Nainsingh hasbeenexamined as the first witness for the management . He has stated that on the night of 29-6-96 he was keeping awatch on the loaders from G.S.D. working on the tarmac 13744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii) ]

open a suit case . He has also stated that he checked four or five suit cases which were unloaded . They were found to be secured properly. The third witness has also stated that the suit cases are not pilfered . When the suit cases were intact and baggages were not found pilfered from where the saree has come is not explained . Mr. Nainsingh who claims that he apprehended the loader who was trying to open the suit case has also stated that all the suit cases wrere found to be secured properly. If it is so , how the saree have come into the Aircraft hold is now known . Mr. Nain has stated that he saw Mr. Abreo inserting something inside his pant in the front side and was pretending to push the saree in order to avoid showing his front . This insertion of something is only subsequent to the witness as well as Mr. Abreo and the other loader coming down from the Aircraft . During the cross- examination Mr. Nain has stated that the employce as well as the other loader and himself came down from the hold sitting on the conveyor alongwith the coffin and as soon as the coffin touched on , the other loader went away and he was keeping a close watch on Abreo only since he had doubt on Mr. Abreo . When this security guard keeps a close watch on the employee and comes down the conveyor alongwith him and another how the sarce has escaped the attention of the Security Guard has not been explained at all . It is to be noted that the other loader who was with the employee Abreo went away as soon as the coffin touched down . The evidence of Mr. Nain does not explain how the saree has been brought down from the Aircraft hold to the ground without his noting it.

near the flight Al 812. Offloading of all baggages was in process and the apprehended one loader of G.S.D. who was trying to open a suit case . He has also stated that when he approached there, he checked 4/5 suit cases being off loaded on the conveyor and found to be secured properly and that since he had a doubt , he climbed on the Aircraft hold and found the worker unloading . He would further state that since he had a doubt of Mr. Abreo he got down along with the loaders , went to the other side of the trolley and was observing the two loaders and that he saw Mr. Abreo alone inserting something inside the pant in the front side and pretending to push the trolley in order to avoid showing his front . It is also stated by this witness Nainsingh that when he was asking the employee to come to the Security Office he immediately removed the saree that was tucked inside and threw it on the ground and the worker has also stated that he did not take anything . According to Nainsingh when he told the worker to take the saree back he refused on the ground that since he was not carrying it in his possession, he will not take it from the ground . At a later stage of his evidence Mr. Nainsingh has stated that upon Moorthy's instruction he searched Mr. Abreo's pocket and found a bunch of keys and that Mr. abreo started that those keys are not his house keys . Mr. Moorthy has been examined subsequently and he had stated in his evidence that Mr. Nainsingh informed him that the loader Mr. Abreo has hidden a red colour saree underneath his part and also he was carrying a bunch of various types of foreign made keys in his possession and that he also noticed a red colour saree as well as a bunch of keys in his possession . The witness , Mr. Moorthy has stated during cross - examination that Mr. Nainsingh , Head Security Guard himself discrectly watched Mr. Arbeo hiding something under his pants and the same was informed to him that some red colour article he was carrying under the pants and he also noticed the same thing and there is no question of asking Mr. Nainsingh to immediately conduci a personal search . Accordingto this withness Mr. Moorthy , Mr. Abreo hurriedly hidden below his pants as a little part of it was visible if the shirt is slightly lifted . The third witness is Mr. S. L. Singh . According to this witness after making enquiry he brought Mr. Abreo in 1. P. T. Security Office where one saree was recovered from his pant before two panchas and on personal search one key -bunch was also found in the pocket of Mr. Abreo . During cross- examination this witness has stated that he had noticed the front side of Mr. Abreo was bulging and also enquired him about the hidden item in his person and he disclosed that he was having one saree under his pant . To a specific question to this witness whether he has scen anything coming out from his upper portion on the pant , the witness has stated " No. " At a later stage he has stated that he came to know Mr. Abreo having a saree under his pant at the time of the panchanama. This witness has categorically stated that it will be difficult to find out the particular baggage from which it might have been pilfered since Mr. Nain has not noticed any open or damaged piece of baggage. These 3 witnesses have given evidence which is not corraborating each other. Mr. Nain has stated that he has apprehended the employee while he was trying to

10. According to Mr. Nain when he asked the einployee to come to the Security Office , Mr. Abreo immediately removed the saree that was tucked inside and threw it on the ground and refused to take it when he asked him to take it . This evidence of Mr. Nain is to the effect that the saree was on the ground after he got hold offMr. Abrco . But the evidence of the next witness namely Moorthy and the third witness Mr. S. L. Singh did not support the case of Mr. Nain to the effect that the saree was lying on the floor . When the sarce has been thrown way by the employee unless it is again tucked in, there is no chance of the witness Moorthy and Nain , secing the front portion of the employee in a bulged condition . But there is no evidence by Mr. Nain that the employee took the saree from the ground and again tucked it inside his pant. When Mr. Moorthy stated that he saw the red colour saree coming out of the upper portion of the pant of the employee , Mr. Singh says he did not saw anything coming out of the upper portion of the pant of the employee . Mr. Nain singh has stated during cross - examination that he did not find the sarce as such when he apprehended Mr. Abreo and that he suspected some items to be concealed; but when he caught Mr. Abrco collar he removed the saree hidden and throw it on the ground and then only he noticed that it is a saree. This evidence of Mr. Nain is actually contradictory to his earlier evidence that he saw Mr. Abreo inserting something inside his pant in the front side . The evidence of these three witnesses is thus not only contradictory but also contradicting with each other with regard to the commission of theft is concerned.

13745 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

11. The fourth witness examined before the enquiry officer is Mr. Katkar. He has stated that he heard the arguments of the loader and the Security Guard, when he approached the conveyor belt and he found the security guard asking Mr. Abreo to pick up the saree which had fallen on the ground below the conveyor which Mr. Abreo was refusing to do . He has stated that he know Mr. Abreo for about three years past and he never heard such instance in the case ofMr. Abreo. It is the specific case of Mr. Nain that he was keeping a watch on Mr. Abreo . He was one of the suspected employees of the Corporation while Mr. Katkar, Supervisor under whom the employee works has certified that he has not heard any such instance earlier; but his evidence is to the effect that some saree was lying on the ground below the conveyor belt and when the Security Guard asked Mr. Abreo to take it he refused to do it and there was an argument regarding the same between them and it does not help the management to show that Mr. Abreo had committed theft .

since such evidence was let in during the domestic enquiry. Even in a domestic enquiry, the evidence should be such that it is probable or possible to accept the same . Relying upon this evidence the Enquiry Officer has given a finding that the charge against the workman has been proved. 1 am of opinion that the argument of the learned counsel appeaing for the workman that the enquiry commitee has acted inanunfair manner in giving a finding that the charge has been proved when there is no evidence for theft by the workman can be accepted. The learned counsel appearing for the workman has also argued that an order ofdismissal is illegal and improper on the ground that the disciplinary authority has not furnished the copy of the enquiry report to the employee before taking a decision . I am of opinion that this argument of the learned counsel appearing for the workman cannot be accepted in view of thedecision ofthe Supreme Court reported in 1991 Supreme Court II LLJ 653 between Inspecting Assistant Commissioner , Bombay & Others and Sharat Narayan Parab in which the apex Court has held that an enquiry whichwas completed before ratio in Ramzan Khan's case (1991 - I - LLJ-29) ( SC) is not vitiated on account of not furnishing the enquiry report to the delinquent employée . In the present case the enquiry was conducted in March 1987 and the report was given in 1987. In Ramzan's case it was decided by the Supreme Court in 1991. i . e. long after the enquiry. Therefore, non - furnishing of the report of the Enquiry Officer is not a ground to hold that the enquiry itself is vitiated. The learned counsel appearing for the workman has also argued that whether the management sought an opportunity to let in evidence and fails to avail the said opportunity the Tribunal could be justisfied in passing an award in favour of the workman and relies upon the decision reported in 1999 (81 ) Supreme Court FLR page 188 between Neeta Kaplish and P. O. Labour Court and another . In the above decision relied by the learned consel appearing for the workman , the Supreme Court has held that when the Labour Court has itself held that if the management does not lead any evidence by availing the opportunity to ask for fresh evidence it cannot raise any grouse at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal , in those circumstances , would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman . In the present case , the management has asked for fresh evidence to be let in before the Tribunal ; but it has not availed the opportunity to which it is entitled under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act . We have already seen that the enquiry was not fairly and properly held and the finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse . In the above circumstances, when we apply the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1999 (81 ) FLR page 188 we have to hold that the employee is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages and other benefits. In that view I hold on the point that the action of the management of Air India Ltd. in terminating the services of Mr. Abreo , Loader is not justified and therefore he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages and other benefits .

13. In the result , an Award is passed holding that the action of the management of Air India in terminating 12. Two witnesses were examined by the management with regard to the panchanama under which the saree and the keys were seized . One Mr. Gangurde has stated that he was requested to sign a panchanama informing him that Mr. S. L. Singh had recovered some saree and same towels from a sweeper and that items so recovered were covered under panchanama . He has also stated that he went to the Security Office when Mr. Singh was about to close a parcel at that time and that he was informed that the said parcel contains the saree and towels. Reliance cannot be placed on the evidence ofthis witness since it is not the care of the management that the stolen articles are a number of sarees and towels and it is not the case that theywere recovered from a Sweeper . Mr. Ganguly has stated that he had signed a panchanama without reading it and the statement of the employee was recorded in his absence yet he had signed itsDurring: Cross- examination he has stated that Mr. Singh informed him nobody is prepared to come forward to sign panchanama and since Mr. Singh is well known to him he signed the pancharama in good faith . When the evidence of this witness is to the effect that he had signed the panchanama and the statement of the employee at the request ofMr. Singh who is known to him , no reliance can be placed on his evidence with regard to the seizure. The next witness examined was Mr. Puri . In his evidence he has stated that he had signed the panchanama and he had not seen the item in the parcel in which he had signed and that he was only told that it contained a sarce . At a later stage of cross - examination he had stated that he does not recollect whether the saree was shown to him at the time of drawing of panchanama . He has also admitted that it is not the proper way in which a panchanama has to be made and that it is feasible to change the contents ofthe parcel after obtaining the signature of the panchas . On a consideration of this evidence of Mr. Puri we cannot come to the conclusion that he was also a witness for the seizure even though sophisticated rules of Evidence Act may not apply in a domestic enquiry. Evidence which are self contradictory and contradictory with each other cannot be accepted , to hold that the employee has committed misconduct of theft 13746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

the services of Mr. Abreo , Loader is not justified and therefore he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages and other benefits .

C. V. GOVARDHAN, Presiding Officer ORDER PASSED IN REVIEW APPLICATION DATED 9TH MARCH, 1999.

1. When this Tribunal passed an award as above on 9th March, 1999 in the open court , the learned counsel for the management Mr. Swamy represented that the management has asked for an opportunity be given to themto prove the charge against the workman before this tribunal and subseqently has filed the review application also. In this review application the learned advocate for the management has stated that in page 9 of the written statement the management has prayed for leave of this tribunal to record evidence before this tribunal to substantiate the charges against the workman in the event of this tribunal coming to the conclusion the enquiry is vitiated. He has prayed for reviewing the award and grant an opportunity to the management to lead evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the workman .

2. Noticehas been ordered on 10th March, 1999 to hear the parties on 16th March, 1999. On 16th March the workman alone was present and his advocate was not present. Heard the learned advocate for the management.

3. In the award passed on 9th March , 1999 this tribunal has come to the conclusion that the enquiry committee has acted in an unfair manner in giving a finding that the charge has been proved , when there is no evidence for theft . After holding that the enquiry committee has committed an error that the charge has been proved this tribunal has referred the decision relied by the Icarned conunsel appearing for the worker reported in ( 1999 ) 81 Supreme Court FLR page 188 between Neeta Kaplish and Presiding Officer. Labour Court and another and has held that the employee is entitled to relief of reinstatement with back wages and other benefits . According to the learned counsel appearing for the management there is an apparent mistake on the face of records committed by this tribunal in ordering reinstatement and the said portion ofthe order lhas to be reviewed and an opportunity is to be given to themanagement to prove the charge against the workman. In view of the praver made by the management in the written statement for an opportunity being given . I have considered the argument of the Icarned counsel appearing for the management and the decision relied by the learned counsel appcaring for the worker carefully. In the head notes of the abovedecision it is held as follows:

"Tribunal's power to consider thedomestic enquiry and ask for fresh evidence- management, if does not lead evidence- manageokat would suffer. Ifthe management does not cad any evidence by availing of this opportunity, it cannot raise any grouse at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal , in those circumstances, would be justified in passing an

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) award in favour of the workman . If however, the opportunity is availed of and the evidence is adduced by the management, the validity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinised and adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence" .

In the case on hand the management has no doubt asked for an opportunity to be given to lead evidence before this Tribunal to prove the charge against the workman in case this tribunal holds that the enquiry is not proper. This tribunal has considered the Roznama record on 07-5-97 which is as follows:

"Mrs.Pooja Kulkarni , Advocate for management . Mr. S. S. Joshi for workman . Mrs. Kulkarni states that she did not want to lead any oral evidence . She closes her evidence . Put up on 02-7-97 for arguments on the question of legality, propriety and fairness of the domestic enquity" .

Ona mistaken impression that the management does not chose to lead evidence on the basis of the above Roznama this tribunal has passed an award reinstating theworkman with back wages. The tribunal carefully went through the entire Judgemen : of the Supreme Court relied by the learned counsel appearing for the workman. In the above decision their lordshi , nave referred to an earlier decision between the workman of M/ s . Fire Stone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt . Ltd. v/ s . The management and others . which was deci ied after the introduction of Section 11 (A) of the Act. In the above decision the Court has observed as follows:

"We are therefore , clearly of opinion that when a case ofdismissal of discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the Labour Court should first decide as preliminary issue : whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice . When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties , that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On thatdecision being pronounced, it will be for the managenient to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court . If it chooses not to adduce any evidence , it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. " This decision makes it clear that the ' stage ' at whcih the employer has to ask for an opportunity to adduce evidence for justifying its action is the stage when the Tribunal finally comes to the conclusion that domestic enquiry was invalid".

In the decision relied by the learned counsel appearing for the workman , the Supreme Court has also referred to the decision in the East India Hotels vs. Their workman and others , The Cousa Engineering Limited v/ s . B. B. Mundhe and had observed that the view expressed by their lordship in the Fire Stone Tyre Rubber Company's case has been followed in subsequment decisions also . Referring to the decision in Shankar Chakravarthi v/ s . Britannia Biscuit Co. and another their Lordships havc stated that the Court observed that if a request by the management to adduce additional evidence is made in the pleadings , the Tribnal is to give an opportunity to the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

13747

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

management to lead fresh evidence . Their lordship have also observed as follows:

" In view of the above, the legal position as emerges out is that in all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective, the Tribunal can call upon the management or the employer tojustify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence, that the termination of dismissal order was proper. If the management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity it cannot raise any grouse at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal, in those circumstances would bejustified in passing an award in favour of the workman".

From the above decision it is clear that the stage at which the employer has asked for an opportunity to adduce evidence for justifying its action is the stage when the tribunal finally comes to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was invalid and in this requests can be made even in the pleadings . In the case on hand even though the management has asked for an opportunity being given to adduce evidence before this tribunal in case the tribunal comes to the conclusion that the enquiry is not valid and proper, in view of the closing of the evidence by the learned advocate for the management on 07-5-96 this Court has committed an error while passing as award reinstating the workman with back wages and other benefits under the impression that the management had not let any evidence by availing the opportunity to asked a fresh evidence . I am , therefore, of opinion that it is a fit case in which the award passed by this tribunal on 9th March , 1999 is to be reviewed . The enquiry was not fairly and properly held and the finding of the Eriquiry Officer is perverse, and it is ordered as follows:

" The action of the management of Air- India Ltd. in terminating the service of Mr. Abreo , Loader isnotjustified. An opportunity is therefore , given to the management to prove the charge against the workman Mr. Abreo ."

