This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . No. DL (N) 04/0007/2003-05 1.

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 30]

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 17 जुलाई 23 , 2005 शनिवार /आषाढ़ 26- श्रावण 1 , 1927

No. 30 ]

NEW DELHI, JULY 17-JULY 23, 2005 SATURDAY/ASADHA 26-SRAVANA 1 , 1927

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह अलग संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II-Section 3-Sub- section (ii)

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

विमोच्य, गैर- परिवर्तनीय , संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र (श्रृंखला-1) ;

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2005

स्टाम्प

(ii ) मात्र आठ करोड़ अस्सी लाख सत्तर हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00070204 से 00079010 तक कीविशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00 % असुरक्षित , विमोच्य, गैर- परिवर्तनीय, संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र (श्रृंखला-1 );

(iii ) मात्र आठ करोड़ पैंतालीस लाख अस्सी हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00030891 से 00039348 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00 % असुरक्षित, विमोच्य, गैर - परिर्वतनीय , संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र (श्रृंखला-1 );

का.आ. 2542.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा पावर फाइनेंस कारपोरेशन , नई दिल्ली को मात्र चौदह लाख , चार हजार पांच सौ चौरानवे रूपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति देती है, जो उक्त निगम द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले निम्नलिखित पर स्टाम्प शुल्कके कारण प्रभार्य है : -

( iv) मात्र चार करोड़ चौंसठ लाख अस्सी हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्यके प्रत्येक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00026243 से 00030890 तक कीविशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00 % असुरक्षित, (i ) मात्र चौदह करोड़ उन्तालीस लाख नब्बे हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्यके प्रत्येक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00079011 से 00093409 तक कीविशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00 % असुरक्षित, 2061 GI/ 2005

(7985) 7986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

विमोच्य, गैर- परिवर्तनीय, संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र श्रृंखला-1 ) ;

( v ) मात्र बारह लाख साठ हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00093419 से 00093544 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00% असुरक्षित , विमोच्य, गैर - परिवर्तनीय , संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र श्रृंखला- I );

(vi ) मात्र एक लाख पचास हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस- दस हजार रुपए के 00039352 से 00039366 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00% असुरक्षित, विमोच्य, गैर- परिवर्तनीय , संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र (श्रृंखला-1 );

(vii ) मात्र इक्कीस लाख बीस हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस- दस हजार रुपए के 00093410 से 00093418 और 00093545 से 00093747 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00% असुरक्षित, विमोच्य, गैर- परिवर्तनीय, संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र ( श्रृंखला-1) ;

(viii ) मात्र तीन लाख साठ हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस- दस हजार रुपए के 00039349 से 00039351 से 00039367 से 00039399 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00% असुरक्षित, विमोच्य, गैर- परिवर्तनीय , संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र (श्रृंखला -1 ) ;

( ix) मात्र चौहत्तर लाख बीस हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रत्येक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00093748 से 00094489 तक की विशिष्ट संख्या वाले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00 % असुरक्षित , विमोच्य, गैर- परि चर्तनीय , संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र (श्रृंखला -1 ) ; और (x ) मात्र इक्यावन लाख नब्बे हजार रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के न्यक दस - दस हजार रुपए के 00039400 से 00039918 तक की रसंख्याताले ऋण पत्रों के स्वरूप वाले 6.00 % असुरक्षित , विमोच्य, विशि नोय, संचयी कराधेय अवसंरचना बंधपत्र ( श्रृंखला- I ) । गैर-परिव..

[ 24/2005 - स्टाम्प/फा.सं . 33/29/2005 - एस टी]

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] debentures (series - I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00079011 to 00093409 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees fourteen crore thirty nine lakh ninety thousand only;

( ii) 6.00% unsecured , redeemable , non -convertible , cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures ( series - I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00070204 to 00079010 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees eight crore eightly lakh seventy thousand only;

(iii) 6.00% unsecured, redeemable , non-convertible, cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures (series -I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00030891 to 00039348 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees eight crore forty five lakh eighty thousand only;

(iv) 6.00% unsecured, redeemable, non - convertible, cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures ( series - I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00026243 to 00030890 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees four crore sixty four lakh eighty thousand only;

(v) 6.00% unsecured , redeemable , non - convertible , cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures ( series - I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00093419 to 00093544 ofrupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees twelve lakh sixty thousand only;

(vi) 6.00% unsecured , redeemable , non - convertible , cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures ( series - I ) bearing distinctive numbers from 00039352 to 00039366 to rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees one lakh fifty thousand only;

(vii) 6.00% unsecured , redeemable , non -convertible , cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures (series - I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00093410 to 00093418 and 000 93545 to 000 93747 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees twenty one lakh twenty thousand only;

आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Depart 'nt of Revenue ) ORDER New Delhi , the iJune, 2005

STAMPS

S.O. 2542. In exercise of the wers confered by clause (b) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of section 9 of the Indian StampAct, 1899 (2 of 1899) , the Central Government hereby permits Power Finance Corporation Limited, New Delhi to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees fourteen lakh four thousand five hundred ninety four only chargeable on account of the stamp duty on :--

(i ) 6.00% unsecured, redeemable , non-convertible, cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of (viii) 6.00% unsecured, redeemable, non - convertible, cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures ( series -I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00039349 to 00039351 and 00039367 to 00039399 ofrupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees three lakh sixty thousand only;

(ix) 6.00% unsecured , redeemable , non -convertible, cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures (series- I) bearing distinctive numbers from 00093748 to 00094489 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees seventy four lakh twenty thousand only; and.

(x) 6.00% unsecured , redeemable , non - convertible , cumulative taxable infrastructure Bonds in the nature of debentures ( series - I) bearing distinctive numbers from [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

00039400 to 00039918 of rupees ten thousand each aggregating to rupees fifty one lakh ninety thousand only, tobe issued by the said Corporation.

[No. 24/2005 -STAMP /F.No . 33/ 29/2005-ST] R.G. CHHABRA, Under Secy.

आदेश

नईदिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

स्टाम्प

का.आ. 2543.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2 ) की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा यूनाइटेड बैंक आफ इंडिया, कोलकाता को मात्र एक करोड़ चार लाख चौवासीस हजार रुपए का 'समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति देती है, जो उक्त बैंक द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र तीन सौ करोड़ रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रामिसरी नोटों के स्वरूप के असुरक्षित विमोच्य गौण बंधपत्रों ( श्रृंखला- II ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है । [सं. 25/2005 - स्टाम्प/फा.सं . 33/28 /2005 - एस टी ]

आर. जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

ORDER

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005 STAMPS

S.O. 2543. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899 ) , the Central Government hereby permits United Bank of India, Kolkata to pay consolidated stamp duty ofrupees one crore four lakh forty four thousand onlychargeable on account of the stamp duty on unsecured redeemable subordinated Bonds (Series - II) in the nature of promissory notes aggregating to rupees three hundred crore only, to be issued by the said Bank.

[No. 25 /2005 - STAMP /F.No . 33/28/2005 - ST]

R. G. CHHABRA , Under Secy.

आर्थिक कार्य विभाग

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नईदिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2544.- राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 ( 1981 का 61 ) की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( घ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग, बैंकिंग प्रभाग के संयुक्त सचिव श्री अमिताभ वर्मा को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेश होने तक श्री एन.एस. सिसोदिया के स्थान पर राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक (नाबार्ड) के निदेशक मंडल में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा.सं. 9/ 11/2004-बी ओ- I ]

जी. बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव

7987 (Departmentof EconomicAffairs) (BANKING DIVISION)

NewDelhi, the 14th July, 2005

S.O. 2544 .-- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the National Bank forAgriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 (61 of 1981 ) , the Central Government , hereby nominates Shri Amitabh Verma, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Finance , Department of Economic Affairs , Banking Division , New Delhi as a Director on the Board of the National Bank forAgriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri N. S. Sisodia.

[F. No. 9/ 11/2004 -BO -I ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2545.- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक अधिनियम, 1955 ( 1955 का23 ) की धारा 19 के खंड ( ङ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा श्री अशोक के . झा , सचिव, आर्थिक कार्य विभाग, वित्त मंत्रालय, नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से तथा अगला आदेश होने तक, श्री एन.एस. सिसोदिया के स्थान पर भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निर्देशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा.सं. 9/11/2004- बी ओ- I ]

जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 14th July, 2005

S.O. 2545.- In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (e) of Section 19 ofthe State Bank of India Act , 1955 (23 of 1955 ) , the Central Government , hereby nominates Shri Ashok K. Jha, Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs , Ministry of Finance , New Delhi as a Director on the Central Board of State Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Shri N.S. Sisodia .

[F.No. 9/ 11/2004-BO-I] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2546.- भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक अधिनियम, 1934 ( 1934 का2) की धारा 8 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( घ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा श्री अशोक के. झा, सचिव, आर्थिक कार्य विभाग , वित्त मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली को तत्काल प्रभाव से तथा अगला आदेश होने तक, डॉ. राकेश मोहन के स्थान पर भारतीय रिवर्ज बैंक के केन्द्रीय बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा.सं. 9/11/2004- बी ओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव 7988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2005

S.O. 2546. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of IndiaAct, 1934 (2 of 1934) , the Central Government, herebynominates Shri Ashok K. Jha, Secretary, Department ofEconomicAffairs , Ministry of Finance , to be a Director on the Central Board of the Reserve Bank of India with immediate effect and until further orders vice Dr. Rakesh Mohan.

[F.No. 9 / 11/ 2004-BO -I ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय दूरसंचारविभाग (राजभाषा अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2547.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनोंके लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10(4) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय, दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

मुख्यमहाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार उ.प्र. (प. ) परिमण्डल, मेरठ 1. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, मथुरा

2. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, सहारनपुर

3. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, मेरठ

4. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, अलीगढ़

5. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, बुलन्दशहर

6. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला , बिजनौर

7. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला , बरेली

8. महाप्रबंधक दूरसंचार जिला, मुजफ्फरनगर

9. दूरसंचार जिला प्रबंधक, पीलीभीत

10. दूरसंचार जिला प्रबंधक, रामपुर

11. दूरसंचार जिला प्रबंधक, एटा

12.. दूरसंचार जिला प्रबंधक, बदायूँ

13. मुख्य अभियंता ( सिविल ) उ.प्र. (प. ) सिविल जोन , मेरठ 14. मुख्य अभियंता ( विद्युत ) उ.प्र. ( प. ) विद्युत जोन , मेरठ

[सं. ई. - 11016/1/2005- (रा.भा. ) ] हरीश चन्द्र जयाल, संयुक्त सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications) (O. L. SECTION) New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005

S.O. 2547. In pursuance of rule 10 (4) of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union ) , rules , 1976 ( as amended - 1987 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Offices under the administrative control of Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications whereof more than 80% of staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

Chief General Manager Telecom. , U.P. (West) Circle , Meerut

1. General Manager Telecom . Distt. , Mathura 2. General Manager Telecom . Distt . , Saharanpur 3 . General Manager Telecom . Distt. , Meerut 4. General Manager Telecom . Distt. , Aligarh 5. General Manager Telecom. Distt. , Bulandshar 6. General Manager Telecom. Distt. , Bijnor 7. General Manager Telecom . Distt. , Bareilly 8. Telecom. Distt . Manager, Muzaffarnagar 9. Telecom . Distt. Manager, Pillibhit

10. Telecom. Distt . Manager, Rampur

11 . Telecom. Distt . Manager, Etah

12. Telecom . Distt. Manager, Budaun

13. Chief Engineer (Civil ) U.P. (W.) Civil Zone, Meerut 14. Chief Engineer (Electric) U.P. ( W. ) Electric Zone, Meerut

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

(डाक विभाग ) (भवन शाखा ) शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2548.- डाक विभाग में सम्पदा अधिकारियों के तौर पर कार्य करने के लिए नियुक्त केन्द्रीय सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों 7989 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

into two separate Circles namely Madhya Pradesh CircleandChhattisgarh Circle) and Rajasthan Circle :-

Remarks

S. Name of

Territorial

Designation

Jurisdic-

ofthe

No. Postal

Circle

Officer

tion

1. Chhattisgarh Assistant Chhattisgarh के संबंध में भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II - 3 ( ii ) में दिनांक 11-9-1993 को प्रकाशित अधिसूचना और सं . का. आ. 184 दिनांक 19-9-98 के साथ प्रकाशित अधिसूचना के जरिए जारी संशोधन में मध्य प्रदेश सर्किल ( मध्य प्रदेश सर्किल का दो पृथक सर्किलों नामतः मध्य प्रदेश सर्किल और छत्तीसगढ़ सर्किल में द्विभाजन होने की वजह से ) और राजस्थान सर्किल के संबंध में आगे निम्नलिखित परिवर्तन किए जाएं: -

Director (III) ,

O/o Chief

Postmaster

टिप्पणी

क्र. डाक सर्किल अधिकारी का क्षेत्रीय

General,

अधिकारिता

पदनाम

सं. का नाम

Chhatisgarh

Circle, Raipur

सहायक छसीसगढ़ मध्य प्रदेश सर्किल

1. छत्तीसगढ़

(Mails), O/ o

Postmaster.