Call on 15th April 1999 for further proceedings . Prononced by me in open Court on 19-3-99 .

C. V. GOVARDHAN, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , MUMBAI PRESENT

Justice Ghanshyam Dass ,

PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT -18 OF 1993 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofAir- India

AND

Their Workmen.

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement

Forthe Workman

: Mr. R. S. Pai , Adv.

: Mr. Lancy D'Souza , Adv. Workman present in person.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 10th day of November , 2005.

AWARD - PART II

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi , order No. L- 11012/7/92 -IR (Misc) dated 23/2/1993 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

2. "Whether the action of the management of Air India in terminating the services of Shri . A. D. Abreo . Loader justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

3.Admittedly, the workman Mr. Abreo was on duty in the third shift being allocated for off loading the baggages from the cargo hold of the Flight AI- 812 on the intervening night of 29/30-6-1986.

4.On 30-6-1986 at about 3.20 hours in the morning , the workman was observed by Security Personnel on duty near the aircraft that the workman was removing something from the suit case of the passenger with duplicate keys . On personal search carried out on the person of the workman, he was found to be in possession of a red colour nylon saree hidden below his pant . He also found in possession of big bunch of keys of various types (foreign make) . When he was interrogated by the security, he is alleged to have admitted his guilt of commission of theft and one saree of concealing it with him. He also alleged to have admitted recovery of saree and bunch of keys on his possession for which his admission was reduced to writing and it was duly signed by the workman. The panchnama was prepared for recovery of bunch of keys and the same was also signed by the workman . The workman was issued accordingly a charge sheet regarding the theft of property entrusted to the Corporation . The witness denied the charge leveled against him and alleged that he has been victimized by the Head Security Personnel, Mr. Nain Singh . The enquiry Committee consisting of two persons was formed and the domestic enquiry was conducted.which found the workman guilty of the theft . Finally, the workman was imposed the penalty of removel from service . An approval application was moved by the Air India which was allowed by the National Industrial Tribunal. The workman raised the Industrial dispute, the conciliation proceedings failed before the concerned Regional Labour Commissioner. Hence the reference.

5. The Part -I Award in the instant reference was made by the predecessor in office on 09-3-1999 whereby the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was not found to be fair and legal and the charges leveled against the workman were not found to be proved. With these findings , the then Presiding Officer passed the award 13748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] in the terms that the action of the management in terminating the service of Mr. Abreo , Loader ( workman) is not justified and therefore , he is entitled to relief of reinstatement with back wages . However, a review applicationwas moved by the Air India Ltd and thereupon the then Presiding Officer reviewed the aforesaid order and permitted the Air India to lead evidence to prove the charge against the workman before this tribunal . The findings regarding the fairness of the enquiry became final since it has not been challenged by the Air India in any higher Court . Thus , the question which is to be decided at this juncture by this tribunal in this Part - II Award is as towhether the Air India has successfully proved the charge leveled against the workman Mr. Abreo for which he is being removed from service.

not specify about the severe bcating or assault. Mr. Nain andMurthy were cross examined by the workman before this tribunal but no suggestion to the aforesaid extent was made to these witnesses . The workman was suspended on 4-7-86. Further, the workman made certain admission in his cross examination before this tribunal which are relevant. The workman admitted that he did not make any report to the Police . He did not get himself medically examined either at Air India Medical Clinic or in a private Nursing Home. He did not make any complaint to the management regarding the alleged torture . He did not inform the Air India Employees Guild about the alleged beating etc.He did not make any complaint against Mr. Nain Singh orMurthy regarding the alleged beating or assault . He also admitted that he can read and write English as well . He was aware of what is being written in the document dtd. 30-6-1986 to which he had put his signature regarding admission of guilt . In these circumstances , the admission of guilt made by the workman himself cannot be easily brushed aside . It is a material piece of evidence which goes against the workman and has not been rebutted by any evidence what soever on record.

6. During the course of proceedings , after giving opportunity to the Air India for proving the charge by the predecessor in office , the management examined three witness namely, Nain Singh, R.K. Puri and Mr. M.N. Murthy while the workman examined himself. The management has also heavily relied upon the admission made by the workman himselfwhich is available on the file ofthe enquiry proceedings as paper no. 100-101 (Ex. - MI ) , It is dated 30-6-86 It is admittedly signed by the workman himself. This admission is in addition to the evidence of three witnesses .

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the written submssions made by them. The entire record is perused by me.

11. The workman contended before this tribunal at the time of passing of the Part - I Award that Mr. D. C. Dholi was an eye witness being present at the relevant time and since he was not examined before the Enquiry Committee the enquiry report was vitiated. This contention ofthe workman was not accepted by the predecessor in office while passing Award- 1 with the observation that Mr. Dholt who was an eye witness should have been examined by the workman himself and no reason has been assigned for his non -examination . The workman since then did not care at all to examine Mr. Dholi before this tribunal .

8. The main contention for the learned counsel for theworkman is that whatever evidence in the form ofthree witnesses has been laid by the management has been considered in detail by the predecessor in office while passingPart - I Awarddated 9-3-99 . The evidence of these three witnesses has already been help to be unreliable for the reasons incorporated in the Award. The same evidence cannotbe relied upon by this tribunal . That being so , it is emphasized before me that the charge of theft is not proved onrecord.

9. The learned counsel for the Air India submitted that the evidence in the form of admission made by the workman is by itself sufficient to hold the workman guilty for the theft .

12. The evidence of three witnesses examined before this tribunal is the same which had been earlier before the Enquiry Committee and which had not been found to be reliable to prove the charge by this tribunal . In this view of the matter, the workman emphsized that the charge oftheft is not good. I feel that this contention is not acceptable . No doubt, the evidence of the three witnesses is the same and in view of the propriety. I am not supposed to have a different approach for the evidence of the witnesses at thisjuncture but I feel that the additional evidence which is being led before this tribunal by Air India with respect to the admission made by the workman himself and which has not been successfully shown to have been made under soine inducement or threat or in view of severe beating or assault , I feel that the aforesaid evidence of admission is by itself sufficient to prove the charge of theft against the workman. The evidence of other witnesses can be taken to be the evidence in support of the aforesaid evidence . The predecessor in office did not discuss at all the aforesaid admission while rejecting the report of the Enquiry Committee for the charge..

10. On a perusal of the evidence available on record, it isclear that there is evidence about the proof of the guilt ofthe accused which is Ex- M - 7 amd M - 9 . The workman admittedly signed both the aforesaid documents . The defence is that he was forced to sign and that he has been falsely implicated by Mr. Naim Singh. Now the question arises as to whether the workman has been successful in showing that the aforesaid documents may not be relied against him . The workman had the opportunity to explain the aforesaid admission at the earliest when he filed his reply to the charge sheet and he did explain while saying that he was severely beaten up by Mr. Murthy and Nain and he was forced to sign the aforesaid statement . He also stated that he was forced to sign on blank panchnama which is a document regarding the recovery of saree from the possession of the workman . It is surprising that when the workman filed his affidavit before this tribunal he did

13. The workman has not disputed that the saree was actually found on the spot. The only contention is that the workman did not steal it. It is emphasized that no passenger ever complained about the loss of saree nor any baggage of the passenger was found to be tampered with. All the baggages were found intact . To my mind, all 7 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927.

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

these submissions have got no merit. The bunch of keys recovered from the possession of the workman is another circumstance against the workman to prove the guilt . It goes unexplained as to how the workman was found in possession of bunch of keys (foreign make) . Admittedly, the panchnama also bears the signature of the workman .

14. In a case reported in 2001 Lab IC 2713 Bombay High Court, Hotel Horizon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bhartiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh and others , the workman was found in possession ofRs . 16,350 which was not explained . The Honourable High Court observed that non- examination ofany customer or non- receipt of any theft of money was not necessary. The amount was ceased from thepossession of the workman and hence it was sufficient for the loss of confidence by the employer and thus sufficient for dismissal ..

15.In a case reported in 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ292, Bombay High Court, Syed Waris Husaine/s. Fire Stone Tyre & Rubber Comparty of India (Pvt . ) Ltd., the dismissal ofthe workman was upheld on the basis of Statement of the delinquent employeebefore the Security Officer admitting his guilt.com

16. In a case reported in 2002 I CLR 387 before the Bombay High Court, Podar Mills (Process House) v/ s. Kamlakar G. Sawant , the dismissal was upheld in case of charge of misconduct for committing theft of metal pieces.

17. The learned counsel for the workman also challenged the order of removal on the ground of competency of the Authority. I feel that if could not be challenged at this juncture since it had not been challenged earlier at the time of passing ofthe Part - I Award. Besides this, the Air India has filed a copy of the Office order datest 10-11-1987 wherein the Dy. Director Ground Services has been empowered to emphasise powers ofvers of issuing charge sheets and orders relating to constitution of Enquiry Committee's arising out of disciplinary cases relatingto misconduct and to pass orders under Regulation 43B ofthe Air India Employees Services Regulation read withSchedule..

18. Considering the entire evidence available on record and keeping in mind the discussions made above, I conclude that the charge of misconduct on account of theft is proved on record against the workman and thus the punishment of removal from service has been rightly passed against the workman . The action of the management in this regard is held to be justified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

19. The reference is accordingly answered in affirmative. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 4773. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायलय धनवाद II. के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 255/2001 ) को

13749 प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/284/ 2001- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st December, 2005

S.O. 4773. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 255/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which wasreceivedby the Central Government on 30-11-2005.

[No. L-20012 /284/2001 - IR(C- 1 ) ) S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO: 2, AT DHANBAD Present

SHRI B. BISWAS Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1 ) ( d) of the 1. D. Act , 1947.

REFERENCE NO . 253 OF 2001 .

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area No. IIf under the General Manager ofM/ s . Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.

And

TheirWorkman.

Appearances :

Onbehelfofthe workman Mr. N. G. Arun , Organising

Secretary, R. C. MS . Dhanbad.

Onbehalf ofthe employers State: Jharkhand Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate . : Industry: Coal

Dhanbad, the 8th November, 2005.

AWARD

1. The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) (d) ofthe I. D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/ 284/2001 . IR. (C- I), dated, the 18th April, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"KYA BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED GOVINDPUR KSHETRA - III KEY PRAVANDH- TANTRA DWARA SHRI UDAY SINGH KI JANAM TARIKH 15-5-1947 KO SAHI NA MANA JANA UCHIT EVAM NAYA SANGAT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO KARAMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI ?

13750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 2. Case of the concerned workman according to Written statement submited by the sponsoring union on hisbehalf in brief is an follows :-

PRAVANDHTANTRA DWARA SHRI UDAY SINGH KI JANAM TARIKΗ 15-5-1947 KO SHAI NAMANA JANA UCHIT EVAM NAYA SANGAT HAI ? YADI NAHI TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI ?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS :

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman initially got his appointment at Teturiya Colliery on 26-4-97 as Night Guard . They submitted that thereafter management issued I.D. Card to him wherein his Date of birthwas recorded as 14-5-47. In the year 1987 management issued service excerpt to him wherein also his date ofbirth was recorded as 14-5-47 . Thereafter again management issued Antena Card in the year 1998 wherein also his date of birth was recorded as 14-5-47 . They alleged that management by Office Order bearing No. Form ' B '/ 15 /96 dated 18 / 19-6-96 informed the concerned workman that his date of birth has been changed as 5-4-43 in place of 14-5-47 . As soon as he received that letter he filed a petition to the management raising protest about the change ofhis date ofbirth illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice and requested the management to consider his date of birth as 14-5-47 and notas5-5-43 . But as the management did not consider his prayer he raised industrial dispute for conciliation beforc the ALC( C) . Dhanbad which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication. The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to accept the date ofbirth of the concerned workman as 14-5-47 instead of 5-5-47.

3.Management on the contrary after filing written statement- cum -rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statment submitted on behalf of the concerned workman. They submitted that the concerned workman got his employment on 26-4-1967 at Teturiya Colliery in Govindpur Area and at the time of his employinent his particulars including date ofbirth as 5-5-43 were recorded in the Form B Register which is considered as statutory register as per Section 48 of the Mines Act , 1952. They admitted that in some record date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 14-5-47 instead of 5-5-43 . After proper examination of the documents management of Govindpur Area came to the conclusion that the date of birth ofthe concerned workman was wrongly recorded as 14-5-47 and accordingly issued an office order for correction ofwrong entry and the Project Officer. Teturiya Colliery corrected his date ofbirth as 5-5-43 in all records relying on the date ofbirth recorded in the Form B register . Accordingly management submitted that neither they committed any illegality nor took any arbitrary decision in chaging the date of birth of the concerned workman as 5-5-43 in place of 14-5-47 and for which they submitted prayer that the claim ofthe concerned workman is liable to be rejected.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED :

GOVINDPUR

KYA BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED . KSHETRA III KEY

It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate the claim of the concerned workman examined him as WW- 1 . Management also in support of their claim examined one witness as MW- 1. Considering the evidence of bith sides and considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of borth sides I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman got his appointment as Night Guard at Teturiya Colliery on 26-4-67 . The erstwhile owner according to the evidence of WW- 1 of the said colliery was Karamchand Thapar the concerned workman during his evidence submitted that at the time of his entry in the service his date ofbirth in the Form B Register was recorded as 14-5-47 . After nationalisation the present management became the owner ofthis colliery and issued I. D. Card to him herein his date ofbirth are recorded as 14-5-47 (Ext . W- 1 ) . He further submitted that in the year 1987 management issued Service excerpt to him wherein his date of birth was recorded as 14-5-47 marked as Ext . W- 2 . In the year 1992 management issued computerised I. D. Card to him herein also his date ofbirth was recorded as 14-5-47 ( Ext . W- 3) . He alleged that in the year 1996 management issued an office order to him wherein his date of birth was declared as 5-5-43 and on receipt of the said office order he immdiately submitted representation to the management challenging that date of birth recorded therein i.e. 5-5-43 . Copy of the representation during his evidence marked as Ext . W - 4 the contrary MW- 1 during his evidence producing original Form B Register of the management submitted that the name ofthe workman along with all particulars was recorded in Sl . No. 93. In the said register his date of birth was recorded as 5-5-43 . Form B Register during evidence of MW- 1 was marked as Ext . M- 1 . As per the Form B Register date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 5-5-43 in place of 14-5-47 . Office copy of the said office order during evidence of MW - 1 was marked as Ext . M-2. He submitted that the concerned workman superannuated on and from his date of Superannuation as per the date of birthrecorded in the Form B Register and accordingly disclosed that the claim of the concerned workman is not justified. This witness during his evidence failed to disclose if that Form B Register which was produced before this Tribunal in course of hearing was prepared either by the erstwhile owner or by the present management . However, he disclosed that Form B Register which the management relies on bears L.T. I. of the concerned workman . I have considered the Form B Register from which it transpires that date ofbirth as well as date of entry in the service of the concerned workman have been recorded as 5-5-43 and 13751 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii). ]

present management became the owner of the same and in the same year management issued 1. D. Card to the concerned workman wherein his date ofbirth was recorded as 14-5-47 . Therefore , it was bounded duty of the management to produce the original Form B Register maintained by the erstwhile owner where particulars including date of birth of the concerned workman were recorded . MW -1 during his evidence has categorically failed to disclose if the Form B Register which was produced in course of hearing before this Tribunal on the part of the management was the Form B Register maintained by the erstwhile owner where particulars including date of birth of the concerned workman were recorded. It is fact that management produced Form B Register in course of hearing (Ext . M- 1 ) but when as per the admission of MW- I it cannot be ascertained if this Form B Register was that Form B Register maintained by the erstwhile owner there is doubt if the date of birth recorded in this Form B Register was actually recorded from the Form B Register maintained by the erstwhile owner . JBCCI circular has clearly pointed out that when it isapparent that different dates of birth of a workman are recorded in different register in that case to wipe out such discrepancy the age of that concerned workman is required to be assessed by the Apex Medical Board for assessment ofhis age. In view of my discussion above it is clear that indifferent register of the management date ofbirth of the concerned workman was recorded as 14-5-47 while in the Form B Register his date of birth was recorded as 5-5-43 . As the management has failed to establish that the Form B Register which they produced was the Form B Register maintained by the erstwhile owner it cannot be ascertained ifthe date ofbirth based on the Form B Register as 5-5-43 wascorrectly recorded in the Form B Register or not which they produced in course of hearing. It is seen that immediately after receipt of the said office order Ext . M- 2 the concerned workman raised his objection over correction of his date of birth , but management did not consider his such prayer though as per JBCCI Circular they with a view to avoid further dispute had the scope to refer the concerned workman before the Apex Medical Board for assessment of his age . There is no dispute at all that Form B Register is a statutory register and all entries made therein are binding on both sides . Considering the documents which have been discussed above suspicion has been arisen if the date of birth recorded in the Form B Register which the management is relying on was correctly recorded or not . If it was recorded correctly in that case there was no scope at all to record the date of birth of the concerned workman as 14-5-47 in different registers . Accordingly in view of the facts and circumstances discussed above I hold that age of the concerned workman is required to be assessed by the Apex Medical Board for the interest of justice . In the result, The following Award is rendered :-