निदेशक ( III ) ,

के सम्मुख दर्ज

Under-noted entry against Madhya Pradesh Circle isdeleted : "Assistant Director General,

अधोलिखित प्रविष्टि

मुख्य पोस्ट-

Raipur

हा दी जाती है:-

मास्टर जनरल,

Assistant

2. Rajasthan

" सहायक निदेशक

छत्तीसगढ़

सर्किलका

(मेल), पोस्टमास्टर

Rajasthan Western Region

कार्यालय,

रायपुर

जनरल का कार्यालय, रायपुर"

राजस्थान

सहायक

2. राजस्थान

निदेशक, डाक पश्चिमी

सेवा- I, पोस्ट- क्षेत्र

Director Postal Services- I, O/o Post- master General, Rajasthan Western Region, Jodhpur

राजस्थान

[No.2-119/90-Bldg. ] मास्टर जनरल, पश्चिमीक्षेत्र

RAJINDER KUMAR, Asstt. Director Genl .

का कार्यालय ,

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

जोधपुर

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2005

[सं. 2-119/90- भवन]

राजेन्द्र कुमार, सहायक महानिदेशक

(Department of Posts)

का.आ. 2549.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के प्रयोग के लिए ) राजभाषा नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम 4 के अनुसरण में, वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिनमें 80% से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है :

1. बुनियादी बीज गुणन एवं प्रशिक्षण केन्द्र,

(BUILDING BRANCH)

CORRIGENDUM

केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड,

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

बुनियादी तसर रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, सं. 3-84/1 , II तल, एफ. आर. ओ. कार्यालय के सामने, नरसापुर-502 313 ( आंध्र प्रदेश )

2. अनुसंधान विस्तार केन्द्र,

केरेअवप्रसं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड,

मार्फत बारामती अग्रिकल्चरल डेवलपमेंट ट्रस्ट,

पो. बा. सं . 35 , शारदा नगर,

मेलगेनकॉलोनी,

बारामती-413 115 ( महाराष्ट्र)

S.O. 2548. In the Notification published in the Gazette of India in Part - II 3 (ii ) dated 11-9-1993 in respect ofthe Central Govt. Gazetted Officers appointed to act as Estate Officers in the Department of Posts and amendment issued vide Notification published with No. S.O. 184 dated 19-9-98 , the following further changes may be made in respect of Madhya Pradesh Circle (Due to bifurcation of Madhya Pradesh Circle 7990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23, 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

3. अनुसंधान विस्तार केन्द्र, उप एकक, केरेअवप्रसं, केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड, ऋषभ कॉम्पलेक्स, पहला तल, महाजन कॉलोनी एन-2 सीआईडीसीओ , औरंगाबाद ( महाराष्ट्र )

4. भारतीय कपास निगम लिमिटेड, चंद्रमौली बिल्डिंग , प्लॉट नं. 27, सम्राट नगर, वीर सावरकर चौक, औरंगाबाद -431005 ( महाराष्ट्र)

5. भारतीय कपास निगम लिमिटेड, डोअर संख्या-4-2-198 ए-ई, शांता भवन, सिनेमा रोड, आदिलाबाद-504 001

6. भारतीय कपास निगम लिमिटेड, बालाजी कॉम्पलेक्स, 2री मंजिल , गुड्स शेड रोड, स्टेशन एरिया, रायचूर -584101 ( कर्नाटक)

7. भारतीय कपास निगम लिमिटेड, शाकाम्बरी प्लाझा, पहली मंजिल, मूर्तीजापुर रोड, नेशनल हाइवे नं. 6 , अकोला-444001 ( महाराष्ट्र) ।

[सं. ई -11016/ 1 /2005- हिन्दी]

बसंत प्रताप सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2005

S.O. 2549. In pursuance of Sub- Rule 4 of rule 10 ofthe Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) , Rules, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following officers under the Ministry of Textiles , whereof more than 80% staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi:

1. Basic Seed Multiplication and Training Center, Basic Tasar Silkworm Seed Organisation, Central Silk Board , No. 3-84/ 1 , II floor, Opposite of FRO Office, Narasapur- 502313 (Andhra Pradesh)

2. Research Extension Center, Central Silk Research and Training Institute , Central SilkBoard, ByBaramati Agricultural Development Trust, PostBox No. 35 , Sharda Nagar , Melegan Colony, Baramati -413115 (Maharashtra)

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] 3. Research Extension Center, Sub-unit , Central Silk Research and Training Institute , Central SilkBoard, Rishabh Complex, First Floor, Mahajan Colony, N- 2 , CIDCO, Aurangabad (Maharashtra)

4. The Cotton Corporations of India Ltd. , Chandramoli Building, Plot No. 27 , SamratNagar , Vir Savarkar Chowk, Aurangabad-431005 (Maharashtra)

5. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. , Door No. 4-2-198-A-E, Shanta Bhawan, Cinema Road, Adilabad-504001

6. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. , Balaji Complex, IInd Floor, Goods Shed Road, Station Area, Raichur - 584101 (Karnataka)

7. The Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. , Shakambaree Plaza, First Floor, Moortijapur Road , National Highway No. 6, Akola-444001 (Maharashtra)

[No. E- 11016/ 1 /2005 -Hindi ] BASANT PRATAP SINGH, Jt . Secy.

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2550.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा 2. द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद, एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; नामतः

2. डा. एम.जी.आर. मेडिकल यूनिवर्सिटी, चेन्नई ( तमिलनाडु) द्वारा श्री रामकृष्ण डेंटल कालेज एण्ड हास्पिटल, कोयम्बटूर को दंत चिकित्सा संबंधी मान्यता प्रदान किए जाने के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 56 के सामने कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी:

" XII श्री रामकृष्ण डेंटल कालेज एण्ड हास्पिटल, कोयम्बटूर (i ) बैचरल ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी

बी. डी. एस. , डा. एम. जी. आर. मेडिकल यूनिवर्सिटी, तमिलनाडु , चेन्नई " (जब यह दिनांक 18-2-2005 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गईहो)

[सं. वी-12017/31/99-पी. एम. एस. ]

आस्था एस. खटवानी, निदेशक ( एम.ई. ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7991

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department of Health)

NewDelhi, the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2550.- In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:

2. In the existing entries of Column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 56 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental qualification in respect of Sri Ramakrishna Dental College and Hospital , Coimbatore awarded by Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, Tamil Nadu, Chennai , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :

"XII . Sri Ramakrishna Dental College and Hospital, Coimbatore

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 18-02-2005).

BDS, Dr. M.G.R. Medical University TamilNadu, Chennai ."

[No. V- 12017/31/99 -PMS] AASTHA S. KHATWANI, Director (ME) नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2551.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद, एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; नामतः

2. महाराष्ट्र यूनिवर्सिटीऑफ हेल्थ साइंसेज, नासिक द्वारा येरला मेडिकल एंड रिसर्च सेंटर डेंटल कालेज एण्ड हास्पिटल, नवीं मुम्बई को दंत चिकित्सा संबंधी मान्यता प्रदान किए जाने के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 60 के सामने कालम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों केअंतर्गत निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी :

"XIV. येरला मेडिकल एंड रिसर्च सेंटर डेंटल कालेज एण्ड हास्पिटल, नवीं मुम्बई

बी डी एस महाराष्ट्र यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हेल्थ साइंसेज, नासिक। " ( i ) बैचरल ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी (जब यह दिनांक 12-4-2005 कोअथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गईहो)।

[सं. वी-12017/17/ 98- पी एम एस ] आस्था एस. खटवानी , निदेशक ( एम.ई. ) New Delhi, the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2551. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub-section(2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely:

2. In the existing entries of Column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 60, in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental qualification in respect of Yerala Medical Trust and Research Centre's Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:

"XIV. Yerala Medical Trust and Research Centre's Dental College andHospital , Navi Mumbai

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 12-04-2005).

BDS, Maharashtra University ofHealth Sciences , Nashik. "

[No. V- 12017/17/ 98 -PMS ] AASTHA S. KHATWANI , Director (ME) (पी.एम.एस. अनुभाग )

नईदिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2552.- दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करने के बाद, एतद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है; अर्थात्ः

2. सी.वी.एस. कृष्णामूर्ति तेजा इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ डेंटल साइंसेज एंड रिसर्च, तिरूपति के संबंध में एन.टी. आर . यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हैल्थ साइंसेज, विजयवाड़ा, आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदत्त दन्त चिकित्सा अर्हता को मान्यता देने से संबंधित दन्त चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16) की अनुसूची के भांग -1 में क्रम संख्या 50 के सामने कालम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अन्तःस्थापित की जाएंगी:

" III. सी.वी.एस. कृष्णामूर्ति तेजा इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ डेंटल साइंसेज एंडरिसर्च, तिरूपति

बीडी एस , एन.टी.आर. यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ हेल्थ साइंसेज, विजयवाड़ा । " ( i) बैचरल ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी (यदि02-11-2004 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) ।

[फा. सं. वी-12017/34/99- पी एम एस ] आस्थाएस. खटवानी, निदेशक ( एम.ई. ) 7992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVAÑA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (P.M.S. SECTION)

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

' दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 3 ( ङ) के अन्तर्गत निर्वाचित ' शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम सं. 18 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टिप्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी:

निर्वाचित

30-03-2005

18. प्रो. (डा.)

संजय तिवारी

महर्षि दयानंद विश्वविद्यालय

S.O. 2552. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of1948) , the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby, makes the following amendments in Part- I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely:

' दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 3 (ङ) के अन्तर्गत मनोनीत ' शीर्षक के अंतर्गत क्रम सं . 5 के सामने निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टि प्रतिस्थापित की जाएगी :

20-05-2005

महाराष्ट्र

5 डा. राहुल हेगड़े

मनोनीत

[सं. वी-12013/5/2003- पी एम एस ]

ए. के. सिंह , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

2. In the existing entries of Column 2 and 3 against Serial No. 50 , in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental qualification in respect of C. V.S. Krishnamurthy Teja Institute ofDental Sciences and Research, Tirupati awarded by N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:

" III. C.V.S. Krishnamurthy Teja Institute of Dental Sciences and Research , Tirupati

S.O. 2553.-Whereas , in pursuance of clause (d) of Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) , Maharishi Dayanand University has elected Prof. (Dr. ) Sanjay Tiwari to the Dental Council of India with effect from 30-03-2005 ; and

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (When granted on or after 02-11-2004).

BDS , N.T.R. University of Health Sciences , Vijayawara."

Whereas , in pursuance of clause ( e) of Section 3 of the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) , the Maharashtra Government has nominated Dr. Rahul Hegde , Dental Surgeon to the Dental Council of India with effect from 20-05-2005;

[No. V- 12017/34/99 -PMS ] AASTHA S. KHATWANI , Director (ME)

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2005

Now, therefore in pursuance of Section 3 read with Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendments in the notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry ofHealth and Family Welfare (Department of Health) No. S.O. 430 dated 24th January 84 , namely :

का.आ. 2553.-दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के खंड ( घ) के अनुसरण में महर्षि दयानंद विश्वविद्यालय ने 30-03-2005 से प्रो. (डा. ) संजय तिवारी को भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद में निर्वाचित किया गया है ; और

'Against the serial No. 18 under the heading Elected u/s 3 (d) of the Dentists Act, 1948 ' , the entry mentioned below shall be substituted :

30-03-2005

Maharishi

Elected

Dayanand

18. Prof. (Dr. )

Sanjay

Tiwari

University

दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के खंड ( ङ) के अनुसरण में महाराष्ट्र सरकार ने डा. राहुल हेगड़ें , डेंटल सर्जन को दिनांक 20-05-2005 से भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद का सदस्य निर्वाचित किया है ;

Against the serial No. 5 , under the heading 'Nominated u/s 3 (e) of the Dentists Act , 1948 ' , the following entry shall be substituted:

5 Dr. Rahul Nominated Maharashtra 20-05-2005

Hegde

[No. V- 12013 /5/ 2003 -PMS] अतः , अब उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के साथ पठित धारा 3 के अनुसण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत सरकार, स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्य विभाग ) की दिनांक 24 जनवरी, 1984 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 430, में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्: -

A. K. SINGH, Under Secy.

7993 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2005

का. आ. 2554.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; नामत :-

2. बंगलौर यूनिवर्सिटी, बंगलौर के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 17 के सामने कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के नीचे निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी:-

" XXXVI. राजा राजेश्वरी डेंटल कालेज एवं हास्पिटल, बंगलौर

बीडीएस, बंगलौर यूनिवर्सिटी, बंगलौर"

(i) बैचलर ऑफ डेंटल सर्जरी (जब यह दिनांक 24-09-1996 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

3. और, राजीव गांधी यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइंसेज, बंगलौर के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूचीके भाग -1 में क्रम संख्या 49 के सामने कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के नीचे निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी:-

" XXXVII. राजा राजेश्वरी डेंटल कालेज एवं हास्पिटल , बंगलौर

(1) बैचलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी

बीडीएस, राजीव गांधी यूनिवर्सिटी आफ हैल्थ साइंसेज, बंगलौर " (जब यह दिनांक 31-12-2001 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

[सं. बी. - 12018/11/2002- पी एम एस ]

आस्था एस. खटवानी, निदेशक ( एमई )

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

S.O. 2554. In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of1948), the Central Government after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following amendments inPart - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 17 in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to Bangalore University, Bangalore the following entries shall be inserted there under:-

"XXXVI. Raja Rajeshwari Dental College & Hospital , Bangalore

BDS, Bangalore University, Bangalore "

(i) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 24-9-1996 .)

3. And in the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 49 in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948 ) pertaining to Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"XXXVII. Raja Rajeshwari Dental College & Hospital , Bangalore

BDS, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , Bangalore "

(i ) Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 31-12-2001 . )

[No. V- 12018 / 11 /2002-PMS]

AASTHA S. KHATWANI , Director (MF ) 2061 GI /2005-2 7994

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2005

का. आ. 2555.- दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय दन्त चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करने के बाद एत‌द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ; नामत :-

2. डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर यूनिवर्सिटी, आगरा ( उत्तर प्रदेश) के संबंध में दन्त चिकित्सक अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम संख्या 58 के सामने कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों के नीचे निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां जोड़ी जाएंगी: - "डी जे कालेज ऑफ डेंटल साइंसिज एण्ड रिसर्च मोदी नगर ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

बैचलर आफ डेंटल सर्जरी

बीडीएस, डा बी. आर. अम्बेडकर यूनिवर्सिटी, आगरा " (जब यह दिनांक 06-07-2004 को अथवा इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो । )

[सं. वी.- 12017/7/99- पी एम एस ]

आस्था एस. खटवानी, निदेशक ( एमई )

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

S.O. 2555. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of1948) , the Central Government after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments inPart - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely : ---

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 58 in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra (U.P. ) the following entries shall be inserted thereunder: -

"D. J. College of Dental Sciences & Research Modinagar ( U.P. )

BDS . Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Agra " Bachelor of Dental Surgery (Whengranted on or after 06-07-2004. )

[No. V- 12017/7/ 99 -PMS]

AASTHA S. KHATWANI , Director (ME) जल संसाधन मंत्रालय

9. नर्मदा बेसिन संगठन, भोपाल

10. हिमालयी गंगा मंडल, देराहदून

नईदिल्ली, 28 जून, 2005

11. सिन्धुबेसिन चण्डीगढ़

12. प्रबोधन एवं मूल्यांकान निदेशालय , चण्डीगढ़

13. अन्वेषण परिमंडल, सिक्किम

14. निचली कृष्णा मंडल, हैदराबाद

15. सिक्किम अन्वेषण मंडल, तादोंग , सिक्किम का.आ. 2556.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय जल आयोग के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 % कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है:-

16. कृष्णा एवं गोदावरी बेसिन , हैदराबाद

1. यमुना बेसिन संगठन , कालिन्दी भवन , नई दिल्ली

17. निचली गोदावरी मंडल, हैदराबाद

2. योजना परिमंडल, फरीदाबाद

18. चिनाव मंडल, जम्मू

3. प्रबोधन निदेशालय, फरीदाबाद

[सं. 1/1/2005- हिन्दी ] 4. ऊपरी यमुना मंडल, कालिन्दी भवन, नई दिल्ली

राज कुमारी देव, संयुक्त निदेशक ( रा ० भा० ) 5. प्रबोधन निदेशालय, आगरा

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES 6. जल विज्ञानीय प्रेक्षण परिमंडल, वाराणसी

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2005

7. जल विज्ञानीय प्रेक्षण परिमंडल, देराहदून

8. ऊपरी गंगा बेसिन संगठन, लखनऊ

S.O. 2556. In pursuance of sub - Rule (4) of Rule (10) of the Official Language ( Use for Official Purposes of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

the Union) the Central Government hereby notifies the fol- lowing offices of Central water Commission, the 80 % staff whereofhave required a working knowledge of Hindi:-

1. Yamuna Basin, Kalindi Bhawan , New Delhi 2. Planning Circle, Faridabad, Haryana.

3.Monitoring Directorate, Faridabad, Haryana .

4. Upper Yamuna Division, Kalindi Bhawan, New Delhi.

5. Monitoring Directorate , Agra , Uttar Pradesh .

6. Hydrological Observation Circle. Varanasi , Uttar Pradesh.

7. Hydrological Observation Circle , Dehradun.

8. Upper Ganga, Basin, Lucknow.

7995 9. Narmada Basin , Bhopal , Madhya Pradesh 10. Himalayan Ganga Division, Dehradun.

11. Indus Basin , Chandigarh .

12. Monitoring and Apprasial Directorate , Chandigarh

13. Investigation Circle , Sikkim.

14. Lower Krishna Division, Hyderabad.

15. Sikkim Investigation Division, Tadong, Sikkim.

16. Krishna and Godavari Basin, Hyderabad .

17. LowerGodavari Divsion, Hyderabad.

18. Chenab Division, Jammu .

[No. 1/ 1 /2005 -Hindi ] RAJ KUMARI DAVE, Jt . Director ( OL)

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 13 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2557. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:一

अनुसूची

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

(2)

(1)

1. आई एस 1084: 2005 वस्त्रादि- मनीला रस्सियां- विशिष्टि( पाँचवाँ पुनरीक्षण)

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो,

की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

आई एस 1084 : 1994

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहम जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. टी एक्स डी/जी-25 ] एम. एस. वर्मा , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( टी एक्स डी )

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 13 July, 2005

S.O. 2557. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standaras Rules , 198 / , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

7996

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. and Year of the Indian No. Standards Established

Date of Established

No. and Year of Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1084:1994

May 2005

1. IS 1084 : 2005 Textiles-Manila Ropes-Specification (Fifth Revision)

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

[No. TXD/G-25 ]

M.S. VERMA , Director & Head (Textiles)

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2558.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष संख्या

संशोधन लागूहोने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या औरतिथि

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 5290 : 1993

31मई, 2005

1 मई, 2005

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों , नईदिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सीईडी 22/ राजपत्र ]

सतीश कुमार जैन , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2558.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule . ( 1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. and Year of the Indian No. Standard Established

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

1. IS 5290 : 1993

1May, 2005

31May, 2005

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

[No. CED 22/Gazette]

S.K. JAIN, Sc ' F ' and Head ( Civil Engineering) 7997 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2559.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं : -

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधनलागूहोने कीतिथि

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

1. आई एस 6523 : 1983

संशोधन संख्या 1 , जून 2005

30जून 2005 इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्धहैं ।

[सं. सीईडी 53 /राजपत्र ]

सतीश कुमार जैन, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजात्तियरी )

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2005

S.O. 2559.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule (1 ) of Rules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the Indian Standards

SI. No.

No. and year of

the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30 June 2005 IS 6523 : 1983

Amendment No. 1 , June 2005

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

[No. CED 53 /Gazette]

S.K. JAIN , Sc . 'F' & Head ( Civil Engineering)

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2560.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नचे भारतीय मानक द्वारा

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक

अथवा मानकों, यदिकोई हो,

कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1 )

1 जुलाई, 2005

1238: 1985 हरीकेन लालटेन विशिष्टि-( चौथा पुनरीक्षण)

1. 1238: 2005 हरीकेन लालटेन विशिष्टि-( पाँचवां पुनरीक्षण )

28फरवरी, 2005 2. 15558: 2005 एल. पी .जी. के साथ उपयोग के लिए छोटे घरेलू वाटर हीटर-विशिष्टि 7998

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एम.ई.डी./जी-2 : 1 ]

सी. के. वैदा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' व प्रमुख ( एमई )

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2005

S.O. 2560.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rules 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

Date of Established

No. & Year of Indian Standards , if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

1July 2005

1. IS 1238 : 2005 Hurricane lanterns -Specification (Fifth Revision)

IS 1238 : 1985 Hurricane lanterns -Specification (Fourth Revision)

28th February 2005 2. IS 15558 : 2005 Mini domestic water heater for use with LPG-Specification

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

[No. MED/G- 2 : 1 ]

C.K. VEDA , Sc . ' F' & Head ( ΜΕ)

नईदिल्ली, 8 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2561.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 जुलाई 2005

संशोधन न . 1 , जून 2005

आई एस 12933 ( भाग 1 ) : 2003 सौर सपाट पटिटका संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 1 अपेक्षाएं ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

1जुलाई 2005

संशोधन न. 1 , जून 2005

आई एस 12933 ( भाग 2 ) : 2003 सौर सपाट पटिटका संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 2 घटक ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

1 जुलाई 2005

संशोधन न. 1 , जून 2005

3. आई एस 12933 ( भाग 3 ) : 2003 सौर सपाट पटिटका संग्राहक-विशिष्टि भाग 3 मापन उपकरण ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

1जुलाई 2005

संशोधन न. 1 , जून 2005

आई एस 12933 ( भाग 5 ) : 2003 सौर सपाट पटिटका संग्राहक- विशिष्टि भाग 5 परीक्षण पद्वति ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7999

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

इस संशोधन की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एम.ई.डी./जी-2 : 1 ] सी.के. वेदा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' व प्रमुख ( एम ई )

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2005

S.O. 2561.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

No. and year of the Indian Standards S1. No.

(1)

(2)

IS 12933 (Part 1) : 2003 Solar flat plate 1. collector-Specification Part 1 Requirements (second revision)

IS 12933 (Part 2) : 2003 Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part 2 Components ( second revision) 2.

3. IS 12933 (Part3 ) : 2003 Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part 3

Measuring Instruments (first revision) 4. IS 12933 (Part 5) : 2003 Solar flat plate collector-Specification Part 5 Test Methods (second revision)

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(3)

(4)

Amendment No. 1 , June 2005 1July 2005

Amendment No. 1, June 2005 1July 2005

Amendment No. 1 , June 2005 1July 2005

Amendment No. 1 , June 2005 1July 2005.