"The action of the management of Govindpur Area III of M/ s. BCCL in not accepting the date of 26-4-67 respectively. I also find that one L. T. I. was taken in the column of the Form B Register earmarked for the employees . But it is silent by whose pen the said L. T. I. was taken. Accordingly it cannot be ascertained if L. T. I. appearing in the respective column of the Form B Register was the L. T. I. ofthe concerned workman. It is seen that in the year 1972 i.e. after nationalisation of Teturiya Colliery management issued one I. D. Card to the concerned workman herein his date of birth was recorded as 14-5-47 (Ext . W- 1 ) . In the year 1987 management issued service excerpt to the concerned workman herein also his date of birth was recorded as 14-5-47 (Ext : W- 2) . Computerised I. D. Card was issued to the concerned workman by the management on 14-4-93 wherein also his date of birth is recorded as 14-5-47 . Considering all these papers marked as Ext. W- 1 , W- 2 and W- 3 there is no dispute to hold that date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 14-5-47. It is seen that immediately after nationalisation of the Teturiya Colliery management issued I. D. Card to the concernedworkman wherein his date of birth was recorded as 14-5-47 . Particulars in the I. D. Card including date of birth are prepared as per I. D. Card register maintained by the management . It, therefore , can easily be presumed that date ofbirth appearing in the I. D. Card issued in favour of the concerned workman in the year 1972 was taken from the I. D. Card register. Similarly particulars recorded in the Service Excerpt are recorded from the entry as per Form B Register. It is admitted fact that management issued service excerpt to each workman with the intention to seek comments from the workers relating to the correctness of the entries made in the Form B Register . The entries in the Service excerpt were made from the entries recorded in the Form B Register in respect of the respective workman. Obviously the concern did not raised any objection when he found that his date of birth was recorded correctly in the service excerpt . It is further seen that in the year 1993 computerised I. D. Card was issued to the concerned workman wherein also his date of birth was recorded as 14-5-47. Therefore , it is clear that in different register of the management date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 14-5-47 . It is the contention of the management that due to mistake wrong date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded in different register ofthe management and when that mistake was detected it was rectified and accordingly communicated the decision of the management to the concerned workman by office order marked as Ext . M- 2 . It is the statutory obligation of the management that the moment a workman gets cmployment his all particulars including date of birth should be recorded in the form B register . It is admitted fact that management was not the owner of Teturiya Colliery when in the year 1967 the concerned workman got his employment . As per Mines Act , obviously date of birth of the concerned workman and his other particulars were recorded in the Form B Register by the erstwhile owner in the year 1967 when he got his employment . After nationalisation of Teturiya Colliery in the year 1972 the

3557 GI/2005-11 13752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

birth of the workman concerned Shri Uday Singh as 15-5-1947 is not legal and justified . Consequently, in view of the observation made in the body of the Award management is directed to send the concerned workman to the Apex Medical Board for assessment ofhis age complying the strict provision ofMedical Jurisprudence within three months from the date of publication of the Award. The decision of the Apex Medical Board in the matter of assessment of age should be final and binding upon both sides'.

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4774.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 को 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायलय , धनवाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/481/2001-आई आर ( सी-1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st December , 2005

S.O. 4774 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-11-2005 .

[No. L - 20012/ 481/2001 - IR(C - 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, AT DHANBAD PRESENT:

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1) ( d) of the I. D. Act, 1947. REFERENCE NO . 67 OF 2001 .

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Bastacola Area of M / s . BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehelf of the Workman: Mr. K. N. Singh. Ld . Advocate .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Onbehalf ofthe employers Mr. D. K. Verma , Ld. Advocate .

State: Jharkhand : Industry: Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 8th Novernber, 2005.

AWARD

1. The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10(1 ) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/481 /2001 ( C - I) dated 19th February, 2001 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in not regularising the services of Shri B. Ν . Singh, P. No. 01196575 as Loading Munshi is Justified, legal and proper ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date ?"

2. The case of the concerned workman according to written statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman is a General Mazdoor in permanent capacity at Dobari Colliery. They submitted that in the year 1999 management through office order No. D /IX 97/191 dt . 18-9-97 authorised the concerned workman to work as Munshi at the siding and he started working as such in compliance to the said order . They submitted that as he discharged his duties continuously being a Loading Munshi , in the year 1999 submitted representation to the management for his regularisation but they did not give any importance to his said representation and for which he raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C) , Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Accordingly, the sponsoring union submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to regularise the concerned workman as Loading Munshi w.e.f. 10-9-97 with back.wages and consequential relief.

3.Management on the contrary after failing written statement-cum-rejoinder have denied all the claim and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in the written statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.

They submitted that the concerned workman is a permanent employee of Dobari Colliery and working as a General Mazdoor in Cat . II .

They submitted that the post of Loading Clerk is a clerical post under Cadre Scheme and promotion in the clerical cadre is considered only on the basis of recommendation made by D.P.C. and Cadre Controlling Authority if vacancy exists . They submitted that there is no vacancy of Loading Munshi at Dobari Colliery. They alleged that as concerned workman by designation is a 13753 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

post of clerk which is a cadre post .

General Mazdoor he was asked to work in the under ground by order No. 133 dt . 14-2-2000 but instead ofjoining there he started absenting from duty without giving any information or taking leave from the management . Accordingly a charge sheet was issued to him to which he submitted his reply and further course of action in that regard is pending . They submitted that the concerned workman pending decision of that dispute with a view to save his skin taking a false plea raised Industrial Dispute with active support of the Union in connection with this case.

They categorically submitted that as the concerned workman never acquired the status of Loading Munshi question of his regularisation never arose.

Accordingly, they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

It is the contention of the sponsoring union as per written statement that the concerned workman was authorised to work as Loading Munshi in the clerical grade vide office order No. D/IX/ 99/ 191 dt . 18-9-97 and thereafter he started workman in that capacity continuously. It has been alleged that management refused to regularise the concerned workman in the post of Loading Munshi when the sponsoringunion by letter No. 56/2000 dt . 17-2-2000 requested them in that regard. In this regard it is to be taken into consideration if the officer who issued that order was competent to issue such order or not . Secondly, it is also to be looked into for how many years the concerned workman was exploited by the management to render higher responsibility without giving any difference of wages and ifhe was allowed to work in that capacity against clear vacancy. The sponsoring union also can not exonerate their responsibility to produce relevant papers to show that the concerned workman actually performed his duties as Loading Munshi for years together though he was by designation a general mazdoor in Cat. II.

"Whether the action of the management ofM/s BCCL in not regularising the services of Shri B. N. Singh , P. No.01196575 as Loading Munshi isjustified, legal and proper? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled and from what date" .

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. The instant reference case was taken up for exparte hearing as neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workman considered necessary to appear with a view to substantiate their claim though with all sincerity they raised Industrial Dispute before ALC(C ) being aggreived by the decision of the Management .

Ittranspires that inspite of getting ample opportunity the sponsoring union did not consider necessary to substantiate the claim of the concerned workman through initial burden of proof was on them. Facts disclosed in the written statement submitted by the sponsoring union cạn not be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the same is substantiated by cogent evidence or any part of the same is not denied by the opposite party. It is seen that the sponsoring union after filing written statement in the instant reference case has lost their all interest though with all seriousness raised Industrial Dispute before ALC(C) as the management did not consider their claim. Such inaction on the part of the sponsoring unionwill expose clearly how vigilant they are in upkeeping the interest of a workman . Not an iota of cogent evidence camebefore this Tribunal in course offinal hearing of this case on the part of the sponsoring union and for which justbased on the facts disclosed in the written statement there is no scope at all to uphold the claim of the concerned workman particularly when the management by adducing evidence exposed clearly under which circumstances the sponsoring union raised Industrial Dispute .

As the sponsoring union has lamentably failed to establish their claim the concerned workman is not entitled togetanyrelief.

In the result the following award is rendered exparte:

"That the action of the management of M/s . BCCL in not regularising the services of Sri B. N. Singh , P. No. 01196575 as Loading Munshi is justified..

Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled toget any relief. "

Incourse of exparte hearing management examined one witness as M. W. I in support of their case. Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides and also considering evidence of M. W. I there is no dispute tohold that the concerned workman was a permanent employee of the management and posted at Dobari Colliery as General Mazdoor in Cat . II . M. W. I during his evidence disclosed thatmanagement issued an order asking the concerned workman to work in the underground but he instead of complying the said order started remaining himselfabsent form duty for which a charge sheet was issued to him and thereafter a domestic enquiry was initiated against him which is still pending. This witness further disclosedthat the Concerned Workman never worked as Munshi at Dobari Colliery and for which question of his regularisation never arose . He disclosed that the post of clerk is filled up by way of selection/ interview subject to fulfilment of academic qualification. Ifthe selection process ofclerk in clerical grade as per N.C. W. A. is taken into consideration it willdefinitely support the claim of the management. As per thatprovision there is no other mode by which a person in the category ofGeneral Mazdoor can be regularised in the

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer 13754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the Management of Air India indismissing Shri Sumer Singh , Loader , ST No. 41018 from service with effect from 24-9-93 is just , fair and legal ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from what date ?"

का. आ. 4775.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली -11 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/47/97- आई आर ( सी-1) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st December , 2005

That the Petitioner/workman was working as a Loader in the Commercial Department and has been removed from service by the Commercial Manager vide his order dated 24-9-1993 , on the basis of the ex -parte enquiry proceedings especially when the Petitioner /workman is illiterate . The said enquiry proceedings has been conducted in a careless manner which lacks applications of mind on the Enquiry Committee and would , therefore , require before this Hon'ble Court to kindly consider this case for re- instatement in services with back wages on the following grounds .

S.O. 4775.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/1998 ) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , New Delhi - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005 .

[No. L- 11012/47/97 - IR (C - I ) ]

S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER: CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM..

LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI

R. N. RAI, Presiding officer

ID No. 65/1998

In the matter of :

Shri Sumer Singh .

At the outset , the pet ioner/ workman would like to mention that the copy of the enquiry report has not been made available to the Petitioner, especially when the proceedings were conducted ex - parte and thus depriving Petitioner of furnish his commments on the finding of the Enquiry Committee whichis illegal , ultravires, bad in law and against the principles of natural justice . It has been held in the various Judgement of the Supreme Court that wherever there has been an enquiry and at the conclusion ofthe enquiry, the delinquent is entitled to get the enquiry report so as to entitle him to make representation against the findings of the Enquiry Committees . " NOT FURNISHING" of the enquiry report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and would make the order illegal . In order words , I was given no opportunity to enable the Petitioner to make his representation on the findings of the Enquiry Committee especially when it was conduct ex - parte and thus has prejudiced this case .

S/ o Sh . Itwari Lal R/o H.No. 34. Mahipalpur Dairy, New TataNagar New Delhi - 110037 .

VERSUS

Commercial Manager,

I.G.I. Airport , New Delhi .

Dy. Manager ( Personal) 1.G.1.Airport

That the Petitioner placed strong reliance on the Judgement in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohd . Ramzan Khan reported in the L.L.J. 1991 Vol . 1 , page 29. Whether theHon'ble Court so desire , the Hon'ble Court may kindly get this matter examined form hisjudicial mind, thereafter you may find that the whole action of the management was taken against the Petitioner which is really illegal and unjustified . The Petitioner entitled to the re - instated on this ground alone with amongst other grounds , which are as under.

NewDelhi

TheManaging Director, AirIndia Nariman Point , Bombay.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 11012/

47/97 -JR ( C - 1 ) Central Government Dt. 19-02-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication .

That the disciplinary action against the Petitioner is an act of colorable exercise of power and lacks judicious use ofdiscretion vested in Management in this regard as there are large number of employees who have been remaining absent for much larger number of days than the Petitioner, but nodisciplinary action has been initiated against them or even in some cased after initiation of disciplinary proceedings . Theyhave been let off with very minor punishment , whereas in this case they have dismissed him.

13755 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

work, and could be easily attended by the time office clerk. The leave standing to his credit as on 1-7-90 is 113.5 days privilege leave, 10 days casual leave and 28 days sick leave which shows that the Petitioner is not a habitual absentee and did not indulge in act subversive of discipline .

That the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted in a most careless manner and shows total lack of application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority as well as member of the enquiry committee, which is evident from the following facts:

(1) That the charge-sheet No. MDA/ A- 21/654 dated 16/29-05-91 was received by Petitioner on dt. 3-6-91 and without waiting for the reply. Competent Authority vide his letter No. MDA/ A-21/762 dated 7-6-91 informed that it has been decided to constitute Enquiry Committee to look into the charges .

(ii) That the Enquiry Committee earlier constituted vide competent authority's letter No. MDA/ A-21/857 dated 19-6-91 did not Commence enquiry proceeding dated 8-10-92 the Competent Authority constituted another committee to look into the charges levelled against petitioner/ workman . Thus , two committees were constituted to look into the same charges for the reasons best known to the management .

That the finding ofthe Enquiry Committee is based on total lack of appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary. The evidence is totally insufficient to arrive at the conclusion reached by Enquiry Committee without giving any reasoning in support of its conclusion . Moreover, no Loading Supervisor has been produced by the Management as its witness in support of the charges levelled against the Petitioner/workman, to whom the workman reports . The Enquiry Committee has imported their perosnal knowledge and enlarged the scope of the charge sheet by adding Section 14 (3 ) (e) ofModel Standing Orders. Moreover, there are gross mistakes of omission and commission in the enquiry report. In the analysis of evidence, no reasons have been given by the committee to arrive at conclusion in support of the charge having proved against the Petitioner /workman . Even for holding x-parte enquiry proceedings and report have been conducted and written in gross violation of principles of natural justice and hence should not be relied upon by Competent Authority for awarding the punishment to the petitioner/ workman.

That it is strongly reiterated that punishment awarded to the Petitioner is totally disproportionate to the charges levelled against the Petitioner without taking into account his improved attendance and large number of leave standing to his credit, his long years of services , his family responsibilities and old age .

(iii) That the first committee did not commence any proceeding as per management's own case and whereas second committee fixed its proceedings on six occasions out of which on three occasions it cancelled the same due to its own preoccupation or faults , out of the remaining three , intimation was received by workman only on one occasion when he had signed an acknowledgement slip in token of receipt of intimation, Therefore, conducting ex- parte proceedings just on the basis of absence on one occasion , that too when proceedings were postponed due to preoccupation of the Enquiry Committee , is totally uncalled for, arbitrary and capricious which no man ofnormal prudence would have done .