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

[No. MED/G-2: 1 ]

C.K. VEDA, Sc . 'F' & Head ( ME)

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2562.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

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

(1)

(2)

1. आई एस 3971 : 2005/ आई एस ओ 445: 1996 सामग्री प्रहस्तन के लिए पैलेट- शब्दावली ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा

अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, कीसंख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4)

28फरवरी 2005 आई एस 3971 : 1976 8000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

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

(1)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 13460 : 1992

30अप्रैल 2005 2. आई एस 13460 : 2005/ आई एस ओ 3732 : 2003 सड़क वाहन- खींचने और खिंचने वाले वाहनों के बिजली कनेक्शन के लिए कनेक्टर-12 वोल्ट की अभिहित आपूर्ति वोल्टेज के वाहनों के लिए 7 -पोल कनेक्टर टाइप 12 एस ( प्राथमिक ) ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30अप्रैल 2005

आई एस 13461 : 1992

3. आई एस 13461: 2005/आई एस ओ 1724 : 2003 सड़क वाहन- खींचने और खिंचने वाले वाहनों के बिजली कनेक्शन के लिए कनेक्टर -12 वोल्ट की अभिहित आपूर्ति वोल्टेज के वाहनों के लिए 7 -पोल कनेक्टर टाइप 12 एन ( सामान्य ) ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

30अप्रैल 2005

आई एस 13499 : 1992

4. आई एस 13499: 2005, आई एस ओ 3731 2003 सड़क वाहन- खींचने और खिंचने वाले वाहनों के बिजली कनेक्शन के लिए कनेक्टर -24 वोल्ट की अभिहित आपूर्ति वोल्टेज के वाहनों के लिए 7 - पोल कनेक्टर टाइप 24 एस ( प्राथमिक ) ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

28फरवरी 2005

आई एस 13531 : 1992

5. आई एस 13531 : 2005 स्वचल टारय- मोल्ड क्योर प्रक्रिया के लिए टायर- रिट्रीडिंग सामग्रियां ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

28फरवरी 2005

आई एस 15547 : 2005

6. आई एस 15547 2005 स्वचल वाहन - चार पहिये वाले वाहनों के लिए प्लास्टिक की ईंधन टंकी

28फरवरी 2005

आई एस 15563: 2005

7. आई एस 15563 : 2005/आई एस ओ 17269 : 2000 यात्री कार टायर-रोलिंग परिधि को मापने की पद्धतियां- भारित नए टायर

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां 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 , भुबनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. टीईडी/जी-16 ]

जे.ए. सिद्धिकी, निदेशक ( परिवहन इंजीनियरिंग विभाग )

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2005

S.O. 2562.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule ( 7) of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

No. , year and title of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Indian Standards , if Date of Established any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

28 Feb 2005 1.

IS 3971 : 1976

IS 3971 : 2005/ISO 445 : 1996 Pallets for materials handling -Vocabulary (second revision )

IS 13460 : 1992

30April 2005 IS 13460 : 2005 /ISO 3732 : 2003 Road Vehicles - Connectors for the electrical connection of towing and towed vehicles -7 -pole connector type 12 S ( Supplementary) for vehicles with 12 V nominal supply voltage ( first revision) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

8001

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13461 : 1992

30April, 2005 3. IS 13461 : 2005/ISO 1724: 2003 , Road Vehicles -Connectors for the electrical connection of towing and towed vehicles-7 -pole connector type 12 N (Normal ) for vehicles with 12 Nominal supply voltage (FirstRevision)

IS 13499 : 1992

30April, 2005 4. IS 13499: 2005 /ISO 3731 : 2003 , Road Vehicles-Connectors for the electrical connection of towing and towed vehicles-7 -pole connector type 24 S (Supplementary) for vehicles with 24 V Nominal supply voltage (First Revision)

IS 13531 : 1992

28 Feb. , 2005 5. IS 13531 : 2005 , Automotive Tyres- Tyre- retreading materials for mould cure process (First Revision)

IS 15547 : 2005

28 Feb. , 2005 6. IS 15547 : 2005 , Automotive vehicles -Plastic fuel tank for four wheelers

IS 15563 : 2005

28 Feb. , 2005 7. IS 15563 : 2005 /ISO 17269 : 2000 Passenger car tyres-Methods for measuring rolling circmference- Loaded new tyres

[No. TED/G- 16]

J. A. SIDDIQI, Director (TED)

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2563.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या और वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

1,मई2005

30 जुलाई, 2005 आई एस 13568 रु. 1992 , मोटर साइकिल और ऐसे ही वाहनों में ए सी सर्किट से जुड़ी सीसा अम्ल

वाली हल्के भार वाली संचायक बैटरियाँ- विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय संशोधन की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, १ बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयोंः नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़, चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. ईटी 11 /टी -55 ]

पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञा.-' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी ) 061 GI /2005-3 8002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2005

S.O. 2563. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Sl. No.

No.& year of

the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(2)

(4)

(1)

(3)

May 1, 2005

30 July, 2005 1. IS 13568 : 1992 , Lead acid light weight storage batteries for motor cycles and similar vehicles fitted with AC circuitry - Specification

Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg . New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad , Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur, Kanpur. Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. ET11 /T -55]

P. K. MUKHERJEE , Sc. 'F ' & Head (Elec . Technical )

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2564.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं ।

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक(कों ) की संख्या

संख्या वर्षऔर शीर्षक

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हों, की संख्या और वर्ष

(4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

10551 : 1983

31मई 2005 आइएस 10551 : 2005 काँच की भट्टी के प्रयोजनों के लिए जिरकॉन म्यूलाइट की अग्निसह सामग्रियाँ- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

[ संदर्भ: एमटीडी 15/टी -87 ]

एस. के. गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) 8003 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण. 1 , 1927

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2005

S.O. 2564.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule ( 1) ofRules 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

SI. No. & year of the Indian Standards Established

Date of Established No.

No. and year of Indian Standards ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 10551 : 1983

31May 2005 IS 10551 : 2005 Zircon Mulllite Refractories forGlass Furnace Applications- Specification (First Revision)

Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, New Delhi - 110 002 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: MTD 15/T- 87]

S. K. GUPTA, Scientist ' F ' & Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2565.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने कीतिथि

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

संशोधन की संख्या 1 , जून 2005

30जून, 2005 1. आई एस 3149 : 1994 घरेलू व्यवहार के लिए इनेमिल बर्तन -विशिष्टि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भावन १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. सी एच डी 9/आई एस 3149 ]

डा. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञा. ई, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन) 8004

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

S.O. 2565.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rules ( 1 ) ofRule 7 Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. & title of the Indian Standards

SI. No.

No.& year of

the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30 June 2005

Amendment No. 1 , June 2005

IS 3149 : 1994 Enamelware for home use- Specification (Second revision)

Copy to these Standards are 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.

[No. CHD 9 /IS 3149]

Dr.U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Sc .- ' E ' . Director & Head (Chemical )

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2566.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए है :-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या,

वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1 )

(3 )

(2)

(4)

30 अप्रैल, 2005 आई एस 15576 : 2005 निर्यात की चाय हेतु बहुपरतीय कागज के थैले -विशिष्टि

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

[सं. सी एच डी 15/आई एस 15576 ]

डा. यू. सी. श्रीवास्तव, वैज्ञा. 'ई ' , निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन)

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2005

S.O. 2566.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.

8005 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/श्रावण 1 , 1927

SCHEDULE

No, and title of the Indian Standards

SI. No. Established

No. and year of Indian Standards , Date of Established ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standards

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

30April2005 IS 15576 : 2005 Multiwall paper sacks for tea forexport-Specification

Copyto these Standards are 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 , Bhubaneshawar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. CHD15/IS 15576]

DR. U. C. SRIVASTAVA, Scientist .- ' E ' . Director & Head (Chemical)]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2567.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित्त तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या

वर्ष और शौर्षक

क्रम संख्या

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

आई एस 12279 :1988

31मई , 2005 आई एस 12279 : 2005/आइएसओ 3325: 1996 कठोर धातुओं को छोड़कर सिंटरितः धातु सामग्रियाँ-अनुप्रस्थ संविदारण सामर्थ्य द्वारा करশ্য (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, बण्डीगढ़ , बेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा विरूवमन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एम टी डी 25/टी-66 ]

एस. के. गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

NewDelhi , the 18th July,2005

S.O. 2567.- In pursuance ofclause (b) of sub-rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl.

Date of Established No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and Year of Indian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

IS12279: 1988

IS 12279 : 2005 /ISO 3325 : 1996

31May2005 Sintered metal materials, excluding hardmetals -Determination of transverse rapture strength (FirstRevision) 8006

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

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

[No. MTD 25 /T -66]

S. K. GUPTA, SCIENTIST ' F ' & Head (MTD)

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2568.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

स्थापित तिथि

संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31मई, 2005

आई एस 15574: 2005/आइएसओ 5754: 1978 कठोर धातुओं को छोड़कर सिंटरित धातु सामग्रियाँ खाँचारहित

संघट्ट परीक्षण खंड

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन १ , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों, : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल, भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एम टी डी 25/टी-66 ]

एस. के. गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2005

S.O. 2568. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established SI . No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. andYear of Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standards

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31May, 2005 IS 15574 : 2005 /ISO 5754 : 1978 Sintered metal materials , excluding hardmetals -Unnotched impact test piece

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

[No. MTD 25/T - 66 ]

S. K. GUPTA , Scientist ' F ' & Head (MTD) 8007 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2569.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सनलौजिक ओटोमेशन (प्रा. ) लिमिटेड, सं. 52 , 5/डी , सरवासेरिआ ग्राहास अपार्टमेंट, गांधी स्ट्रीट, वेस्ट मामबलम , चेनई-600 033 , तमिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस एल ए- पी" श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सेनलौजिक " है ( जिले इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/262 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Senlogic

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 210 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 252 )/2002] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

New Delhi, the 28th June , 2005

S.O. 2569.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non-automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SLA - P " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SENLOGIC" ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Senlogic Automation (P) Limited, No. 52, 5/D , Sarvasrea Grahas Apartments , Gandhi Street, West Mambalam , Chennai -600 033 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2004/262:

Senlogic

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

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 (252)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology -8009 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 28 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2570.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सनलौजिक ओटोमेशन ( प्रा. ) लिमिटेड, सं. 52, 5/डी, सरवासेरिआ ग्राहास अपार्टमेंट, गांधी स्ट्रीट, वेस्ट मामबलम चेनई-600 033 , तमिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस एल ए- टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " सेनलौजिक' है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एनडी/09/2004/261 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Senlogic

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

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 252 )/2002] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2061 GI/2005-4 8010

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1, 1927

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2005

S.O. 2570. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non - automatic (Table top type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SLA - T " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " SENLOGIC " ( herein referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s, Senlogic Automation (P) Limited , No. 52 , 5/D , Sarvasrea Grahas Apartments , Gandhi Street , West Mambalam , Chennai -600 033, Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/2004/261;

Senledic

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verifi- cation scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n) in the rang of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5 × 10 %, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance and with the same principle, design, accuracy and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 252 )/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8011 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2571.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता होगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स साइटोरियस मैक्ट्रोनिक्स इण्डिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 10, तीसरा फेज , पीनया छटवां मैन, के आई डी बी इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, बंगलौर-560058 द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " ए एल सी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एक्यूलेब " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/2005/20 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त माडल एकाश्म तकनीकी पर आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 210 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि. प्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.- 21 (224)/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8012

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1, 1927

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2571. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of "ALC" series of special accuracy (Accuracy class - I) and with brand name "ACCULAB " ( herein referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/ s . Sartorious Mechatronics India Pri- vate Limited, 10, 3rd Phase, Pecnya , 6th Main, KIADB Industrial Area , Banglore -560058 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/20;