That in view of the finding of the Supreme Court as reported in Mr. Mohd . Ramzan's case mentioned above, since copy of the enquiry report has not been made available and prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner and the punishment is totally disproportionate to the charge of absence. It may also be mentioned that Petitioner has about 113 days privilege leave to his credit and is not understood as to how he has been treated as absent on loss of pay when, he has been invariably conveying oral message to his bosses in view of sickness and death in his family, who had sent a Demand Notice to the Chairman/ Managing Director, Air India on the said date and no reply has been received .

That the Competent Authority has not taken into account the significantly improved attendance of the workman during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings and even thereafter till his services were dismissed , which is against the established view of the Apex Court and other High Courts that Justice must be tampered with mercy and erring official must be given an opportunity to reform himself.

That in above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, I referred judgement dated February 6, 1998 in SLP (C ) No. 1079 of 1998 of Supreme Court of India and other cases i.e. Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited & Anr . Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Anr, [ 1996 (3 ) SSC 156-1986 ( 1 ) SCALE- 799 ] .

Escorts Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officers [ 1997 ( 11 ) SOC-

621] .

West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors Vs. Desh Bandhu Ghosh & Ors , [ 1985 (3 ) SCALE -297 ] :

That the Petitioner/ worknıan has been verbally informing his inımediate supervisor before availing the leave . Since leave cards are not available within the department and kept in personal departinent , which is open only during general shift and located at a distance of 1.5 Kms , it is not always possible for Petitioner to fill in the details of his leave on the leave card which is purely a clerical work , and could leave card which is purely a clerical 13756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors , ( 1991 Supp ( 1 ) SCC600= 1990(2) .

respond to these notices . Subsequently the Enquiry Proceedings were held ex -parte . The Enquiry Committee submitted its report holding the workman guilty of the charges . A show cause notice was given to the workman alongwith the copy ofthe Enquiry Committee's report , the receipt ofwhich was acknowledged by him. However, he did not send a reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter the Management issued dismissal order.

Inview of the West Bengal State Electricity Board & Ors,Vs. DeshBandhu Ghosh & Ors. ( 1998) 3 SCC 116 , held that any provision in the Regulation enabling the Management to terminate the services of a permanent employee by giving three months notice or pay in lieu the Constitution . Such a Regulation was held to be captive of vicious discrimination and was also held to be naked ' hire and fire' rule . This view was reiterated in Central Inland WaterTransport Corporation Limited & Anr. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly& Anr. (1986) 3 SCC 156.

It issubmitted that the principle of Natural Justice was duly adhered to in carrying out the disciplinary proceedings against the workman . All opportunities were accorded to the workman from the stage of issue of charge sheet to the issue of show cause notice ; however the workman chose to abstain from the disciplinary proceedings . It is therefore submitted that there are no grounds for submitting the present claim and therefore the same should be rejected.

Again in view of O.P. Bhandari Vs. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors . ( 1986) 4 SCC 337 . This court held that Rule 31 (v) of the Indian Tourism Development Corporation (Conduct Discipline & Appeal ) Rules 1978, which provided that the services of a permanent employee could be terminated by giving him '90 days ' notice orpay in lieu thereof would be violative of Artices 14 & 16 ofthe Constitution of India .

Without prejudice to above it is submitted that the workman in the present claim has not disputed the misconduct committed by him on merits , he is challenging the procedure of enquiry and non - supply of Enquiry Committee report, which as a matter of record was supplied to him along with the show cause notice .

Again in the view of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress & Ors . 1991 Supp ( 1 ) SCC 600 reviewed by the Constitution Bench and except then ChiefJustice, Sabyasachi Mukharji , who dissented, the other 4- Judges reiterated the earlier view that the service of a confirmed employee could not be legally terminated by a simlpe notice

TheManagement has filed written reply. In the written reply it has been stated that the workman concerned in the present dispute has filed the statement of claim based on the grounds which have already been decided on merits by the Hon'ble National Industrial Tribunbal -Mumbai vide its order dated 3-5-1994 passed in the Approval Application No: NTB-64 of 1993 movedby the Management .

The workman had a bad service record, whercin he had been repeatedly committing misconducts . His past record has been clearly enumerated in the dismissal order annexed at page 33 to 35 of the list of documents , which shows that he was warned on many occasions to improve his attendance. He had been chargesheeted on two occasions and on being found guilty was given the punishment of reduction in basic pay in the years 1984 and 1990. He had been further warned to improve his service record otherwise extreme punishment of dismissal will be imposed upon him . It is reiterated that the management had time and again warned and reprimanded the workinen to improve his conduct , however he showed improvements and failed to mend himself. no All the averments made in the present statement of claim have been specifically dealt with by the Presiding Officer, NIT-Mumbai and a meritious and responded order has been passed on 3rd May, 1994. Therefore , once a dispute has already been adjudicated on merits by the NIT- Mumbai, the same can, in no mariner be adjudicated again on similar grounds by CGIT - Dellhi . The claim of the workman deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone .

The present claim deserves to be rejeced as the same suffers from delays and laches , the same having been filed after a gap of 5 years from the date of the approval orders Passedby NIT -Mumbai .

The workman was chargesheeted for unauthorized absence from duty and was asked to give explanation to the charges levelled on him within 72 hours ( i.e.3 days ) from the date of receipt of the charge sheet . However, the workman after receiving the charge sheet on 3-6-1991 failed to respond with an explanation within the stipulated time period and therefore the management issued a letter constituting the Enquiry Committee . The workman never requested for any extension of time period for submitting his explanation to the charge sheet . It is purely an afterthought that the objection ofconstituting the Enquiry Committee without waiting for the reply to the chargsheet isbeing raised at this stage before this Hon'ble Tribunal .

Without prejudice to the above , it is submitted that the workman was charge sheeted for ' Absenteeism ' in violation of the Model Standing Orders applicable to him. Afterreceiving the charge sheet the workman did not give any explanation to the same and therefore an Enquiry Committee was constituted to enquire into the charges . The Enquiry Committee gave repeated reminders to the workman to appear before them but the workman did not

The Management had constituted an Enquiry Committee in the year 1991 however due to the administrative resons it could not start its proceedings and therefore the Enquiry Committee was reconstituted 13757 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

to- appear and make his submissions or call any witnesses to support his case in Defence . He however chose to remain silent and now before this Hon'ble Tribunal his contentions are purely an afterthought . He is trying to malign the report of the Enquiry Committee for false and misconceived reasons .

under the convenorship of Mr. N.K. Lahir, which gave due notice ofthe reconstitution of enquiry committee and asked the workman to appear and defend his case . It is reiterated that this reconstitution of the enquiry committee was duly intimated to the workman vide office order No. MDA/A- 22/6201 dated 8-10-1992 . The workman is trying to misled the Hon'ble tribunal by raising the issue of two committees looking into the same charges , whereas it was only one committee which and conducted the enquiry proceedings and submitted its report .

It is reiterated that the report of the Enquiry Committee is proper and based on substantive evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity. The Enquiry proceedings have also been conducted in due accordance with the principles of Natural Justice.

The punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the misconduct committed by him and in light of the past record of habitual absenteeism. The workman has been warned on many occasions and has been charge sheeted twice for the same misconduct and awarded the punishment of reduction in basic pay. He was categorically warned that he should be more careful in future and repetition of such misconduct or any other misconduct will be viewed seriously which may even result in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. It was despite these warnings and punishments that the workmancontinued to remain absent unauthoritsedly and was therefore charge sheeted and subsequently dismissed. from the service.

There has been no arbitrariness on the part ofenquiry committee in conducting an ex parte enquiry against the workman, he was given due notices to appear on each and every date ofhearing, however he never bothered to appear before the enquiry committee or even send any intimation to the enquiry committee . The enquiry committee had to post-pone its proceedings due to pre -occupation of the convenor only on two occasions i.e. on 26-11-1992 and 21-1-1993 , whereas the workman failed to appear on three dates i.e. 7-1-1993 , 25-1-1993 and 22-2-1993 . It was only after these absence of the workman despite of having been given notice of the same , the enquiry committee proceeded ex parte against the workman. The workman during the entire period of enquiry proceedings i.e. from 26-11-1992 to 22-2-1993 did not even send a single communication/ information to the enquiry committee. Therefore, the contention of any arbitrariness is totally false and malafide.

All the factors including past service record were duly consideredby the management before awarding the punishment ofdismissal from the services . The citation of Mohd . Ramzan's case is totally inapplicable in the present case as the copy of the Enquiry Committee's report was duly given to the workman along with the show cause notice . The contents of para 2 of the reply stated above is reiterated.

It is ironical to show that the workman improved his attendance during the pendency of enquiry proceedings on one hand and on the other hand never bothered to appear before the enquiry committee even once. This show the intentional nature of the workman in not attending the enquiry proceedings and tying to cover up his lapses ..

InAir India Ltd. there exists no mechanism ofavailing leave on verbal information ; a written request has to be made in advance for availing a leave . The workman has a bad services record of habitual absenteeism . The allegation that leave cards were not available is false and denied . The leave cards are always available in the concerned departments . The workman had never moved even a single application requesting for leave for the entire period for which he was charge sheeted for unauthorized absence .

As regards Privilege Leave it is within the absolute discretion ofthe concerned Section Head, whether to allow Staff to avail Privilege Leave or nor depending on the . exigencies ofwork. No. Staff can avail it as a matter ofright . As regards sick leave a staff is entitled 10 days sick leave in an financial year . No medical certiticate is required for availing sick leave for two days . Staff is required to inform medical devisions about his sickness and at the time of resumption of resumption of duties , he must produce fitness certificate either from the Corporation's Doctor or a medical Certificate by Private Practitioner duly counter signedby Medical Officer. A Staff is entitled for 10 days Casual Leave in a financial year which is of non accumulative nature and expires at the end of financial year i.e. on every 31st March. Although prior permission of the Section head is not obligatory for the concerned staff but it is advisable that he/she should inform the concerned Section head as soon as possible and regularize his leave immediately on resumption of duty.

Theworkman was charge sheeted for misconduct as pertheModel Standing Orders and a proper enquiry was The Enquiry Committee has conducted the enquiry in due accordance with the principals of Natural Justice. The report of the Enquiry Committee is based on the reocords and documents placed before it as evidence . The attendance records were the vital documents based on which the Enquiry Committee arrived at its conclusion of holding the charge sheeted employee guilty of the charges leveled upon him. It is submitted that in cases of unauthorized absence, the attendance réocords are conclusive evidence for substantiating the charges of absenteeism and the same have been relied upon by the management . The workman was given ample opportunities 13758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 24 , 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] held by an Enquiry Committee, who submitted its report holding the workman guilty of the charges . Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the workman along with a copy of the Enquiry Committee's report . Thereafter, the dismissal order was passed by the management . No discrimination was done in the case of the workman . The principal of natural Justice was duly adhered to by the Enquiry Committee at all stages of the enquriy proceedings. The charge sheet and the dismissal order were in accordance with the Model Standing Orders applicable to the management. The case of the workman is not at all a case of discharge simplicitor.

Theworkman applicant has filed rejoinder and in his rejoinder he has reiterated the averment of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

fair procedure has not been adopted . It is almost true that doctrine of natural justice is incapable of exact definition . It has been considered synonimous to fairness and compliance or non - compliance therewith is to be examined on the totality of facts and circumstances in each case . So far as the instant case is concerned the workman applicant has taken frivolous grounds that notices to him have not been served. It transpires from perusal of the documents filed by the management and stated in affidavit that the workman.applicant has received letters after putting his signature regarding every date of inquiry. There is sufficient proofon the record that the workman has received letters on07-01-1993 , 25-01-1993 , 25-02-1993, 12-12-1993, 18-02-1993 , 11-03-1993 , 15-01-1993 , 11-11-1992, 08-10-1992, 06-05-1991 , 22-12-1992 . The workman applicant has received all these letters putting his own signature on different dates of inquiry. The management has not filed the original but from inquiry proceedings it transpires that inquiry has been held on these dates and the management has given evidence on affidavit that he has received all the notices and put his signature in token of receipt of the letters, so there is no truth in the statement ofclaim that no notice regarding the dates of the inquiry was served on him. It is proved beyond any- ray of doubt that the workman did receive the notice of all the dates of inquiry and put his signature in token of receipt so he cannot come to the court with unclean hands and take the plea that notices have not been served on him . The ground regarding non receipt of notice is frivolous and false one and the same hasbeen pleaded in order to confuse the matters .

It was further submitted from the side of the management that the workman has received the findings of the inquiry committee by letter dated 30-06-1993 on 03-07-1993 , and he has put his signature on the same as such findings of the inquiry report along with show cause notice has been received by him on 03-07-1993 . The workman applicant has given false affidavit in respect of non receipt of the notice for personal hearing before awarding the punishment . As such principles of natural justice have beenfollowed in the instant case by the management and all the pleadings of the workman applicant are absolutely false and contain no grain of truth.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman applicant that an inquiry has been held against him for his alleged 113 days absence . He has not been intimated ofthe dates of the inquiry and he could not appear so the inquiry has been held ex parte principles of natrual justice have not been followed and he has not been given opportunity to produce his own evidence and to defend himself. It was submitted from the side of the workman that the management once constituted an inquiry committee but that inquiry committee did not proceed with the inquiry and another inquiry committee was constituted so there is implied waiver on the part of the management and it shali bedeemed that the management relinquished all his rights regarding the conduct of disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent . The Enquiry proceedings subsequently are irregular, illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The management is estopped from constituting second inquiry committee. The inordinate delay has caused grave prejudice to the applicant and it would not be possible for him to remember the facts nor would it be possible to adduce evidence to establish innocence in regard to the charges . Such delay would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity to show cause and amounts to violation ofprinciples of natural justice. The management has not satisfactorily explained as to why first inquiry committee did not hold inquiry.

It was subnutted from the side of the management that one of the members of the inquiry committee was not available so immediatly a second inquiry committee has been constituted and there is no inordinate delay. The inquiry has been concluded within almost a year of the absence of the workman applicant.

Itwas also submitted by the workman applicant that there is inordinate delay in the conduct of the proceedings and so it shall be deemed that the department has waived hisrights for conducting the inquiry against the workman applicant . Chargesheet to the workman applicant was served on 16/ 29-05-1991 and the workman received it on 03-06-1991 and the competent authority proceeded with the inquiry on 07-06-1991. The inquiry could not commence so another inquiry committee was constituted on 08-10-1992 to inquiry into the charges levelled against the workman applicant as such there is no inordinate delay inconstitution of the inquiry committee as well as conduct The first point for consideration is whether the principles of natural justice have not been followed and 13759 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

of the inquiry. The first inquiry committee could not function so immediately another inquiry committee was constituted. So the principle of waiver is not attracted in the instant case .

authority concerned only with prima facie case and the findings under section 33 cannot operate as resjudicata to theadjudication of the reference relating to the termination/ dismissal of the services of the workman any action with which the permission and approval has been granted . The function of the competent authority for granting approval or refusing the same is not of adjudicatory nature . He has tocome to the conclusion prima faciedly. Prima facie case cannot be considered as a case where the misconduct of the delinquent has been proved to the hilt . The prima facie case is onlyprima facie case and is nothing beyond that . In reference under section 10 the entire case on its merits and de-merits after considering the entire conspectus of the circumstance is decided.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that the workman was chargesheeted for absenteeism in violation of the Model Standing Orders applicable to him. He did not give any explanation so the inquiry committee was constituted . The workman was absent despite notice on several dates sơ the inquiry was held ex-parte and the inquiry officer gave his findings that the charges ofmisconduct are proved against the workman applicant . The workman applicant was absent on 113 days . Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that in case he was found absent for 113 days he had privilege leave to his credit and his absence should be adjusted against his privilege leave . It is not verified from the record as how much privilege leave the workman applicant had at that time . The workman applicant has categorically admitted in his cross -examination that he filed no application for regularization of his leave . He has not applied for leave on the days he was absent . He informed his Incharge Officer but the Incharge Officer has not given any note to the department for consideration of leaves taken by the management.

It was submitted from the side of the management that if the findings of the competent authority on the same matter is not treated as resjudicata in subsequent reference u/s 10 of the ID Act there would be duplication of. proceedigns and it would not be possible to decide the case expeditiously as fostered in ID Act for alleviation of the sufferings of the workman . There would be un- necessary inordinate delay in the disposal of cases . It has beenheld in 1978 - II LLJ 10SC that the findings given while approving an application will not operate as resjudicata as the competent authourity has not been discharging his duties as industrial adjudicator. He cannot give award as the application is only for approval . A ban has been imposed for taking any action against the delinquent employee after completing the inquiry to obtain approval of competent authority. If that authority approves that application , only a ban imposed on the action of the management is lifted. The competent authority may accord approval to the application or he may reject the application but that is not adjudication of the enitire matter and he is not working in adjudicatory capacity so , I find no force in the argument of the Learned Counsel that the present proceedings are barred by the principles of resjudicata.

It was submitted from the side of the management that the reference is barred in view of the principles of resjudicata. After completion of the inquiry proceedings an application was moved before the competent authority forpermission to take action against the workman applicant. The competent court after hearing both the parties has decided the matter and he found that principles of natural justice have been followed and sufficient opportunities havebeen afforded to the workman applicant to participate inthe proceedings of the inquiry but he deliberately avoided the inquiry. He kept away intentionally from the proceedings ofthe inquiry despite knowledge . In the circumstances it is settled law that the inquiry officer can proceed ex-parte . The competent authority has found observance of the principles of natural justice and subsequently approved for taking action against the workman applicant . The competent authority has also given its view regarding the nature of punishment and it has been held that punishment ofdismissal is quite justified in view ofthe grave negligence onthe part of the workman applicant .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman applicant that the punishment inflicted is harsh and shocking. Such punishment cannot be sustained in view ofthe conduct of the absentism of the workman applicant. It was submitted from the side of the management that a disciplnary action can be taken under standing orders Schedule- I Industrial Employee General Rule 1946. It has been mentioned in Rule 14(e) that habitual absence without leave for more than 10 days leave would amount to misconduct. In the instant case the workman applicant has absented himself for 113 days in a very short period and his absentism has been proved by a fair inquiry conducted by the management . It was submitted from the side of the workman that the proceedings of the inquiry shouldbe recorded in Hindi or in English or in the language of that state where an industrial establishment is located whichever is preferred by the applicant . The applicant during the proceedings of inquiry did not challenge Itwas further submitted from the side of the management that findings of approving authority operate as resjudicata as the matter has been decided after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties . The authority was competent for according approval so the findings of the authority will operate as resjudicata and a reference under section 10 of the ID Act is barred . It isof course true that the authority granting approval for dismissal ofthe workman is a competent authority but while disposing of such application u/s 33 of the ID Act the

3557 GI/ 2005-12 13760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 1st December, 2005

S.O. 4776. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 215/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court New Delhi - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/ s . Gas Authority of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005.

[No. L- 30012/ 133/97 - IR (C -I ) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI language. He has been served chargesheet in Hindi and there was no objection raised from him that the proceedings should be carried on in Hindi language . He has received and put his signature on the notices written in English and he did not object at that time so after completion of the entire proceedings he cannot challenge the language of the inquiry proceedings . He is deemed to be estopped from his own conduct. There is no force in the argument of the workman applicant . The inquiry proceedings should be completed within period of three months but it can exceed further for reasons to be recorded in writing by the department. The department tried its best to conclude the inquiry expeditiously but the workman was not turning up so notices have been sent several times so delay has been occasioned on account of the conduct of the workman applicant . I have perused the law cited by the workman applicant but they are not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case .

PRESIDING OFFICER: R. N. RAI LD . No. 215/1998 IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Tarkeshwar Prashad Kharwar, S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad , C/o Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan , G.T. Road , Tis Hazari , Delhi- 110054.

VERSUS

Ittranspires from perusal of the entire proceedings thatthere is only a case of absentism against the workman applicant .His absentism has been proved to the guilt but he should not be awarded extreme punishment for only his absence. The management has dismissed the workman applicant after obtaining permission of a competent authority but in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment awarded to the workman is absolutely shocking and unjustified. In case he was absent in constrained circumstances he should be considered on leave without pay and his increment could be stopped with cumulative effect . In the instant case he has been dismissed . Dismissal in the instant case is not warranted, the workman is entitled to be reinstated without any back wages and without continuity of service.

TheManagement, M/s.GasAuthority of India Limited 16, Bhikaji Cama Place , New Delhi - 110066.

The reference is replied thus:---

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 30012/ 133/ 97 - IR -C ( 1 ) Central Government Dt . 20/21-10-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

The action of the management ofAir India in dismissing Shri Sumer Singh , Loader, ST No.41018 from service with effect from 24-09-1993 is neither absolutely just nor fair and nor legal . The applicant deserves to be reinstated without continuity of service and without back wages within one month from the date of publication ofthe award.

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 24-11-2005.

"Whether dismissing the services of Sh . Tarkeshwar Prasad Kharwar by the Gas Authority of India is legal and jsutified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled . "

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4776.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. गैस अथॉर्टी ऑफ इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिकःअधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 215/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -30012/133/97- आई आर ( सी-1) ]

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement is has been stated that Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad Kharwar, hereinafter called the workman, was taken in to the employment ofM/s . Gas Authority of India Ltd. , hereinafter called the management on probation w.e.f 27-11-1989 as Attendant Grade- III in the scale of Rs . 400- 550 (un- revised) in response to offer letter No. 2202/ 53 / 176/89 dated 16-11-89. The management vide letter No. 22/ 02/53 dated 7th Jan. 1991 , confirmed the workman on his successful completion of probation period. The workman has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to hiscredit.

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 13761

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

No. 177 (GO) dated 30-8-94 has not been examined in the lightof Certificate No. 1352/94 dated 17-6-94, on which basis Certificate No. 177 (GO) dated 30-8-94 has been issued.

(iii) Letter No. 1031 dated 8-3-95

The Defence assistant vide his written statement dated 26-12-95 stated, " this letter No. 1031 dated 8-3-95 has also been issued by SDM, Siwan and it is true and correct from our side . "

That the learned Inquiry Officer whie giving his finding in the Inquiry in Memo dated 29-2-96 observed as under:-

That vide Memo No. 22/02/53/336 (177) dated 29th Aug. 1995, the management served a charge - sheet on the workman alleging that the workman got his name registered with the Employment Exchange at Curzon Road, New Delhi inthe category of Scheduled Tribe for securing thejob of attendant Grade - III . It was alleged in the said charge -sheet that the workman produced fake certificate of the Cast of Kharwar issued by Distt . Magistrate and Sub - Divisional Officer of Siwan (Bihar) to prove that he belongs to Kharwar caste with the object of continuing in the job and hence the workman contravened Rule 4( 1 ) , Rule 5 (xii ) and Rule 4(I) (iii) of the GAIL Employees (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal) Rules , 1986 .

That the workman in reply to the charg -sheet submitted that he was never intended to take recourse to fraudulent means and Kharwar Caste to which he belongs is in the list of Scheduled Tribes of Bihar, notified by the Govt. of India. He further submitted that , however, he may be given some time to file a fresh Caste Certificate of the competent authority, showing him to belong to Kharwar Caste and Kharwar Caste as Schedule Tribe .

"... He (delinquent official ) contended with confidence at all time that he does belong to Kharwar Communitywhich is a recognized ST Caste in the State of Bihar. He maintained throughout the inquiry proceedings that these certificates were genuine and issued by respective authorities . The Defence Assistant Shri R.N .. Prasad, who was present in the proceedings held on 19-12-95, 26-12-95 and 9-1-96 also strongly refuted the chargs but could not present any convincing evidence of documents in support of his contention/arguments .

Thatvide order No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177) dated 6-10-95 , the management decided to hold an inquiry into the carges mentioned in the above para and Shri Ramesh Bhilwaria, Dy. Manager (P&A) was appointed as Inquiry Officer and Shri K. Rajan as Presenting Officer.

That an enquiry was held, and vide memorandum No. 22/02/53/36 (177) dated 29-2-96 the Inquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against workman stands proved. However, the Inquiry Officer boserved the Defence taken by the delinquent employee in the said proceedings and the relevant portion of the same is reproduced below:-

(i) Certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79

In the light of foregoing , 1 have come to the conclusion that Shri T.P. Kharwar has nothing concrete to support his stand and to counter or refute the charges levelled against him . Despite giving adequate opportunities to prove his innocence and support his arguments on the basis ofmaterial documents , he failed to produce anything convincing. The written brief dated 19-1-96 submitted by Shri T. P. Kharwar is irrelevant and reiterates what has beendescribed by him earlier . It does not clearly contain pointwise reply ofthe charges levelled against Shri T.P. Kharwar. In the absence of any documentary evidence the contentions and arguments of Shri T.P. Kharwar cannot be takenforgranted.

As such the statement of reply submitted to Inquiry Officerby Shri T.P. Kharwar from time to time response to the charges levelled are not convincing and hence not acceptable . Therefore, the charges levelled against Shri Kharwar stands proved.

The Defence Assistant vide his written statement dated 26-12-95 stated the " the certificate was obtained by Shri Dwarka Prasad, father of Shri T.P. Kharwar form S.D.M. , Siwan " . This certificate is correct and true from our side. Further, vide his written statement dated 9-1-96 , the defence assistant has stated, " the confirmation report send to GAIL by S.D.M. , Siwan vide his letter No. 25- 04(02)/93 (TP)/1083/GS dated 13-9-93 in respect of this certificate is not based on facts because it does not mention anything about the record ."

That on the basis of report of the Inquiry Officer dated 29-2-96 , the workman was removed from service vide Order No. 22/02/53/336( 177) dated 24-9-96.

He further stated " In this connection it is essential to know in whose favour ST Certificate bearing IS No. 116 has been issued by the S.D.M. of Siwan" .

Certificate No. 776 dated 30-8-94 :

That the Memorandum ( Inquiry Report ) dated 29-2-96 issued by the Inquiry Officer and Order of removal dated 24-9-96 issued by the Sr. Dy. Manager (P & P) are illegal, bad, unjust , malafide , amounts to victimization and unfair labour practice , factually and legally incorrect and show not -application of mind and are liable to be set aside for the following amongst other reasons...

(i) That the findings of the Inquiry are perverse in law as the Inquiry Officer has nowhere held the workman does not belong to the Kharwar caste In his written statement dated 26-12-95 , the defnece assistant wrongly mentioned certificate No. 776 dated 30-8-94. In his support he stated "this certificate is also correct and true and has been issued from the office of S.D.M. , Siwan . The report No. 1182 /C dated 20-12-94 sent by S.D.M. , Siwan is not based on facts as this Certificate 13762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

and/or Kharwar caste,is not recognised as Scheduled Tribe in Bihar State .

(ii) The findings of the Inquiry Officer are also perverse as neither there was any material on record nor he has not given any finding to hold that the workman submitted the Caste Certificate in question withbad intention (mens rea ) (iii) The findings of the Inquiry Officer are also perverse and bad in law, a throughout in the enquiry proceedings and in the Inquiry Report he assumed as if the workman has to prove his innocence and he looked or misdirected himself that the prosecution has to stand on their legs and they have to prove the guilt of the delinquent official

( iv) That the report ofthe Inquiry Officer is not based on the material on record.

(v) That the Inquiry Officer has not at all considered the material evidence such as Attestation Form in which the workman has shown himself as from Kharwar Caste, Scheduled Tribe which was duly verified by the competent officials of Bihar Government andalso relied by the management .

(vi) That from the very threshold of the Inquiry, the stand of the workman was that he belongs to Kharwar Caste which is recognised as Scheduled Tribe in the State ofBihar but the Inquiry Officer failed togive due importance to this stand nor he made any attempt to look into the correctness of the assertions of the workman and without inquiring into this aspect, he jumped to decide the authenticity of the Caste Certificate. He has not duly applied his mind that in case the contents of the Caste Certificate are correct then how can that certificate be treated as false and even if for the sake of argument the Certificate is treated to be irregular, whether the charge can be held to be proved against the workman.

(vii) That the Inquiry Officer presumed throughout as ifthe workman has to prove his innocence but he failed to appreciated that the management throughout made attempts only to investigate the regularity of Caste Certificate but have not made any attempt to verify the most vital aspect i.e. whether the workman belongs to Kharwar Caste and Kharwar Caste is recognized as Scheduled Tribe in the State of Bihar or not ? The Inquiry Officer also failed to call the necessary witnesses/ material which could have been available to him if he would have make some efforts i.e. calling competent officals from State of Bihar to testify/ verify the contents of the Certificate produced by the workman or other necessary material .

(viii) That the Inquiry Officer also overlooked one of the vital aspect i.e. , the human angle i.e. , this

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] oppressed class for whose upliftment the policy of reservation in jobs was sanctioned by the framers ofthe Constitution even as on today are unable to prove that 2+2= 4 i.e. despite being they belong to Scheduled Tribe (Kharwar) the Inquiry Officer due to his casual attitude or not taking his duties seriously holds charges proved as mentioned in the chargesheet .

(ix) That even otherwise the inquiry was conducted contrary to the principles of natural justice and fairplay.

(x) That the learned Appointing and Disciplinary Authority has not at all applied his mind on the Inquiry Report and in a most casual manner passed the orders of removal from service of the workman.

(xi) That the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is a non - speaking and without reasons.

(xii) That, even otherwise, the punishment imposed upon the workman is shockingly harsh and disproportionate to the alleged charge against the workman.

(xiii) That on a filmsy issue or making issue out of no issue and issuing a charge- sheet and for an eye- washholding an enquiry and passing shockingly harsh punishment amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Fifth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The facts are itself evident that the workman has been victimized only because he belongs to Scheduled Tribe on the basis of which he secured employment and some oftheofficer are ideologically traced against such schemes of the Constitution of India and his getting employment under such Scheme.

That the workman is unemployed since the date of his removal from service i.e. 24-9-1996.

That the workman made an appeal against the impugned order of removal to the Chairman of the Gas Authority of India Limited vide communication dated 24-12-96 personally as well as by registered A/D post , duly received in his office , but neither any reply was received nor any action was taken by the management on the appeal oftheworkman.

TheManagement has filed written reply. In the written reply it has been stated that Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad - S/ o Late Dwarka Prasad was appointed in Gas Authority of India Ltd. (GAIL) as Attendant Grade III against the post reserved for Scheduled Tribe community in the then Scale ofPay of Rs.400-500/ - (Revised Rs . 1126-1526) w.e.f. 27-11-1989, for which his name was sponsored by the Sub- Regional Employment Exchange, Curzon Road, New Delhi . He was then selected on the basis of his claim to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe community and as per 13763

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

imputation of misconduct in respect ofwhich the enquiry was proposed, the articles of charge, list of documents & witnesses were also enclosed with the above order dated 29-8-95 (ANNEXURE " I " ) .

registration with the Sub -Regional Employment Exchange , Curzon Road, New Delhi . He was allowed to join GAIL provisionally subject to verification of C& A and caste certificate submitted by him at the time of joining by the Competent Authority.

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad then sought time for submitting his reply and the Disciplinary Authority allowed extension of 15 day's time to file his reply.

Since Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad denied the charges , the Disciplinary Authority then vide his order dated 6-10-95 appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presiding Officer for conducting the inquires as per the GAIL Employees ' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal ) Rules, 1986 ( ANNEXURE " J).

The copy of Caste Certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 (ANNEXURE " B " ) submitted by Shri T.P. Kharwar was issuedby the Office of District Magistrate , District Siwan, Bihar and accordingly the same was forwarded for verification vide GAIL's letter No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177) , March 19, 1993 (ANNEXURE ' A' ) to the District Magistrate, Siwan,Bihar enclosing a copy of the ST certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 ( ANNEXURE ' B ' ) submitted by Shri TarkeshwarPrasad and the District Magistrate , Siwan, Bihar vide his letter No.25-04 ( 02)/93 (PP) 1083/GS dated 13-7-93 (ANNEXURE " C " ) informed that the caste certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 submittedby Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad istotally forged including signature and seal.