The said model is a monolithic technology based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with amaximum capacity of 210g and minimum capacity of 100mg. The verification scale interval (e) is Img. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto to 50kg with verifi- cation scale interval (n) in the range of 50,000 and above for ' e ' value of 1mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2x10 or 5x10 %, k being positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design, and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (224)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8013 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2572.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स साइटोरियस मैक्ट्रोनिक्स इण्डिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 10, तीसरा फेस, पीनया, छटवां मैन, के आई डी बी इण्डस्ट्रीयल एरिया, बंगलौर -560058 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " ए एल सी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " एक्यूलेब " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/2005/21 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विद्युत- चुम्बकीय बाल क्षतिपुरण सिद्धान्त पर आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 210 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. -21 ( 224)/2003]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1, 1927

[PART 11-SEC. 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2572. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " ALC" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name "ACCULAB " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Sartorious Mechatronics India Private Limited, 10, 3rd Phase , Peenya , 6th Main , KIADB Industrial Area , Banglore- 560058 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/21 ;

000

The said model is a electromagnetic force compensation principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 210g and minimum capacity of 200mg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display ( LCD) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 224)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 8015 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2573.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स कन- एल्ट फ्यूल सिस्टम, 104 , गुप्ता टावर, कामर्शियल काम्पलेक्स, आजादपुर, दिल्ली-110033 द्वारा विनिर्मित " 1322 - डी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित इलैक्ट्रानिक डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " कन- एल्ट" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/536 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

LITRES

सीसारहित पेटोल

उक्त मॉडल अंकक सूचन सहित सकारात्मक विस्थापन मीटर वाला डिस्पेंसिंग पम्प है जिसमें समायोजन के लिए अंश शोधन पहिये का उपबंध है । इसका पेक्षण प्रवाह 40 लीटर प्रति मिनट है । इसमें धन और मात्रा के लिए एक पूर्व नियत युक्ति है । मात्रा छः अंक प्रदर्श पर उपदर्शित की जाती है और अधिकतम सम्भव प्रदर्श मूल्य 9999.99 रु. है और न्यूनतम मात्रा 10 मि. लीटर प्रदर्शित की जाती है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों को रोकने के लिए सज्जीकरण और इनपल्सर दोनों को भी सीलबंद किया

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. -21 (126)/2003]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2573. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of Electronic Dispensing pump with digital indication ( herein referred to as the said model) of " 1322 -D " series with brand name " CON - ALT", manufactured by M/s Con- Alt Fuel Systems, 104, Gupta Tower, Commercial Complex, Azadpur, Delhi - 110033 and which isassigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/536;

LITRES

सीसारहित पेट्रोल

The said model is a dispensing pump with digital indication having a positive displacement meter provided with calibration wheel for adjustment . The maximum flow rate observed is 40 liter per minute. It has a preset device for money and volume . The display is of Liquid Crystal Display (LCD ) type. The volume is indicated on a six digit display and maximum price display possible is Rs . 9999,99 and the minimum quantity is displayed is 10ml. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done both in assembly and inpulser to prevent fradulent practices.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 126)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8017 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 5 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2574.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स साउदर्न वेईंग इन्स्ट्रूमेंट्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, ' आशियाना ' वसुंधरा नगर ( एस ) , जी ई रोड, भिलाई-3, 490021 जिला दुर्ग, छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस डब्ल्यू002 " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " स्वास्तिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एनडी/09/2004/489 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.रां . डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 (45)/2002 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2061 GI /2005-5 8018

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

NewDelhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2574. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating, non-automatic (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " SW002 " series of medium accuracy Accuracy class- III) and with brand name WASTIC " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Southern Weighing Instruments Private Limited, " Ashiana " Vasundhara Nagar ( S ) G.E. Road Bhilai - 3 , 490 021 , District : Drug, Chhattisgarh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/489 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 100kg . and minimum capacity of 200g. The verification scale interval (e) is 10g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weigh- ing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 (45)/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8019 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2575.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता 'हेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स गोल्डफील्ड स्केल, बी-2, अंकिता बिल्डिंग , मधुराम हाल के पीछे , एच जे रोड, दहिसार ( ईस्ट) मुम्बई-400068 ( महाराष्ट्र ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जी एच एस" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्डफील्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2004/ 558समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Goldfield

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और सी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1,00,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. से 1000 या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 1,00,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 10%, 2 × 10% या 5 × 10 %, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.21 (64)/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2575. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of " GHS " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " GOLDFIELD " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufac- turedby M/s Goldfield Scale , B-2 , Ankita Building, Opp . Madhuram Hall , H.J. Road , Dahisar (East ) Mumbai -400068 (Maharashtra) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/558 ;

Goldfield

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

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 (64)/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8021 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2576.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स गोल्डफील्ड स्केल, बी-2 , अंकिता बिल्डिंग , मधुराम हाल के पीछे , एच जे रोड, दहिसार ( ईस्ट) मुंबई ( महाराष्ट्र ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी एम एस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्डफील्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/559 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Goldfield

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

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.- 21 (64 )/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2576. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " GMS " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " GOLDFIELD " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufac- tured by M/s . Goldfield Scale , B- 2 . Ankita Building . Opp . Madhuram Hall . H.J. Road, Dahisar (East) Mumbai -400 068 (Maharashtra) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2004/559;

Goldfield

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

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

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

[ F. No. WM-21 (64)/2004|

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

8023

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2577.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स गोल्डफील्ड स्केल, बी-2 , अंकिता विलिंडग , मधुराम हाल के पीछे , एच जे रोड, दहिसार ( ईस्ट) मुंबई ( महाराष्ट्र ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जी एच एस" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्डफील्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/ 560 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Goldfield

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2.5 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक को अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 10,2 10* या 510 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.-21 ( 64)/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1. 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2577. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub -sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weigh- ing instrument(Platform type ) with digital indication of " GHS " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name "GOLDFIELD " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Goldfield Scale, B-2. Ankita Building, Opp. Madhuram Hall , H J. Road. Dahisar ( East ) Mumbai - 400068 (Maharastra ) and which is as- signed the approval mark IND/ 09/2004/560;

Goldfield

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 600 kg . and minimum capacity of 2.5 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weigh- ing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply:

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar makes , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto 1000 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg or more and with' e' value of 1 10 , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10%, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (64)/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology 8025 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2578.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स गोल्डफील्ड स्केल , बी-2 , अंकिता बिल्डिंग , मधुराम हाल के पीछे , एच जे रोड, दहिसार ( ईस्ट) मुंबई ( महाराष्ट्र ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी एम एस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन , स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गोल्डफील्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/561 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Goldfield

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.-21 (64)/2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2061 GI /2005-6 8026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2578. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic (Table- top type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " GMS " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " GOLDFIELD " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s Goldfield Scale, B-2, Ankita Building, Opp . Madhuram Hall , H.J. Road , Dahisar (East ) Mumbai -400068 (Maharastra ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/2004/561;

Goldfield

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 4 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 200 g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weigh- ing result . The instruments operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar makes , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto 5,000 kg . with verification scale interval ( 11) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for " e " value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x 10% , 2 × 10* or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principal , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (64)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8027 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005

का०आ० 2579.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदायक रहेगा:

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्खियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रुद्राक्ष टेक्नालाजी, एस सं . 352 , मंजरी ( बी के ) , पुणे-412307 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( अथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन, अस्वचालित उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " नक्षत्र " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005 / 29 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है। उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार भार सेल सिद्धांत आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) तोलन फारण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एलईडी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 307 )/2003 ]

पी० ए० कृष्णनर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2579. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions:

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Table top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of high accuracy (Accuracy class -II ) and with brand name "NAKSHTRA " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Rudraksha Technologies , S. No. 352, Manjari (BK), Pune-412307, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 2005/29;

The said Model is a strain gauge load cell principle based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 15kg. and minimum capacity of 50g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 1g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts . 50 Hz alternative current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM- 21 (307)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8029 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई , 2005

का०आ० 2580.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रुद्राक्ष टेक्नालाजी, एस सं. 352 , मंजरी ( बी के) , पुणे-412307 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन, अस्वचालित दोहरी रेंज उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " नक्षत्र " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 30 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण, पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है।

उक्त मॉडल भार सेल आधारित दोहरी रेंज तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 15 कि.ग्रा. तक 2 ग्रा. और 15 कि. ग्रा. से 30 कि. ग्रा . तक 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 307 )/2003 ]

पी० ए० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2580. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub- sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of self indicating, non -automatic dual range (Table Top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " NAKSHTRA " (hereinafter referred to as the model ) , manufactured by M/s . Rudraksha Technologies , S. No. 352 , Manjari (BK) , Pune -412307 , Maharashtra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/30;

The said model is a load cell based dual range weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g upto 15 kg and 5g above 15 kg and upto 30kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

[F. No. WM-21 (307)/2003 ]

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

8031

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2005

का०आ० 2581.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रुद्राक्ष टेक्नालाजी, एस सं. 352, मंजरी ( बी के ) , पुणे -412307 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन, अस्वाचालित उपकरण (प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " नक्षत्र " है ( जिसे इसमें इससे पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/31 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है। उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित अस्वाचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 240 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 20 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से, जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से अधिक और 500 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10% या 5× 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 307)/2003]

पी० ए० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2581.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II) and with brand name " NAKSHTRA" (hereinafter referred to as the model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Rudraksha Technologies , S. No. 352, Manjari (BK) , Pune -412307 , Maharastra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/31;

The said model is a strain guage type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 240kg . and minimum capacity of 1kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 20g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments ofsimilar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 500 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10 . 2× 10 or 5x10% , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 307)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8033 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जुलाई, 2005

का०आ० 2582.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60) तथा वाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स रुद्राक्ष टेक्नालॉजी , एस सं. 352 , मंजरी ( बी के ) , पुणे -412307 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन , अस्वचालित उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " नक्षत्र " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/32 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 307 )/2003 ] पी० ए ० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 061 GI /2005-7 8034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 5th July, 2005

S.O. 2582. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the , report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " NAKSHTRA " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. Rudraksha Technologies , Sl. No. 352, Manjari (BK) , Pune-412307, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/32;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platforın type ) with amaximum capacity of 300kg . and minimum capacity of 1Kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 (307)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8035 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई, 2005

का०आ ० 2583.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स कृष्णा डिजीटल सिस्टम्स, ए / 3 , विषमो अपार्टमेंट, देवभूमि सोसायटी के निकट, घोडासार, अहमदाबाद -380050- गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जेड टी पी एफ-09" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जेनिथ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/541 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सपा मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत - प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभार प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

ZENIIA

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21(336)/2002 ]

पी० ए ० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8036

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2005

S.O. 2583.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformitywith the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating , non-automatic (Platform type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " ZT-PF - 09 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " ZENITH" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. Krishna Digital Systems , A/3 , Vishamo Apartment , Near Dev Bhomi Society, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad-380 050, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/541;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1,000kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

ZENIIH

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall allso cover the weighing instrument of similar make, and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto 5,000 kg with number ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10%, 2x10k or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (336 )/2002]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8037 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2005

का०आ० 2584.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स कृष्णा डिजीटल सिस्टम्स, ए /3 , विषमो अपार्टमेंट, देवभूमि सोसायटी के निकट, घोडासार, अहमदाबाद -380050 गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जेड टी- टी 19 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जेनिथ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/540 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

ZENITH

ZENIIA Digi Scale

ZERINA

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (336 )/2002 ]

पी० ए० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8038

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC , 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2005

S.O. 2584. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby Sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model the of non -automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of " ZT- T- 19 " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class II) and with brand name " ZENITH" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manuffactured by M/s . Krishna Digital Systems , A/3 , Vishamo Apartment , Near Devbhoomi Society, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad -380 050, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/2004/540;

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

ZENITH

ZENIIH Digi Scale

ZENITH

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 (336)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8039 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2005

का०आ० 2585.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा वाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स पी जी एस सिस्टम , प्लाट नं. 11 , भाग्य चिन्तामणी सोसायटी, ग्रेस होटल के निकट, पाउड रोड, कोठरुद, पुणे -411029 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी जी एस " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( हैंगिंग स्केल प्रकार) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " पी जी एस डायमंड-101 " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/520 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोडसेल अधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत- प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

0000

SIAMING- TOT

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के सीलबन्द के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 300 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2× 10 या 5× 10 %, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 110 )/2002]

पी० ए० कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2005

S.O. 2585. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of self indicating non- automatic (Hanging Scale) weighing instrumeent with digital indication of " PGS " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy' class - III) and with brand name "PGS- DIAMOND - 101 " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . PGS System, Plot No. 11 , Bhagya Chintamani Society, Near Hotel Grace , Poud Road, Kothrud, Pune-411 029 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2004/520;

The said model ( See the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based pon - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 100kg. and minimum capacity of 200g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. Ithas a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

0020

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of same series with maximum capacity upto 300 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5x10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM -21 ( 110)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8041 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2586.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स कोसन क्रिसप्लांट, 302 , विन्टेज काम्प्लेक्स, मार्ग सं. 5, बंजारा हिल्स, हैदराबाद-50034 आन्ध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित " सीयूसी - ई एक्स ( यूएफएम ) " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वचालित भारात्मक भरण उपकरण ( कारोसेल प्रकार) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " कोसन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/420 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

个

उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित भारात्मक भरण उपकरण ( कारोसेल प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 120 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा . है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । सिस्टम 24 भरण मशीनों की एक ड्राइविंग इकाई से मिलकर बना है और यह सिलेंडरों में एक पी जी भरने में प्रयुक्त होता है । उपकरण 12 वोल्ट, एक दिश धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम भरण क्षमता दर रेंज 1200 सिलेण्डर प्रति घंटा है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के सीलबंद के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 (45 )/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2061 GI/2005-8 8042

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

New Delhi , the 6th July, 2005

S.O. 2586. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling instrument ( Carousel Type) with digital indication of " CUC - Ex ( UFM) " series and with brand name " KOSAN" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Kosan Krisplant, 302. Vintage Complex , Road No. 5. BanjaraHills,Hyderabad- 50034 , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/420;

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling instrument (Carousel type) with a mam capacity of 120kg and the verification scale interval ( e) is 100g . It has a tare device with a subtractive retained tare effect . The liquid crystal display ( LCD ) indicates the weighing result . The system consist of 24 filling machine in one driving unit and is used for filling LPG in cylinders. The instrument operates on 12 Volts direct current power supply. Its maximum filling capacity rate range is 1200 sylinders per hour;

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

[F. No. WM-21 (45)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8043 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2587.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जय किशन इण्डस्ट्रीज , 21/2 , जॉन्स मिल सं. 4 , जवनी मंडी, आगरा-282004 द्वारा विनिर्मित काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जे के" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/366 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल बीम के सिद्धांत पर कार्यरत काउंटर मशीन है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है । और ब्रांड का नाम " जे के " है ।

१ किलो के लिये

To Weigh 5 Kg

DESIGN REGO NO 176518

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सीलबंद करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद की जाएगी । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.-21 ( 88)/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 11th July, 2005

S.O. 2587.- Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period. of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of counter machine (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Jai Kishan Industries , 21/2 , Jhon's Mill No. 4. Jeoni Mandi , Agra - 282004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/366;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a counter machine working on the principle of beam with maximum capacity of 10 Kg with brand name " JK" ;

५ किलो के लिये

ToWeigh 5KG

NIGN REGON 170518

tices. In addition to sealing the stamping plate , Machine shall be sealed to prevent its opening for fraudulent prac- Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said Act, the central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the counter machine ofsimilar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity from 500g up to 50Kg manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model have been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 88 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8045 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2588.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स जय किशन इण्डस्ट्रीज, 21/2 , जॉन्स मिल सं. 4 , जवनी मंडी, आगरा-282004 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जे के " श्रृंखला के सदृश सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन स्टीलयार्ड प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जे के " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/368 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

TYPE

HARDNED

ETAILERS OMPANIES HANTS

J.K.

उक्तमॉडल यांत्रिक स्टील यार्ड प्रकार लीवर आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म स्टीलयार्ड प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम .- 21 ( 88 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8046

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)]

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2005

S.O. 2588.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Platform machine- Steelyard type ) weighing instrument with analogue indication of " JK" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "JK " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s Jai Kishan Industries , 21/2 , Jkon's Mill No. 4, Jeoni Mandi , Agra- 282004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2004/368;

TYPE

ETAILEAS JURANIEL HENTS

J.K.

The said model is a mechanical steelyard type liver based non automatic weighing instrument ( Platform machine- Steelyard type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg The verification scale interval ( e) is 200g .

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 88 ) /2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8047 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2589.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त. शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स जय किशन इण्डस्ट्रीज, 21/2 , जॉन्स मिल सं. 4 , जवनी मंडी, आगरा-282 004 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जे के " श्रृंखला के सदृश सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन प्रो वेट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " जे के " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 367 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

YPE

ARDNED

AILERS PANIES INTS

J.K.

उक्त मॉडल यांत्रिक स्टील यार्ड प्रकार लीवर आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म मशीन प्रो वेट प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई) का मान 100 ग्रा. है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सीलबंद करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए उसे खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंदी की जाएगी । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान (एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और1000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 88 )/2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8048

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC , 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 11th July, 2005

S.O. 2589.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic (Platform machine- Pro Weight type ) weighing instrument with analogue indication of " JK " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " JK" ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Jai Kishan Indus- tries , 21/2, Jkon's Mill No. 4. Jeoni Mandi , Agra -282 004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2004/367;

YPE

AILERS TANIES NE

J.K.

The said Model is a mechanical steelyard type liver based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform machine -Pro Weight type) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g .

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing is also done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudtilent practices.

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

[F. No. WM-21( 88 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8049 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2590.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स अमन स्केल प्रा. लि, 14 - ए, नेहरु ग्राउंड, एन आई टी, फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " अमन" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " अमन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/526 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

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

---

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम.-21 (179 )/2002]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2061 G1/2005-9 8050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2005

S.O. 2590. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic (Table Top type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " AMAN " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " AMAN" ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Aman Scales Pvt. Ltd. , 14-A, Nehru Ground, N.I.T. Faridabad, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2004/526;

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg with verifica- tion scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100mg to 2g or with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k, 2x10 or 5 × 10k , k being positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance and with the same principle , design , accuracy and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 179)/2002 ]

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

8051 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 11 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2591.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स अमन स्केल प्रा. लि, 14 - ए, नेहरू ग्राउंड, एन आई टी, फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " अमन " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " अमन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/527 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण -पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 20 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेय प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से अधिक और 500 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 110 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 %, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य केसमतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. -21 ( 179)/2002] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8052

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2005

S.O. 2591.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic weigh- ing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " AMAN " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " AMAN" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s Aman Scales Pvt . Ltd. , 14-A, Nehru Ground, N.I.T. Faridabad, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/527 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 200kg and minimum capacity of 1kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 20g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM-21( 179)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8053 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 11 जुलाई, 2005

का.आ. 2592.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स अमन स्केल प्रा. लि. 14 - ए, नेहरू ग्राउंड, एन आई टी, फरीदाबाद, हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " अमन " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " अमन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/528 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृति गेज प्रकार भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू. एम. - 21 ( 179 )/2002 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 8054

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 11th July, 2005

S.O. 2592. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating non-automatic (Plateform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " AMAN " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name "AMAN " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Aman Scales Pvt . Ltd. , 14 -A, Nehru Ground, N.I.T. Faridabad, Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 2004/528;

The said model (see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with amaximum capacity of 300kg and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare devicewith 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weigh- ing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

In addition to sealing stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices . Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity of 50 kg and upto 500 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle, design , accuracy with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 179)/2002 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 8055 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2005

का. आ. 2593.-'केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पैट्रोलियम 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 . 2676 तारीख 19 अक्तूबर, 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 23 अक्तूबर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी ( पुणे) से पकनी ( सोलापुर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई- पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन 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 24 दिसम्बर, 2004, 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 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 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 8056

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

अनुसूची

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

तालूका : पुरंदर

जिला : पुणे

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

1 सोनोरी

00 31

215

00 81

150

143

00 43

00 09

145

00 34

146

00 05

00 29

00 19

00 03

00 26

00 32

00 15

00 08

00 10

00 29

00 19

232

00 20

233

00 10

242

00 11

243

00 12

244

00 26

245

गट नंबर 245 और

248 के बीच में

00 08

गाडी रास्ता

248

00 16

276

00 01

279

00 60

275

00 09

251

252 पै

00 05

253 पै

00 04

254 पै

00 12

गट नंबर 254 पै

00 02

में मेटल्ड रास्ता

}

255 पै

00 15

00 06

256

00 08

257

00 08 95

258 8057 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिला : पुणे

तालूका: पुरंदर

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का बाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर

कम सं.

उप-अण्ड सं.

6 7

00 05

259

1 सोनोरी (निरंतर)

39 98

260

गट नंबर 260 और

370 के पौस का

00 02

मिटटी रास्ता

00 28

370

00 54

392

गढ़ नंबर 392

मैं माला

{

00 09

399

कुल 07 95

00 11

2 वनपुरी

00 64

373

00 07

372

00 08

371

368

00 08

00 02

361

00 06

360

00 03

356

00 03

355

00 03 88

353

गड नंबर 353 में

00 03

राज्यमार्ग 63

गट नंबर 353 और

352के बीच में

04 93

मेटल्ड रास्ता

352

00 88

350

30035 13

00 00

340

00 02

341

00. 06

342

00 08

343

00 05

344

345

00 10

00 02

346

00 03

347

00 04

348

00 07

349

कुल

02 04

2061 GI /2005-10 8058

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

तालूका : पुरदर

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का बाम

मटे नंबर कम सं.

4 3 कुंभारवलण

108

111

112

113

118

120

119

121

122

130

133

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

1/4 00 00

87 अ/5

00 07

अ/6 00 14 13 अ/7

00 05

61 ब/4

00 05

ब/5

00 13

ब/6

00 08

80 ब/8

00 29

63 ब/10

00 18 49

00 33

00 11

00 06

00 18

00 23

00 08

00 10

00 06

00 18

00 31

00 16

00 19

गट नंबर 26 और

00 03

21 के बीच प्रमुख

जिला मार्ग 31

2 }

00 17

00 08

00 03

7.7

00 12

00 46

गट नंबर 2 के

पास करहा नदी

}

67 कुल

04 17 8059 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण1, 1927

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

तालूका: पुरंदर

जिला: पुणे

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का बाल

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर एयर

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

गट नंबर 1180

खलद

और गाँव सीमा

00 06

कुंभारवलण के बीच

में करहा नदी

1180

00 20

1181

00 01

00 14

1182

1183

00 27

1184

00 01

00 05

1185

1187

गट नंबर 1187 और

1317 के बीच में

00 03

मेटल्ड रास्ता

00 58

1317

गट नंबर 1318 में

00 02

माला

' }

00 21

1318

1319

1348

गट बबर 1348 और

1333 के बीच में

10 02

मेटल्ड रास्ता

00 07

1333

00 02 95

1334

1335

00 01

1336

00 04

00 09

1347

00 23

1344

गट नंबर 1344 में

00 03

नाला

1376

00 03

1378

00 03

1379

00 03 79

00 07

1380

1382

00 13

1383

00 07

00 05

1384

1398

00 08

00 03

1397 8060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

तालूका: पुरंदर

गट नंबर

सर्वे मंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 12

1395 4 खलद (निरंतर)

1396

1394

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

00 17

00 04

00 08

गट नंबर 1396 और

876 के बीच में

00 05

राज्य मार्ग 64

876

874

872

870

868

867

00 11

00 07

00 15

00 12

00 09

00 28

गट नंबर 867 और

735 के बीच में

नाला

735

733

732

726

725

723

722

721

720

719

718

717

716

715

714

713

712

711

710

1034 5 शिवरी

1035

1036

1037

1038

1040

1044

00 04

29.