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad on being informed that the certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 ( ANNEXURE " B " ) was forged, requested for an opportunity to produce a fresh caste certificate issued by the competent authority.

The Inquiry was conducted as per the procedure under the conduct rules where Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend and the principles of natural justice were ensured . On conclusion of the Inquiry in which Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad fully participated , the Inquiry Officer submitted his report concluding that the charges leveled against Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad- contained in Memorandum No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177 ) dated 29-8-95 stand proved . Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad was thengiven a copy of the Inquiry Report vide Memorandum No. 22/02/53/336 (177) dated 29-2-96 (ANNEXURE " K " ) and further given an opportunity to make any representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority.

The Disciplinary Authority has also given a personal hearingto Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad.

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad then submitted another Certificate No.776 dated 30-8-94 issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Siwan (Bihar ) ( ANNEXURE ' D ' ) .This Certificate was also sent on 9-12-94 to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate's Office , Siwan for verification. In reply, SDM, Siwanvide their letter dated 20-12-1994 ( ΑΝΝEXURE ' E' ) informed that the Certificate No. 776 is false and fabricated. Further, another letter dated 8-3-95 ( ANNEXURE " F " ) purported to have been issued by SDO , Siwan was received byus along with an application of one Shri Neeraj Prasad claiming to be the brother of Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad . On verification, this letter of 8-3-95 was also found to be false as confirmed by the SDM, Siwan vide letter No.351 /C dt . 24-5-95 ( ANNEXURE ' G' ) .

The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply submitted by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad , his oral submission during personal hearing , the Inquiry Report , the documents produced during inquiry, evidence of the witnesses , and the gravity of the misconduct decided that ends ofjustice would be met if the penalty of dismissal from the services of GAIL is awarded to Sh . Tarkeshwar Prasad. However, keeping in view his young age , the Disciplinary authority took a lenient view and imposed uponhim the penalty of removal from the services ofGAIL . Accordingly Sh. Tarkeshwar Prasad was removed from the services ofGAIL vide order No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177) dated 24-9-96 ( ANNEXURE " L" ) .

Adequate opportunities were therefore providedto Shri Prasad for submitting a proper Caste Certificate duly issued by the Competent Authority . However , all the certificate (viz No. 116 dated 11-9-79 , No. 776 dated 30-8-94 and letter dated 8-3-95 ) submitted by him on verification were found to be false and fabricated.

Appellate Authority after having gone through the records and procedure followed in the enquiry, found that Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad was given adequate opportunities to represent his case before the Inquiry Officer.

Later the Vigilance Officer of GAIL met the District Magistrate and Sub Divisional Magistrate , Siwan, Bihar and confirmed that the Caste Certificates submitted by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad was not issued by their offices . Report ofthe Vigilance Officer is annexed as ANNEXURE 'H'

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

Evidence ofboth the parties have been taken.

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

Disciplinary Authority, therefore, then ordered for holding an inquiry against Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad for submitting false caste certificate in accordance with Rule 30 of the GAIL Employees ' ( Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules as applicable to him vide Memorandum No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177 ) dated 29-8-95 . The substance of 13763 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

imputation of misconduct in respect of which, the enquiry was proposed, the articles of charge, list of documents & witnesses were also enclosed with the above order dated 29-8-95 (ANNEXURE " )

registration with the Sub-Regional Employment Exchange, CurzonRoad, New Delhi. He was allowed to join GAIL provisionally subject to verification of C&A and caste certificate submitted by him at the time of joining by the CompetentAuthority.

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad then sought time for submitting his reply and the Disciplinary Authority allowed extension of 1'5 day's time to file his reply

Since Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad denied the charges , the Disciplinary Authority then vide hissorderorder dated 6-10-95 appointed an Inquiry Officer and a Presiding Officer for conducting the inquires as per the GAIL. Employees' (Conduct, Discipline & Appeal ) Rules , 1986 (ANNEXURE "J).

The copy of Caste Certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 (ANNEXURE "B " ) submitted by Shri T.P. Kharwar was issuedby the Office of District Magistrate, District Siwan, Bihar and accordingly the same was forwarded for verification vide GAIL's letter No. 22/02/53/336 (177) , March 19, 1993 (ANNEXURE'A' ) to the District Magistrate, Siwan,Bihar enclosing a copy ofthe ST certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 (ANNEXURE ' B ' ) submitted by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad and the District Magistrate, Siwan, Bihar vide his letter No.25-04 (02)/93 (PP) 1083/GS dated 13-7-93 (ANNEXURE " C" ) informed that the caste certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 submitted by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad istotally forged including signature and seal .

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad on being informed that the certificate No. 116 dated 11-9-79 (ANNEXURE " B " ) was forged, requested for an opportunity to produce a fresh caste certificate issued by the competent authority.

The Inquiry was conducted as per the procedure under the conduct rules where Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad was afforded all reasonable opportunities to defend and the principles ofnatural justice wore caouped. On conclusion ... of the Inquiry in which Sari Tarkoghwar, Pensad, fully participated, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report concluding that the charges leveled against Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad contained in Memorandum No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177) dated 29-8-95 stand proved . Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad was then given a copy ofthe Inquiry Report vide Memorandum No. 22/02/53/336( 177) dated 29-2-96 (ANNEXMARE SK " ) and further given an opportunity to make any repementation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority b

TheDisciplinaryAuthority has also given a personal hearing to Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad

Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad then submitted another Certificate No. 776 dated 30-8-94 issued by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Siwan (Bihar) (ANNEXURE ' D ' ) .This Certificatewas also sent on 9-12-94 to the Sub -Divisional Magistrate's Office , Siwan for verification. In reply, SDM, Siwanvide their letter dated 20-12-1994 ( ANNEXURE ' E' ) informed that the Certificate No. 776 is false and fabricated. Further, another letter dated 8-3-95 ( ANNEXURE " F " ) purported tohave been issued by SDO , Siwan was received by us along with an application ofone Shri Neeraj Prasad claiming to be the brother ofShri Tarkeshwar Prasad . On verification , this letter of8-3-95 was also foundto be false as confirmed by the SDM, Siwan vide letter No.351 /C dt. 24-5-95 (ANNEXURE ' G' ) .

The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply submitted by Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad, his oral submission during personal hearing, the Inquiry Report , the documents producedoduced during inquiry , evidenceevide of ofthe witnesses , and the gravity of the misconduct decided that ends ofjustice would be met if the penalty of dismissal from the services of GAIL is awarded to Sh. Tarkeshwar Prasad. However, keeping in view his young age , the Disciplinary authority took a lenientlenient view and imposed upon him the penalty ofremoval from the services ofGAIL. Accordingly Sh. Tarkeshwar Prasad waswas removed from the services ofGAIL vide order No. 22/02/53/336 ( 177) dated 24-9-96 (ANNEXURE " L" ) .

Adequate opportunities were therefore provided to Shri Prasad for submitting a proper Caste Certificate duly issued by the Competent Authority. However, all the certificate (viz No. 116 dated 11-9-79 , No. 776 dated 30-8-94 and letter dated 8-3-95) submitted by him on verification were found to be false and fabricated.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his " rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement . The managemefit has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement:

have been taken, Evidence of both the parties have

Heard arguments from both the parties and perused thepapers on the record.

Disciplinary Authority, therefore , then ordered for holding an inquiry against Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad for submitting false caste certificate in accordance with Rule 30 of the GAIL Employees' ( Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules as applicable to him vide Memorandum No. 22/02/53/336 (177) dated 29-8-95 . The substance of 13764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

It was further submitted that respondents did not lodge any FIR for forgery and mis - representation . It is not found necessary by the Bank so the Bank did not do so . The workman applicant cannot take benefit of non - lodging ofFIR.

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that the marnagement served a chargesheet on theworkman applicant alleging that the workman got his name registered with the Employment Exchange at Curzon Road, New Delhi in the category of Scheduled Tribe for securing thejob of Attendant, Grade- III . It was alleged in the said chargesheet that the workman produced his fake certificate of the caste of Kharwar issued by the District Magistrate and Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Siwan (Bihar) to prove that he belongs to Kharwar caste to continue in thejob and hence the workman contravened rule 4(1 ), rule 5 (12) of the GAIL Employees (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986 .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the workman that he belongs to Kharwar caste and Kharwar caste is a Schedule Tribe. There is notification regarding the same. It wassubmittedfrom the side of the management that when they came to know about the fake certificate they sent letters to DM & SDM, Siwan (Bihar) . The DM and SDM Siwan (Bihar) have reported that no certificate of Schedule Tribe has been issued by them and no certificate has been issued on the number which was supplied by the workman applicant . The management sent vigilance officer to the SDM & DM, Siwan (Bihar) and confirmed that caste certificate submitted by the workman Shri Tarkeshwar Prasadwas not issued by their office ..

It was submitted from the side ofthe management that proper verifications have been made from the issuing authorities and they have categorically denied that the certificates presented by the workman applicant were issued by them. The vigilance officer has also reported after inquiry that the caste certificates were false and not issued by the office of SDM & DM Siwan (Bihar).

The certificates which have been supplied by the workman have been found forged but Kharwar caste is a Scheduled Tribe , so it casts doubt on the intire case . The workman has not been able to prove that the certificate filed at the time of his appointment was genuine one . The management has verified it from several sources . The fact cannot bedenied that Kharwar caste is a Scheduled Tribe . My attention was drawn to [ The Constitution (ST) Order 1950] . According to this notification Kharwar caste is a Schedule Tribe in Andhra Pradesh State. According to the notification of 1991 Bihar Gazette extraordinary dated 20th September, 1991 Kharwar caste is a Schedule Tribe for Siwan and Rohtas district of Bihar . According to the notification of the Government of India , Ministry ofHome Affairs SCs and STs list modification order 1956 Kharwar Caste is a Schedule Tribe throughout the State . So according to the notification of 1956 Kharwar caste throughout Bihar is a Schedule Tribe. It is correct that the workman has not filed correct caste certificate and the certificates filedby him were found not genuine after proper inquiryby the management but none the less the workman is a Schedule Tribe candidate in view of the notification of 1956 by Government of India , Ministry of Home Affairs . The workman did not produce these papers before the management so the management has held the certificates filed by him forged and fabricated . The workman in view of order of 1956 belongs to Schedule Tribe . The workman was negligent in not placing before the respondents these notifications of the Government of India so it is held that the workman belongs to Schedule Tribe. Since there is negligence on the part of the workman so he is not entitled to get any wages but he is entitled to be reinstated in service with continuity of service but without backwages .

The reference is replied thus:-

The dismissal of the services of Shri Tarkeshwar Prasad Kharwar by the Gas Authority of India is not absolutely legal and justified . The workman applicant is entitled to be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal with continuity of service but without back wages. The management should reinstate the workman applicant within two months from the publication of the award.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 22-11-2005 .

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer It was further submitted from the side ofthe workman that theprinciples of natural justice have not been followed. The workman has not been given proper opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to afford evidence in defence. The principles ofnatural justice are incapable of exact definition . These principles vary from case to case. In the instant case documents are significant evidence . Oral evidence and examination ofthe witnesses is not very much material . The workman has not so far been able to file the correct certificate regarding his caste . The certificates which were filed by him were found false, forged and fabricated on verification and on inquiry by the vigilance officer. Principles of natural justice in the circumstances are not attracted for cross examination of the witnesses . The workman applicant should have filed authentic certificate of his caste but he has not succeeded to do so even in this Tribunal . He has obtained service on presenting forged and fabricated caste certificate so the Bank did not think itproper to retain him in service and he was dismissed from service.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 4777.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर पोर्ट अथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया/एअरगो ट्रेवल एवं कार्गो प्राइवेट लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-11012/40/2001- आई आर ( सी- I ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st December , 2005 S.O. 4777.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 48/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of India/Airogo Travel &Cargo Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-11-2005.

[No. L- 11012/40/2001 -IR (C -I)] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI . ID No. 48/2001 IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Jaiprakash , S/o . Shri Braham Singh, Supervisor Airport Authority of India , R/o . H.No. 387 , V & PO Mitrao, New Delhi -43 .

VERSUS

1. Airport Authority of India , Indira Gandhi International Airport , New Delhi .

2. Airogo Travel & Cargo Pvt . Limited, Public Amenities Building , Air Cargo Terminal , IGI Airport , New Delhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 11012/ 40/2001-1R ( C- 1 ) Central Government Dt . 10-7-2001 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the General Manager Cargo , AA1, IGI Airport , New Delhi and G.M. Airgo Complex, IGI Airport , New Delhi in not allowing Shir Jaiprakash , Supervisor to enter the premises/ workplace at Cargo Complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi w.e.f. 04-08-1999 is just , fair and legal ? If not , to what reliefis the said workman entitled and from what date?"

13765

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

The workman has filed claim statement and the management has filed reply to the same but thereafter the workman has not turned up . Notice has been sent to both the parties . The management has turned up but the workman has not turned up . It transpires from perusal of the order sheet that the workman was not present from 05- 03-2003 till date. The managment has turned up all along. The claim statement of the workman is not supported by any rejoinder or affidavit . Last opportunity was given and thereafter opportunity to file rejoinder was closed.

No dispute award is given . Date: 21-11-2005

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4778.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन एअर लाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111 / 99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव [सं. एल-11012/6/82. डी- II ( बी ) आई आर ( सी- I ) ] New Delhi , the 1st December, 2005 S.O. 4778. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 111/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, New Delhi - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Airlines and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 28-11-2005.

. L- 11012/6/82 -D- II (B )-IR (C- I)] [No.

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI . ID No. 111/1999

IN THE MATTER OF :- The General Secretary, Delhi Mazdoor Sangh , 100, Tilak Nagar Chowk, New Delhi .

VERSUS

The Regional Director, Indian Airlines , Thapar House, 124, Janpath, New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L- 11012/ 6/82-D.II (B)/IR (C - I) Central Government Dt . 05-04-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication.

13766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] The point runs as hereunder :

their counterpart regular employees who are discharging the similar/identical duties . The management employs a large number of regular employees who are discharging similar duties as discharged by the workmen herein .

"Whether the removal of 19 workmen from services w.e.f. 13th July, 1982 by the management of Indian Airlines is legal and just? If not so for what relief the workmen are entitled and from what date?"

That during the continuation of their services the workmenfrom time to time requested the management to pay them equal pay for equal work. The workmen were being paid at the rate of Rs . 18/-, Rs.13/- and Rs.9.25 paise per day as detailed in the particulars of the workmen. The request of the workmen to pay them equal wages was not considered by the management.

That the wages paid to the workmen were far less than the wages paid to the regular employees of the management who are also discharging the similar duties . The workmen made various representations to the management and requested their immediate officer to pay wages at the same rate as was being paid to the other employees of the Indian Airlines , also issue them appointment letters , leave cards and other amenities and benefits provided to the other employees .

The workmen applicants have filed claim statement. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workmen were appointed during 1980 as electricians , carpenters, pump operators , plumbers and helpers etc. as casual labour and the direct control and supervision of the management, through Shri R.B. Singh , the Care Taker of the management to work at Indian Airlines and Air IndiaStaff Housing Colony, Vasant Vihar , New Delhi for the purposes of sanitary, water supply and sewage work. These workmen were paid by the management directly by obtaining individual vouchers from each workman till September, 1981. The attendance has been duly marked by Shri R.B. Singh , Harbans Singh , Shiv Kumar or Ranjit Singh all are officials of the Indian Airlines . Even the payment/hand receipt has been duly signed by these persons.