00 40

00 26

00 07

00 04

00 07

00 08

00 05

00 04

00 03

00 04

00 12

00 13

00 19

১০ 12

कुल

397 04

00 02

00 01 369

00 24

00 13

29 00 18

00 14 8061 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र तालुका: पुरंदर

जिला: पुणे

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

माव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर

कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

1 2

08 69

1051

5 शिवरी (निरंतर)

1052

00 08

00 06 15

1053

00 10

1054

1055

00 21

1056

00 02

और

गट नंबर 1056

955 के बीच में

00 01

मेटल्ड रास्ता

955

954

00 07

949

00 23

00 08

948

940

00 06

941

00 03

942

00 04

943

00 03

944

00 01

945

00 15

930

946

00 01

929

00 06

928

926

00 16

859

00 25

00 21

858

855

00 07

854

00 08

850(पै)

गट नंबर 850 पै

और 833 के बीच

00 04

की भूमि

833

00 34 03

847

834

00 27

गट नंबर

834 और 837 के

00 05

बीच की भूमि

}

00 20

837

828

00 12 08 8062

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

तालूका : पुरंदर

जिला : पुणे

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

माव. का नाम

कम सं.

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड .सं.

827

00 09

81 5 शिवरी (निरंतर)

648

00 04 58

647

00 02

646

00 04

00.06

644

642

641

00 06

00 04

639

636

00 02

635

634

00 03

632

00 04

631

00 05

630

00 07

00 15

629

628

00. 04

48 16

627

626

00 19

621

00 35

कुल

06 19 45 6 पांगारे

00 01

592

गट नंबर 592 और

00 04

593के बीच में

नाला

593

00 02 32

गट नंबर 593 और

671 में अस्फालटेड

रास्ता

00. 02

गट नंबर 777 और 782के बीच में प्रमुख जिला मार्ग 60

कुल

00 26 19

गट नंबर 2168 में

7 परिंचे

00 01

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

2168

00 07

00 02

गट नंबर 2168 और 2172के बीच में प्रमुख जिला मार्ग 60 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

8063 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

तालूका: पुरंदर

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 1 2

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

सं.

6 7

8 5

गट नंबर 2172 और

7 परिचे (निरंतर)

00 02

2207 के बीच में

नाला

2206

2210

2211

2212

2219

2220

2221

2223

2227

2228

2229

2237

2238

2239

2240

2255

2254

2252

2253

2286

2288

2287

2289

2311

2312

2306

2304

2303

2301

2378

2379

2380

2381

2377

2400

2399

2439

2438

2437

00 02

00 08

00 02

00 07

00 01

00 07

00 05

00 04

00 16

00 09

00 12

00 18

00 04

00 25 54

00 12

00 10

00. 09

00 11

00 25

00 10

00 08

00 06

00 07

00 05

00 29

00 50

00 27

00 25

00. 14

00 21 8064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

तालूका : पुरंदर

जिला : पुणे

क्षेत्रफल

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.

हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

8 12

00 64

18 7 परिंचे (निरंतर)

2571

00 06

2577

2573

00 37

2643

2642

2624

00 08

2625

00 03

2626

00 03

2641

00.02

2627

00 02

00 07

2640

2628

2629

2639

00 03

00 04

2638

00 07

2637

2636

00 07

00 09

2632

2635

00 12

गट नंबर 2635

00 02

}

में नाला

2754

2724

2730

00 18

2732

00 09

2731

2733

00 05

2729

00 10

2728

00 02

3065

00 55

3064

00 16

3063

00 15

3062

00 14

3061

00 07.

3060

00 03

3059

00 04

3058

00 02

3057

00 03

3056

00 06

3055

00 05

3054

00 01

3097

00 28 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

-8065 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

तालूका: पुरंदर

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर गाव का बाम

कम सं.

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

सं.

6 7

गट नंबर 3097 और

7 परिंचे (निरंतर)

00 05

3095 के बीच में

गाडी रास्ता

3095

3096

3106

3104

3109

3110

3111 8 हरणी

195(पै)

गट नंबर 195 पै में अस्फालटेड रास्ता..

194

193

192

166

165

164

163

168

162

153

147

148

00 61

00 13

00 36 11

00 14 60

00 01

32 कुल

10 71

00 35

00 01

00 32

00 11

00 02

00 07

00 19

00 12

00 21

00 02

00 14

00 03

00 10

00 14

00 15

'00 26 ३०

00 18

गट नंबर 80 में

00 02

}

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

951 2061 GI/2005-11

00 27

00 18

00 01

00 02

00 06.

00 10

00 14

00 11

00 10 8066

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

तालूका: पुरंदर

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला : पुणे

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 12

949 8 हरणी (निरंतर)

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

8 5

6 7

00 09

गट नंबर 949 और

938 के बीच में

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

938

935

934

924

921(प)

925

918

917

916

915

914

891

890

889

888

903

902

901

904

900

899

898

897

894

895

602

603

607

604

605

822

818

819

820

807

806

गट नंबर 806 और

00 22

00 03

00 06

00 04

00 02

00 01

00 02

00 01

00 03

00 05

00 04

00 03

00 02

00 01

00 03

00 06

00 07

00 04

00 09

00 08

00 19

00 08

00 18

00 01

00 06

961 के बीच में

गाडी रास्ता

00 12 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

तालूका : पुरंदर

8067 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 1 2

961 हरणी (निरंतर)

962

963

964

802

803

804

662

678

679

680

681

682

683

712

711

716

719

718

720

722

723

760

762

759

758 वीर

1783

1782

1787

1798

1799

1803

1804

1809

1808

1850

1845

1846

1844

1833

क्षेत्रफल

उप -खण्ड

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

00 01

00 03

00 07

00 03

00 09

00 01

00 04

00 02

00 07

00 06

00. 06

00 19

00 18

00 03

00 01

10 15

60 26

10 05

कुल

00 07

CO 14

00 01

00 02

00 03

00 02

00 05

00 18

00 12

00 18

16 8068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

तालूका: पुरंदर

जिला : पुणे

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का जाम

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

8 12

00 00

1828

17 9 वीर (निरंतर)

00 12

2016

2017

00 16

2023

गट नंबर

00 01

2051 में प्रमुख

जिला मार्ग

63

}

2051

2032

2031

00 01

2030

00 04

2029

00 01

2028

00 05

00 20

2024

2026

00 02

2025

00 09

2122

00 33

02 73

कुल

1606

64 10 मांडकी

00 06

1628

00 57

1547

00 61

1480

00 05

1479

00 17

1478

00 08

1477

00 11

1476

गट नंबर 1476 और

1266 के बीच में

00 05

मेटल्ड रास्ता

1266

00 16

1265

00 03

1264

00 03

00 04

1917

1263

00 11

1262

00 15

00 13

1261

00 02

1298

00 04

1260

1299

00 04

1306

1307

00 01

1308

00 04

98 8069 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

तालूका: पुरंदर

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

00 07

1309

10 मांडकी (निरंतर)

1310

00 13

1311

00 13

1317

1312

1316

1315

00 04

गट नंबर 1315 और

897 के बीच

00 06

में नाला

897

898

00 11

849

848

847

846

888888 00 00 09

गट नंबर 906 और

908 के बीच में मेटल्ड

00 05

रास्ता

840

905

906

908

00 23

921

00 11

922

00 11

00 28

923

926

00 20

929

930

00 06

931

00 38

735

932

933

00 15

934

00 05

935

00. 10

936

00 03

00 06

938

939

00 26

940

00 07

गट नंबर 940 और

00 04

गाँव सीमा जेसुर के

बीच में नाला

कुल

06 33

85 8070

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

तालूका : पुरंदर

जिला: पुणे

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

एयर वर्ग टर

हेक्टर

कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

8 12

गट नंबर 1148 और

11 जेजुर

गाँव सीमा मांडकी के

00 09

बीच में नाला

00 01

1129

1128

1127

00 03

1124

00 03

00 02

1123

गट नंबर 1121

00 02

में गाडी रास्ता

}

00 04

1118

00 01

1117

1116

00 03

1006

1000

997

00 03

999

00 05

995

00 11

991

992

00 01

988

985

00 05

984

00 06

983

982

00 05

934

00 09 .

933

989

00 13

785

00 15

786

00 06

787

00 04

00 11

805

810

00 04

809

00 07

807

808

00 05

813

00 08

814

00 03

816

00 02

817

00 02

818

00 01

08 8071

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

6 7

00 03

837

51 11 जेजुर (निरंतर)

838

00 20

00 16 59

836

00 02

835

838

00 15

गट नंबर 838 और

851 के बीच में बाहें

00 11

तरफ का कनाल

851

00 47

602

00 32 99

576

00 06

593

574

00 11

गट नंबर 573 और

00 23

गाँव सीमा पिंपरे बुद्रूक

के बीच में नीरा नदी

कुल

03 87

[फा. सं. आर-31015/25/2004-ओ.आर-II ]

हरीश कमार, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2005

S. O. 2593.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2676, dated the 19th October, 2004, 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 23rd October , 2004, 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 copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 24th December , 2004;

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

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report 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 conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule 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 layingthe pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

8072

SCHEDULE

District : PUNE Taluka : PURANDHAR

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameof the Village

215 1 SONORI

150

143

145

146

232

233

242

243

244

245

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] State: MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub -Division No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.mt 5

31 68

00 81 78

00 43 68

00 09 36

00 34 39

00 05 05

00 29 56

00 19 70

00 03 10

00 26 42

00 32 53

00 15 11

00 08 04

00 10 90

00 29 95

00 19 98

20 96

00 10 96

00 11 31

00 12 81

00 26 07

00 08 38

CartTrack in

between Gat No

245 & 248

248

276

279

275

251

252(P)

253(P)

254(P)

00 00 81

00 16 73

01 41

00 60 51

00 09 74

00 05 86

00 04 75

00 12 92

Metalled Road in

in

00 02 62

GatNo 254( P )

255(P)

256

257

258

00 15 42

00 06 71

00 08 02

00 08 95 8073 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State: MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PURANDHAR

District : PUNE

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub -Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Name of the Village

7 8

00 05 05

259

1 SONORI (Contd.)

260

39 98

00 02 93

MudRoad

adjacenttoGat

No 260 & 370

}

370

00 28 14

392

54 36

Nala inGat

00 09 48

No 392

{

399

00 09 61

07 95 72

Total

2 VANPURI

11 36

00 64 01

373

372

00 07 67

371

00 08 30

368

00 08 41

361

02 73

360

06 07

356

00 03 38

355

00 03 78

353

00 03 88

SH63 in Gat

00 03 97

}

No353

00 04 93

}

Metalled Road in

between Gat No

353 & 352

00 11 13

352

350

00 15 00

340

00 00 35

341

00 02 07

342

06 60

343

08 22

344

.00 05 24

345

00 10 04

00 02 18

346

347

00 03 59

00 04 84

348

00 07 04

349

Total

02 04 79 2061 GI /2005-12 8074

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Taluka : PURANDHAR

District : PUNE

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Name of the Village

8 1

00 00 87

A/4

108

3 KUMBHARVALAN

07 78

108

A/5

00 14 13

108

A/6

00 05 61

108

ΑΠ

108

00 05 00

B/4

B/5

108

13 69

108

B/6

08 80

00 29 63

108

B/8

108

B/10

18 49

00 33 12

111

112

00 11 92

00 06 96

113

00.