That however, the management did not take any action on the legitimate grievances of the workmen . In these circumstances during April, 1982 the workmen agitated and claimed equal wages with arrears as was paid to the other employees of the management in the same category of employees . When the workmen failed to get proper and positive response from the management , the workmen through their Union addressed a letter dated 30-06-1982 to the Labour Commissioner requesting him to intervene in the matter and look into the grievances of the workmen mentioned in the letter and also directing the management to make payment of wages for the months of May and Junė , 1982.

That the workmen discharged duties with utmost devotion and sincerity and to the utter satisfaction of the management . That however the management changed the mode of payment of wages to the workmen herein from October, 1981 onwards . The management selected four workmen as petty contractors , each contractor employing 3-4 workmen as contract labour. The management paid these four workmen the total amount of wages payable to all the workmen who in turn were directed to distribute the same among the workmen . The management replaced these petty contractors by selecting other workmen as petty contractor and the earlier petty contractors were freated as workmen. This action of the respondent was mainly to deprive the workmen of the equal wages for equal work, status and designation and other benefits of the service .

It is relevant to submit here that all the workmen including the so called petty contractors continued to discharge their duties as usual and the change of mode of payment had no effect on the proper discharge of work by the worknien. It is further submitted that the description of these four persons as petty contractors was without any proper reason nor they were appointed through a tender advertised or accepted . The management converted the casual labour into contract labour when the nature of the work was same, the work discharged by the workmen was also same and the fixed wages paid to the workmen was also the same. The change of casual labour into contract labour was just overcome the provisions of law and the various judgements of the courts of law where the provisions of law and the judgements of the courts of law held that the casual labours are entitled for equal pay as paid to

That on the complaint of the Delhi Mazdoor Sangh the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Okhla, New Delhi sent one Labour Inspector on 01-07-1982 to the Inquiry Office of the management at Vasant Vihar . The Inspector visited the office of the management and directed Shri R.B. Singh the officer concerned to appear the ALC on 02-07-1982 and tried to explain that the workmen were employed through petty contractors . The ALC directed the said Shri R.B. Singh to produce the documents in support to his statement on 05-07-1982. On 05-07-1982 Shri R.B. Singh failed to appear before the ALC as a result of which the case was adjourned to 13-07-1982 . On 13-07-1982 also Shri R.B. Singh did not appear before the Labour Officer. On the other hand on 13-07-1982 the workmen reached their place of work at Inquiry Office of Vasant Vihar to perform their daily duties . However, they found that the Inquiry Office was closed. The workmen then approached the residents of the colony and accompanied them to the office of Shri R.B. Singh . Shri R.B. Singh informed the workmen that their services had been terminated. The workmen questioned the verbal [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

13767

containing the particulars of the workmen including the total period of service and the wages payable to them and the documents showing many of the workmen as petty contractors, copies of the band receipts directly paid to the workmen by the management etc. are filed herewith and marked as Annexure - 3 (Colly ) to this statement of claim.

orders and told the officer that there is no written order terminating the services nor any benefits of Section 25(F) of the ID Act have been paid. However, the said Shri R.B. Singh refused to hear their grievances . In these circumstances the workmen once again approached the Labour Commissioner challenging the illegal termination order.

That the management agitated by the legitimate grievances of the workmen who claimed equal pay had taken law into its hands and illegally terminated the services of the workmen by oral termination order so as to avoid payment of the legitimate dues of the workmen. The services of the workmen agitated for equal nay as was being paid to the regular employee's discharging the similar duties . The management instead of conceding to the just and legitimate claims of the workmen has illegally and arbitrarily terminated their services.

That in the mean time the workmen herein approached the Labour Court under Section 33 C (2 ) of the ID Act , 1947 in 1982. The Labour Court after consideration of the application of the workmen after hearing both the parties and on perusing the evidence allowed the application of the workmen directing the managementto make payment to the workmen. The Learned, Presiding Officer held that the workmen were entitled to the same rates of wages and similar relief as other employees discharging similar duties regularly engaged by the management and there is no scope for the differential payment to the workmen. The award of the Labour Court is filed herewith and marked as Annexure - 2 to this statement . The aforesaid award was confirmed by the High Court on a writ petition by the management .

That it is also relevant to submit here that the management has reinstated and regularized one Shri Pawan Kumar Saxena who was also one of the workmen working with claimants though he was also a party in the proceedings for equal wages. However, the claimants have not been reinstated though were also similarly situated. The claimants are also entitled to be reinstated and regularized in same manner as was done in the case of Shri Pawan Kumar Saxena with effect from their illegal termination with all consequential benefits.

That the claimants challenged their illegal termination before the Labour Commissioner. The ALC tried to conciliate between the workmen and the management. However, on failure, the ALC reported the failure of the conciliation to the Government . The Government however refused to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the ground that the workmen were not employees of the management and there is no employer - employee relationship .

That the workmen challenged the refusal of reference before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court vide its judgement dated 25-01-1999 directed the Government to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal . In these circumstances the Government has referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal and hence this statement of claim.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it is stated that the present claim is bad on account of non -existence of any employer-employee relationship between the claimants and the management. That the present claimants were the employees of the contractors who were carrying out petty repair/ construction work of civil or electrical nature of Indian Airlines and Air India Housing Colony at Vasant Vihar , New Delhi , That the relief claimed is not maintainable in said circumstances . The claimants were employees of the contractor who were carrying out petty civil/electrical works in Air India Housing Society, Vasant Vihar , New Delhi. The claim is bad and therefore, deserves out right dismissal .

It is submitted that the claimants were never . appointed by the management in any capacity. There never existed any relationship of employer and employee between the claimants and the management. The claimants may be put to strict proof of making such false averments .

That the work of repair and maintenance was being carried out by petty contractors on job contract basis. It is submitted that selection of the workers for carrying out the job contract and making payments was the sole discretion of the petty contractor. It is submitted that the management used to make its payment directly to the cotractor for the job contract carried out by him.

That it is if further submitted that the workmen have worked as casual labour for more than two years . The workmen were initially employed as casual labour and they continued to discharge their duties as casual labour till their illegal termination . The management , however as already submitted converted the casual labour into contract labour by selecting four workmen as petty contractor with 3-4 workmen under each of them. The workmen have discharged their duties directly under Shri R.B. Singh who was the official of the management from the date of their initial appointment till the date of their illegal termination. The workmen herein are filing copies of various documents including vouchers to show that they are casual labour directly working under the management , the statement of Jr. Engineer of the management who verified and signed the statement

3557 GI/2005-13 13768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

It is reiterated that the management had never interfered in the internal affairs of the contract labour and the contractor. It is submitted that the management had never violated any provision of law. It is submitted that no comparison/equality can be drawn between the contract labour and regular workforce.

It is reiterated that the present industrial dispute bears no connection nor is of any relevance with the subject order passed by the Hon'ble Court under Section 33 ( C ) (2) of the ID Act ,

It is submitted that the management had engaged the services of petty contractors for carrying out necessary works and there has been no interaction between the claimants and the management in any capacity as employer-employee. The claimants may be put to strict proof on the averments made in the subject para and the documents annexedias Annexure - 3 (colly ) with the statement of claim.

It is submitted that the documents filed by the claimants are not in any manner supportive of their false claims and therefore deserves to be rejected . It is reiterated that there has been no illegality or victimization of the claimants. The said allegation is bad and malafide. It is submitted that the management never terminated the services of any of the claimants. It is reiterated that the claimants were not the employees of the management .

That none of the claimants were reinstated by the management on any account whatsoever. The claimants be put to strict proof that one Mr.Pawan Kumar was reinstated and regularized in pursuance to his working as contract labour at the site of Indian Airlines and Air India Housing Colony. The claimants be directed to produce the appointment letter of Mr. Pawan Kumar to substantiate their allegation.

The workmen applicants have filed rejoinder. In their rejoinder they have reiterated the averments of their claim statement and have denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

The reference is for 19 workmen but only six wokmen viz . , Harish Kumar, Dhanbir Singh , Naresh Kumar, Mukesh Chand , Mast Ram Sharma and Shri Desh Raj have filed claim statement . The rest of the 13 workmen have not filed any claim statement .

It was submitted from the side of the management that these workmen were employed by the management through their Executive Engineer, Shri R.B. Singh and G.R.S. Murthy as the said officers were at that time , the main Incharge of the workmen, The workmen performed the job of Electricians , Carpenter , Pump Operators ,

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) Plumbers and Helpers etc. to work at Indian Airlines and Air India Stafff Housing Colony @ Rs . 18, Rs . 13 per day to the Electricians , Carpenters , Pump Operators etc. Rs . 9.25 to the Helpers from January, 1980 to September, 1981. The payments of salary were made by the management on cash vouchers from January, 1980 , to September, 1981. In October, 1981 the management changed the mode of payment of salary to the workmen as at that time various judgments of High Courts and Supreme Court came regarding regularization of the workmen who were continuously working for a long time and the management just to deprive the workmen of their legal benefits changed the mode of payments through some workman whom they called petty contractors but these workmen were periodically changed as petty contractors . All the workmen were shown by the management as working on the post of petty contractor. The workmen raised complaints before the Labour Commissioner but their case was not referred so the workmen filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the Hon'ble High Court directed for reference and adjudication. It was further submitted that the management denied the claim of the workmen on the basis that the workmen are petty contractors and are not employees of the management .

It was further submitted that the workmen have been working from Janurary, 1980 up to September, 1981 . They have got salary from the management directly. The management has not disputed the fact of the work of the workmen from January, 1980 , till September, 1981. The management has admitted that the workmen have worked for two years continuously in the management. All the six workmen have filed affidavit in support of their case , two have been cross -examined by the management . It has been held in 2002 ( 9) SCC 690 that if the workmen concerned were paid wages from the employer and work was taken from the employer from the workmen then the workmen are the employees of the management . The workmen in the instant case were paid directly by the management . The workmen have been employed by licenced contractor in view of SLR 1987 ( 5 ) page 84 . Since they have not been employed by licenced contractors so they will become the workmen of the employers.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that MW1 has not denied the salary issued by the Indian Airlines from 1980 to September, 1981 . MWI has further admitted in his cross examination that in 1980 they have invited tender but they have failed to get any contractor from August , 1982. They have awarded work on contract basis . The management witness MW2 has further admitted that Shri R.B. Singh was Caretaker of the management and he has not appointed the workmen as petty contractors . There is no paper on the record that the workmen have been 13769 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24, 2005/पौष 3, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

employed by any contractor. The salary slips have been issued to the workmen by the Indian Airlines . There is no contract agreement filed on the record by the management.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that Rules of CPWD are followed by the management and according to para 1.10 petty contractors for minor additions and alterations to residential and non- residential buildings up to Rs.500 and Rs . 10,000 may be got done by petty contractors as these are petty and irregular works .

It was further submitted from the side of the management that no contractor was available for minor repair and other work of irregular nature so these workmen were given separately the contract of petty contractors and they performed their duties as petty workers and are not the employees of the management . The workmen have filed certain papers regarding their work. Photocopy of the certificates shows that Shri Harish Kumar has worked as Petty contractor for maintenance job, carpentary and masonary work from-01- 12-1980 to 28-02-1981 . Shri Dhanbir Singh has also filed the same certificate. The management has filed exhibit MW1/7 . This paper indicates that annual maintenance and repairs including operation of Pumps and IA and AI Housing Colony at Basant Vihar , New Delki has been granted to Lt. Colonel Shri S.C: Verma from 31st August onwards.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that the work of maintenance and repairs involves a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month . So regular appointments cannot be made as carpenter, mason, plumbers and electricians are required for discharge of the work. The management has also filed exhibit MW1/9 and a contract has been awarded to R.K: Consultants for Civil Sanitary, Electrical annual maintenance works. These papers also shows that the work is not of regular nature so contractors are engaged on lumpsum tasis per month. Exhibit MW1 / 10 is also an agreement with M/s . Janardan Mahapatra and annual maintenance of Civil Sanitary and Electrical workes have been assigned to him. These papers no doubt establish the fact that the work is regarding maintenance and different artsans are required for the work of the maintenance and repairs.

period. Payment of Mukesh Chand was also made for such type of work. It was further submitted from the side ofthe management that payment to Mukesh Chand was made for labour services rendered for operations of pumps around the clock including operation of valves to the quarter and actual labour charges from 15-12-1981 to 31-12-1981 have been paid, Shri Mukesh Chand has been paid for labour service for operation of pumps from 15-4-1982 to 30-04-1982. Shri Mukesh Chand has been made payment for his labour service from 01-12-1981, to 15-12-1981 . These payments have been made by the management no doubt but these payments have been for a particualr work. Shri Phanbir Singh has been paid for sanitary work, supply services and sewage from 15-02-1982 to 28-02-1982 and he has been paid Rs. 745 so all the payments have been made to this workman for supply service sewage provided for pump operation for the work of plumber and for the work of helper. The workman has worked as a helper and he has worked as a plumber. The work of mason , artisan, plumber, sanitation work are not regular nature of work and the management has spent Rs.7,000 per month in 1982 so it is not possible for the management to engage 19 workman for maintenance and repair works . I have perused the entire records and it becomes quite obvious that Shri Hariash Kumar has worked for 43 days in 1980 and 47 days in 1981. Shri Dhanbir Singh has worked for 50 days in 1980 and 51 days in 1981 and Shri Mukesh Chand has worked for 50 days in 1980 and 51 days in 1981 andhe has worked for six and half months in 1982. Shri Mast Ram has worked for 74 days in 1981. The workman applicants have filed vouchers through which they have been given payment . They have not filed even photocopy to show that they have worked for 240 days either in 1980 or in 1981 or in 1982. For Section 25F ofthe ID Act it is mandatory that the workmen should have worked for 240 days in one year and it is settled law that they cannot prove it by their affidavit. None of the workmen have filed any paper to show that they have worked for more than 240 days in any of the year either in 1980, 1981 and 1982. In 1980 no workman has worked for more than 150 days . In 1981 also no salary voucher has been filed to show that they have worked for more than 150 days and in 1982 also the workmen have not filed any salary vouchers even photocopy to prove the fact that they have worked for 240 days in 1981 to 1982: These workmen are not petty contractors but they have been given payment on vouchers for services rendered by them periodically for maintenance , repairs , pump operation and sanitation.

It was further submitted from the side of the management that the work given to the workmen is need based and every workman has performed separate nature It was submitted from the side of the management that they cannot engage full time electricians , artisans , masons , carpenters and pump operators so those miscellaneous work is carried out through contract . These are petty workers and they are discharged by the contractors . The management has made payments to Dhanbir Singh for his work from 15-02-1982 to 28-02-1982, 01-03-1982 to 15-03-1982 and 16-03-1982 to 31-03-1982 . It was submitted from the side of the management that Shri Dhanbir Singh was made payment for his work for this 13770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

prerogative of the Government to create posts . Posts cannot be created by Courts . The nature of work is not perennial or regular . It is occasional so there is no question of regularization of any workmen.

The reference is replied thus:-

The removal of 19 workmen from services w.e.f. 13th July, 1982 by the management of Indian Airlines is legal and just . The workmen are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 22-11-2005.

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2005

ofwork so it becomes quite obvious from the photocopy of the salary vouchers filed by the workman that they have not completed 240 days in any of the year either in 1980 , 1981 of in 1982. In (2002) 9 SC cases is not applicable in the instant case as workmen have not discharged 240 days work in a year. In 1998 (2 ) SC the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if the workmen have worked continuously and interruptedly for a long time even though the contractor they should be absorbed . The workmen have not worked through any contractor and they have not completed 240 days work in any of the years so this judgment is not applicable. AIR 1999 SC page 1160 is also regarding contract work but the case of these workmen is that they have been directly engaged by the management .

का. आ. 4779.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेडूनगडी बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय, कोझीकोडे, केरल स्टेट के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-3/03 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 11/2003/आई.आर . ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the Ist December, 2005

S.O. 4779.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 3/03 ) of the Labour Court Kozhikode, Kerala state now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Nedungadi Bank Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-11-2005

[No. L- 12012/ 11/2003 -IR(B.I) AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

STATE.

IN THE LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE KERALA :

Drated this the 2nd day of November, 2005. PRESENT:

From perusal of the payment vouchers it transpires that the workmen have been paid as labour charges for particular period of 15 days or 30 days . They have not been made payment regularly. I have perused the entire voucher slips issuedby the management regarding the payment of the workmen but it is not for 240 days either in1980 or in 1981 or in 1982. It was further submitted from the side of the management that the management witness has admitted that the above petty contractors had worked for more than two years and they did not have any work with management directly. They were engaged as petty contractors . The management witness has admitted that the workman has worked as petty contractors and from salary vouchers also it transpires that the workmen have been paid labour charges for the work of pump operation, sanitation , repairs and other such job of work. These are petty contractors and in view of para 1.10 of the manual of CPWD petty work can be taken from the petty contractor so all these workmen are need based . The mangement has not at any point of time given more than Rs . 7,000 /- per month for the entire work so it cannot be said that there is regular nature of work and all the 19 workmen can be engaged for repairs and maintenance and sanitation and pump operation and plumber work. The workmen have not proved that they have been paid payment by the management for 240 days either in the year 1980,1981 or in 1982 so they have not proved their claim statement . The law cited by the workmen is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case .

SHFI K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, B.COM. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer.

L.D. (C) No.3/03

BETWEEN :

The Chairman,

Nedungadi Bank Limited Head Office, Byepass Road, Calicut- 16 , Kerala.

It was submitted from the side of the management that they have to engage workmen for periodical repairs ofhouses, pipelines , sanitation and the work of plumber. The work of repairs , maintenance and plumber is not a work of regular nature . It is periodical work . Whenever water pipelines are disturbed or that requires repair the workmen are engaged so the entire work at their disposal is of periodical nature and regular workmen cannot be appointed for the same . The Government has not also created any regular post till now . It is

.....Management [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

13771

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3, 1927

AND

M.Valsalan,

Koottukulam Thazhe House ,

-Eranhipalam P.О. ,

Civil Station,

Calicut-20.

Workman REPRESENTATIONS :

Sri C.K. Madhusoodanan , Advocate, Calicut

ForManagement Sri M. Asokan, Advocate , Calicut

...... For Workman

AWARD

The worker while working as a sub - staff in the Mandya Branch of the management . Nedungadi Bank Limited was charge sheeted for misappropriating the funds of the Bank to the tune of Rs . 5,81,090 by falsification of vouchers and registers of the bank and making fictitious entries in the accounts . In the domestic enquiry held, the worker was found guilty of the charges framed against him . Accepting the finding of guilt, the disciplinary authority dismissed the worker from service by way of punishment . Thereafter the industrial dispute raised by the worker was referred to this Court by the Government of India , Ministry of Labour as per reference order No.L - 12012/ 11 /2003 - IR (B - I) dated 14-2-2003 u/s 10 (1) and (2 A) to adjudicate the legality, proportionatity and justifiability of the action of the management in awarding the punishment of dimissal of service and the reliefs liable tobe granted.

2. Both sides entered appearance through counsel oftheir choice and filed their respective statements . The worker, in his statement mainly attacked the legality and fairness of the domestic enquiry on several grounds including violation of principles of natural justice and attributing bias on the Enquiry Officer . He further contended that he was made a scape- goat to save the skin of Superior Officers and the punishment imposed is highly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges proved. On the other hand the management supported their action and the legality and fairness of the domestic enquiry held against the worker . According to the management the worker committed grave misconduct by making fictitious and false entries in the Bank registers and swindling Bank funds of more than 5 lakhs. It is also stated that the punishment imposed is proportionate with the misdemeanour committed.

3. The question as to whether the domestic enquiry was fairly and properlyheld and whether the same is vitiated on any grounds was adjudicated as a preliminary point . Both sides adduced evidence. After a detailed inquiry this Court held that there is no procedural flaw or violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the domestic enquirywhereas there is no acceptable evidence to sustain the charges . So the domestic enquiry was set aside granting a further opportunity to sustain the charges . Thereafter 3 witnesses as MWs 2 to 5 were examined on the management side and the worker got himself examined as WW1 .

4.The points for condsiderations are:

(1).Whether the management has succeeded in proving the charges against the worker?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed on the worker is excessive or not?

5. Poin No. 1.- The gist of the charges is that the worker made fictitious and false entries in the clearing registers unsupported by instruments , withdrew credits from the concerned accounts by obtaining signed cheque leafs and withdrawal forms of customers, falsified the accounts to tally the difference and by such wilful and deliberate action, misappropriated the funds ofthe Bank to the tune of Rs . 5,81,090/- . MW2 , the accountant who was working in the Mandya Branch during the relevant period deposed about the details of fraud and dishonesty committed by the worker and about modes operandi. According to the witness there was shortage in the staff strength in the branch during 2000-2002, that to clearwork arrears the bank used to avail the service of sub-staffs, that exploiting this situation worker defrauded the bankby making false credit entries in the clearing register without supporting cheques or withdrawals and making corresponding fictitious entries in the party's accounts andwithdrew money using the signed cheques/withdrawal forms of the customers . MW2 further identified the hand- writings of the entries of the worker in clearing daybook. MW3 is the thenBranch Manager. This witness also stated that he noticed irregularities and manupulations in the bankbooks and identified the handwriting of the worker in Ext . M 16 accounts as was familiar with it. As against the evidence of management witnesses , the worker gave evidence denying the commission of charges and stating that the mischiefs were done by MW2 and MW3 with the connivance oftheir Superior Officers .

6. There is not much of dispute that there were manipulations and alterations of entries in the clearing register as evidenced by Ext . M16. Itwas further brought out and as admitted by the worker that many of the entries are in thehand of the worker who was formerly workingas a clerk in the management bank for about a decade and conversant with clerical works . Even according to the worker he had noticed some irregularities, timely informed the same to the then manager who gave a hollow promise that he will manage everything and take up the responsibility and that he made the false entries reposing confidence on the words of the Manager . This admission sufficiently establishes his conduct and motive.

13772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005 /PAUSA 3 , 1927

Interestingly MW3 , who according to the worker was the villain of the scene was not the Branch Manager during the relevant time. The worker during the enquiry of preliminary point had taken a totally inconsistent stand pretending total ignorance about the authorship of any of the fraudulent entries . It was argued on behalf of the worker that it is not possible to carry these manipulations without theconnivance ofother staff and there was no justification in pinning the entire liability on the worker alone .

7. Fraud is something which is often committed in secrecy. In some cases fraud is liable to be proved only by indirect and circumstantial evidence. Even assuming that the worker is only a joint tortfeasor , that will not in anyway water down the gravity of his misdemeanour. There is also no evidence to establish the involvement of others . So the argument does not hold good. Shortly from the overwhelming evidence and circumstances brought out , I have no hesitation to hold that the worker was responsible for making fictitious and false entries in the bank books for personal gain.

8. The second limb of the charge is that the worker by such acts and omissions defrauded the funds of the bank to the tune of more that five lakhs and this was done with the connivance of the concerned customers after making fictitious credit entries in their accounts .

9. There is no evidence to show that the cash book washandledby the worker or cash transacted by the worker. The cashier has also duly certified the correctness of entries inpages 11 , 12 and 13 of Ext . M16. There is no evidence to show that any cheques or withdrawal forms were encashed by the worker. There is also no evidence to show that the worker prevailed upon the customers and got cash encashed on the strength of fictitious eritries. If as a matter of fact such a sizeable amount was swindled , there is no explanation for no filing in criminal complaint or making a searching investigation . So I find that the management has miserably failed in establishing the charge of mis- appropriation of Rs. 5,81,090/-by the worker. The worker cannot also be pinned done with the whole liability for the simple reason that he carries a bad service antecedent .

10. Point No. 2.- The worker was dismissed from service as punishment for committing misconduct ofmaking fictitious and false entries in the bank books and swindling sizeable funds ofthe bank .

11. On the basis of evidence , I have already found that the management has not succeeded in providing the second limb of the charge i.e. misappropriation offunds . The fraud and malpractice ditected spreads over a period if 2-3 years . I am sure these malpractices could have been nipped at the bud with a routinel and effective timely supervision . It was contended that the worker is a physically handicapped person who deserves maximum sympathy. Even though physical disability is not a license for the comnussion of fraudulent acts , having regard to the

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] evidence and various circunıstances and the fact that the charge of embezzlement of money is not proved , the extreme punishment of dismissal from service appears to be highly excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges . Accordingly, the punishment imposed on the worker is liable to be modified granting some relief.

12. In the result, an award is passed holding that the punishment of dismissal of the worker from service is disproportionate and unjustified to the proved charges . The Management is directed to reinstate the worker in service within thirty days of the pronouncement of award by imposing punishment of forfeiture of the entire backwages and seniority.

Dictated to the confidential assistant , transcribed by her , revised , corrected and passed by me on the 2nd day of November, 2005 .

K. BALASUBRAMANIAN , Presiding Officer . APPENDIX

Witness Examind from the side of the Management:-

MWI

Jacod Oommen .

MW2

MohanDas .

MW3

H. S. Chidambara .

Witness Examind from the side of the Worker:-

WW1

Valsan . M.

Exhibits marked from the side of the Management:-

Ext.M1

Proceedings of Enquiry Officer into the charges levelled against Sri M. Valsan .

Ext.MI Undelivered letter issued to M. Valsan by the Management Bank with Ack . card returned.

Exhibits marked from the side of the Worker:-

Ext.WI Medical Certificate issued by Kadathana- dan Kalari Sangaam to the Worker dated 24-5-2002 .

Ext. W2 Certificate of meritissuedby the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. , to the worker.

Ext. W3 ... Commendation Certificate issued to the worker by the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. , नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 4780.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट है कि लोकहित में ऐसा अपेक्षित था कि भारत प्रतिभूति मुद्रणालय, नासिक रोड़ में सेवाओं को जिसे औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूचीकी प्रविष्टि 12 के अन्तर्गत निर्दिष्ट किया गया है, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवाएं घेषित किया जाना चाहिए । भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 24 , 2005/पौष 3 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXUR

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. LABOUR O NO. 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT

अतः अब, औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) के उप - खण्ड ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए तत्काल प्रभाव से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer

[सं. एस -11017/18/97- आई.आर. (पी.एल. ) ]

जे. पी. प्रति, संयुक्त सचिव

MISC . APPLICATION NO . 9 OF 2004 (Arising out of Ref. CGIT- 1/6 of 2004) NewDelhi , the 14th December, 2005

Parties: Nhava Sheva Port and General

Workers Union :

Applicant

Vs.

1. JNPT, Navi Mumbai .

2. CWC , Navi Mumbai .

S.O. 4780. Whereas the Central Government is satisfied that the public interest requires that the services inthe India Security Press , Nashik Road which is covered by item 12 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , should be declared to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act .

3. M/ s . Ornate Multi Model

Carriers Pvt . Ltd.

Opponent

APPEARANCES :

Shri . J. Sawant , Adv.

For the Applicant

Shri Liaz

For J.N.P.T. Navi Mumbai.

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (vi ) of clause (n) section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 the Central Goverment hereby declares with immediate effect the said industry to be a public untility service for the purpose of the said Act for a period of six months.

ForC. W. C.

Shri . B. K. Chopra [No. S- 11017/18/97 - IR(PL) ]

Shri . Chinchwadkar

For Ornate Multi Model

Carriers

J. P. PATI, Jt. Secy.

Maharashtra

State

नईदिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर, 2005

Mumbai , dated the 20th day of October. 2005

ORDER

1. This is a miscellaneous application filed by the union arising out ofReference No. CGIT- 1 /6 of 2004. The terms of reference are as follows :-

'का. आ. 4781.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ( i ) जवाहर नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट, मैसर्स सैन्ट्रल वेयरहाउसिंग कोरपोरशन, मैसर्स ओरनेट मलटी मोडल कैरियर प्राइवेट लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्याबालय , मुम्बई न. - 1.के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 09/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-11-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31011/ 5 /2003- आई.आर. (बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 14th December , 2005

"Whether any employer-employee relationship exists between the workmen employed for Container Freight Station Operations in the container Freight Station of Jawaharla Nehru Port Trust through the intermediaries including the Central Warehousing Corporation ( CWC ) and M/s Ornate Multi Model Carriers Pvt . Ltd. , Mumbai ? Whether the demand for absorption of workmen employed for Container Freight Station operations in direct services of JNPT isjustified ? If not, what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to ?"

S. O. 4781. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 09/2004 of the Central Government Iridustrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Mumbai No. I as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, M/ s. Central Warehousing Corporation, M/ s . Ornate Multi - Model Carriers Pvt . Ltd. and their workmen, receved by the Central Government on 22-11-2005 .

2. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference the present Miscellaneous application No. 9 of 2004 is being moved by Nhava Sheva Port Trust and General Workers Union and the prayer made there in is for attachment of the Machineries . Equipments and other properties of the respondent No. 3 (Director . M/s . Ornate Multi Model Carriers Pvt. Ltd. ) as listed in Exihibit -A which are in the custody, possession and premises of Respondent Nos. land 2. to protect the interests of the workers for realization of the alleged dues runing into [No. L-31011/5/2003 - IR(B-II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

13774

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 24, 2005/PAUSA 3 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

नईदिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

2,15,06,204.00 ( Rupees Two crores , fifteen lakhs , Six Thousand and Two Hundred Four only ) from the Respondent No. 3

का.आ. 4782.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किलोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबन्धों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2541 दिनांक7-7-2005 द्वारा सिक्युरिटी पेपर मिल, होशंगाबाद जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 21 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिएदिनांक 7-7-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया जाना चाहिए ।

3. Written objections have been filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seperately and respondent No.3 seperately. This tribunal was not functioning for more than ayear and hence the matter had been agitated before the Honourable Bombay High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 916 of 2005 which was decided on 21-7-2005 . The hearing of the Miscellaneous Application has been made inaccordance with the directions issued by the Honourable BombayHigh Court .

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

4. Lengthy arguments have been heard in this respect butat last, the rspondent No. 3 filed an Undertaking dated 18-10-2005 which runs as follows:

अतः अब, औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 19947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुकं द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 7-1-2006 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा. सं. एस -11017/16/97- आई.आर. ( पी.एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005 "The Respondent No. 3 shall not dispose of the vehicles listed in annexure A hereto , worth Rs . 2,23,5000.00 till the dues of the workers represented by the Applicant Union in the present Reference are either settled amicably or decided by the appropriate Court and paid. The said undertaking is subject to all the parties to the present Reference allowing the Respondent No. 3 to remove and make use of all the vehicles listed in Annexures A and B hereto which are lying and situated at the premises of the Respondent Nos . and 2 herein. "

The learned counsel for the applicant has requested that the tribunal may pass necessary order to protect the interest of the workers.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has fairly conceded that orders of attachment as sought are not possible in the present Miscellanequs application but he prays for protection of the interest of the workmen.

6.Keeping in mind the undertaking furnished before me as referred to above , the following order is passed:

S.O. 4782.- Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub - clause ( vi ) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S. O. No. 2541 dated 7-7-2005 the service in the Security Paper Mill , Hoshangabad which is covered by item 21 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 7th July, 2005.

Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - clause ( vi) of clause ( n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 7th January, 2006,

"The Respondent No. 3 shall not dispose of and keep in safe custody the vehicles listed in Annexure "A" here to worth Rs. 2,23,50,000 (Rupees Two crores , Twenty three lakhs Fifty thousand only) till the dues ofthe workers represented by the Applicant Union in the present Reference are either settled amicably or decided by the appropriate Court and paid. It is subject to all the parties. to the present Reference allowing the Respondent No. 3 to remove and make use ofall the vehicles listed ain Annexures AandB hereto which are lying and situated at the premises oftheRespondent Nos . I and 2 herein "

[F. No. S- 11017/ 16/97 - IR(PL) ] J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy.

7.The application is accordingly disposed of. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.

414