118

18 40

120

00 23 24

00 00 02

119

121

00 08 66

10 40

122

00 06 00

130

18 10

133

00 31 61

00 16 74

00 19 17

MDR - 31 in

00 03 02

between Gat No

26& 21

}

00 07

00 17 90

00 08 42

00 03 77

00 00 90

00 12 31

00 02

12 59

00 46 08

00 04 25

Karha River

adjacentto

GatNo 2

17 67

Total [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण1 , 1927

8075 Taluka : PURANDHAR

District : PUNE

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub-Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare Sq.mt 2

8 4 KHALAD

00 06 80

Karha River in

between V.B. of

Kumbharvalan &

Gat No 1180

1180

00 20 74

1181

00 01 35

1182

00 14 82

1183

00 27 63

1184

00 01 53

1185

00 05 80

1187

00 . 19 54

00 03 64

Metailed Road in

between Gat No

1187 &1317

1317

00 58 80

Nala in Gat

00 02 38

No 1318 }

1318

21 78

00 10 42

1319

1348

00 16 08

Metalled Road in ?

between Gat No

00 02 11

1348& 1333

1333

00 07 60

1334

00 02 95

1335

00 01 88

1336

00 04 13

1347

00 09 29

1344

00 23 43

Nala in Gat No 1344

00 03 86

1376

00 03 42

1378

00 03 97

00 03 79

1379

1380

00 07 55

1382

00 13 02

1383

00 07 14

1384

00 05 21

1398

00 08 81

1397

00 03 87 8076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : PUNE

Taluka : PURANDHAR

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub -Division No.

Sr. No.

Are

Hectare Sq.mt Nameof the Village

8 1

17 24

1395

4 KHALAD (Contd .)

00 04 67

1396

00 08 34

1394

SH - 64 in

between Gat No

00 05 36

1396& 876

876

00 11 39

00 07 31

874

872

00 15 28

870

00 12 40

868

00 09 73

867

00 28 64

Nala in between

00 04 29

GatNo

867& 735

735

00 40 14

733

00 00 60

732

26 45

00 07 14

726

00 07 96

725

723

00 04 72

00 07 18

722

721

08 13

00 05 82

720

00 05 08

719

718

04 41

717

00 03 84

716

00 04 58

00 12 28

715

714

13 65

713

19 51

712

00 06 84

00 12 12

711

710

06 39 04

Total

5 SHIVARI

1034

00 02 65

1035

00 02 57

1036

00 01 69

00 24 62

1037

1038

13 29

1040

18 42

1044

00 14 14 8077 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

State : MAHARASHTRA

District: PUNE

Taluka: PURANDHAR

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameof the Village

7 8

08 69

1051

5 SHIVARI (Contd. )

1052

00 08 31

00 06 15

1053

1054

00 10 20

1055

00 21 78

1056

00 02 79

Metalled Road in

between Gat No

00 01 99

1056& 955

}

955

00 03 31

954

07 16

00 23 01

949

948

08 41

940

00 06 78

941

00 03 71

942

00 04 59

943

03 90

944

01 10

945

00 15 90

930

00 00 18

946

00 01 42

929

00 06 55

928

00 00 80

926

00 16 10

859

25 37

858

00 21 25

855

07 29

854

08 95

00 08 36

850(P)

Area in between

GatNo

04 58

850( P) & 833

833

00 34 03

847

00 01 66

834

00 27 61

Area in between

00 05 00

GatNo

834& 837

837

00 20 60

12 08

828

00 8078

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PURANDHAR

District : PUNE

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt Name of the Village

7 8

827

09 81 5 SHIVARI (Contd.)

648

04 58

647

00 02 98

00 04 69

646

00 06 22

644

00 09 93

642

641

00 06 52

639

04 46

636

00 02 55

635

05 21

00 03 74

634

632

04 74

00 05 64

631

630

00 07 22

00 15 80

629

00 04 96

628

627

00 48 16

626

00 19 88

621

35 37

Total

19 45

00 01 77 6 PANGARE

592

Nala in between

GatNo

04 26

592& 593

}

00 15 13

593

00 02 32

Asphalted Road

inGatNo

593& 671

00 02 71

MDR-60in

between Gat No

777 & 782

Total

00 26 19

Asphalted Road

01 32

7 PARINCHE

00 07 52

2168

00 02 25

MajorDistrict

Road-60in

between Gat No

2168& 2172

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8079 State : MAHARASHTRA

District : PUNE

Taluka: PURANDHAR

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameof the Village

4 2

Area

Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt 5

7 8

Nala in between

GatNo 7 PARINCHE ( Contd .)

2172& 2207

2206

2210

2211

2212

2219

2220

2221

2223

2227

2228

2229

2237

2238

2239

2240

2255

2254

2252

2253

2286

2288

2287

2289

2311

2312

2306

2304

2303

2301

2378

2379

2380

2381

2377

2400

2399

2439

2438

2437

02 97

02 37

00 08 38

00 02 72

00 07 96

07 10

00 01 89

00 07 33

00 05 00

00 03 32

00 04 65

00 05 57

16 01

00 09 90

00 12 31

00 00 15

00 18 29

00 04 95

00 25 10

00 25 54

00 12 15

10 38

00 09 83

00 11 82

00 25 71

00 10 54

12 87

00 00 26

00 08 36

00 15 51

06 03

00 06 22

00 07 28

00 05 38

00 29 96

00 50 14

00 27 19

00 25 90

00 14 83

00 21 25 8080

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PURANDHAR

District: PUNE

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub -Division No.

Sr. No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

Nameof the Village

8 1

2571

64 18 7 PARINCHE ( Contd . )

00 06 58

2577

2573

37 48

00 00 10

2643

00 00 53

2642

2624

08 03

00 03 06

2625

00 03 60

2626

00 02 93

2641

2627

00 02 39

2640

07 97

2628

00 01 37

00 00 44

2629

2639

03 85

04 74

2638

2637

07 00

07 58

2636

00 C9 49

2632

00 12 94

2635

00 02 84

Nala in Gat No 2635

00 39 98

2754

00 00 90

2724

00 18 62

2730

00 03

2732

00 09 59

2731

00 05 39

2733

00 10 73

2729

00 02 84

2728

3065

55 24

16 10

3064

3063

15 92

3062

00 14

3061

07 31

3060

03 97

04 65

3059

02 11

3058

3057

00 03 26

3056

06 50

3055

00 05 56

00 01 63

3054

3097

00 28 91 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

8081

r State : MAHARASHTRA

District : PUNE

Taluka: PURANDHAR

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

4 1

7 PARINCHE ( Contd.)

" Area

Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt

7 8

00 05 87

Carttrack in

between Gat No

3097 & 3095

3095

3096

3106

3104

3109

3110

3111 8 HARNI

195( P)

00 03. 07

00 61 33

00 13 54

00 36 11

00 14 60

00 01 58

71 32 Total

35 99

Asphalted Road

194

193

192

166

165

164

163

166

162

153

147

148

00 01 37

00 32 66

00 11 97

00 02 64

00 07 13

00 19 45

12 33

21 02

02 01

00 00 19

00 14 91

03 12

00 10 72

00 14 52

00. 15 13

00 26 30

00 18 21

00 02 20

Asphalted Road

inGatNo 80

951 20619545-13

27 26

00 18 05

00 01 26

00 00 17

00 02 05

06 50

00 10

00 14 67

00 11 65

00 10 64.

8082

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PURANDHAR

District : PUNE

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub -Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameof the Village

7 8 2

00 09 16

949

8 HARNI ( Contd.)

00 02 97

Asphalted Road

inbetween Gat

No 949 & 938

00 22 60

938

935

00 03 24

934

00 06 06

00 04 79

924

00 02 97

921(P)

00 02 05

925

918

00 02 93

00 01 53

917

00 02 13

916

00 01 83

915

00 03 81

914

891

00 05

00 03 03

890

05 79

889

888

00 04 79

903

00 03 59

00 02 00

902

901

00 14

00 06

904

00 01 34

900

00 01 46

899

00 01 48

898

897

03 59

894

00 06

00 04 39

895

00 06 07

602

00 07 00

603

607

04 05

604

00 09 42

605

00 08 52

822

00 19 28

818

08 13

819

18 69

00 01 10

820

807

00 00 87

806

00 06 90

00 12 92

CartTrack in

between

veen GatNo

}

806& 961 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Taluka : PURANDHAR

District: PUNE

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name ofthe Village

961 8 HARNI ( Contd . )

962

963

964

802

803

804

662

678

679

680

681

682

683

712

711

716

719

718

720

722

723

760

762

759

758 9 VIR

1783

1782

1787

1798

1799

1803

1804

1809

1808

1850

1845

1846

1844

1833

8083 State: MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sul-Division

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8

00 00 16

00 40

00 01 04

03 65

00 07 77

03 92

00 03 10

00 09 31

00. 00 55 ..

00 01 18

00 04 79

00 02 76

00 07 21

00 03 17

00 06 64

00. 06 80

00 19 40

00 00 02

03 15

00 56 12

00 01 03

00 15 58

00 00 31

00 26 61

00 05 20

07 63 97 Total

00 07 70

00 10 37

00 14 20

00 01 85

00 02 95

00 02 71

00 03 68

00 03 28

00 02 25

00 05 21

00 18 23

00 00 12

00 12 61

00 18 16 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

8084

Taluka: PURANDHAR

[PART II-SRC . 3 (ii)] State : MAHARASHTRA

District: PUNE

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameof the Village

1828 9 VIR(Contd .)

2016

2017

2023

Area

Sub-Division

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8 5

00 17

00 12 23

00 16 21

00 11 51

MDR - 63 inGat

No 2051

2051

2032

2031

2030

2029

2028

2024

2026

2025

2122 10 MANDKI

1606

1628

1547

1480

1479

1478

1477

1476

00 01 93 }

00 46 62

00 01 45

00 04 46

00 01 64

00 .. 05

00 20 98

00 02 96

00 09 90

33 52

02 73 49 Total

00 06 64

57 85

61 59

00 05 80

17 57

00 08 41

1.7.

00 11

00 11 82

Metalled Road in

00. 05 06

between GatNo

1476& 1266

1266

1265

1264

1917

1263

1262

1261

1298

1260

1299

1306

1307

1308 '}

00 16

03 49

00 03 79

00 04 18

11 78

00 15 73

00 13 92

02 76

00 04 30

00 04 01

00 00 40

00 01 88

00 04 98 8085 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : PUNE

Taluka : PURANDHAR

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Sr. No.

Are

Hectare Sq.mt Nameofthe Village

7 8

1309

00 07 67 10 MANDKI (Contd.)

00 13 60

1310

00 13 70

1311

1317

00 00 52

1312

00 00 19

14 77

1316

00 04 90

1315

Nala in between

GatNo

06 05,

1315 & 897

' }

897

00 25 93

00 11 83

898

849

00 09 97

00 09 45

848

847

00 04 98

846

00 09 24

00 05 51

Metalled Road in

between Gat No

906 & 908

}

840

905

906

00 00 64

00 23 76

908

00 11 22

921

11 85

922

923

28 49

00 20 71

926

00 00 05

929

930

06 29

00 05

931

38 14

735

00 00 40

932

00 15 48

933

00 05 94

934

00 10 03

935

00 03

936

00 06 28

938

00 26

939

940

00 07 85

04 61

}

Nala in between

GatNo 940

&V.B. ofJeur

Total

33 85

206145/05-13A 8086

JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

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

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : PUNE

Taluka: PURANDHAR

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub -Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Name of the Village

7 8 1

11 JEUR

Nala in between

00 09 92

GatNo 1148

&V.B. ofMandki

00 01 30

1129

00 00 60

1128

03 82

1127

00 03 99

1124

00 02 71

1123

CartTrack in Gat

No 1121 }

00 04 14

1118

01 00

1117

00 11 39

1116

00 03 85

1006

10 70

1000

00 00 71

997

00 03 54

999

00 05

995

00 11

991

00 01

992

988

05 12

985

00 06 17

984

00 00 96

983

00 05 19

982

00 09 96

934

00 00 71

933

13 72

989

00 15 67

785

06 00

786

00 04 38

787

00 11 72

805

810

04 57

00 07 76

809

00 00 05

807

00 05 67

808

813

08 87

00 03 38

814

816

02 72

00 02 41

817

00 01. 08

818 8087 [ भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ त्रापण 1, 1927

8 1

11 JEUR ( Contd.)

837

00 03 51

838

00 20 52

836

00 16 59

835

00 02 28

838

00 15 60

Nira Left Bank

00 11 75

Canal in between

GatNo

838& 851

851

00 47 51

602

00 32 99

576

00 06 83

593

574

00 11 63

NiraRiver in between Gat No.

00 23 92

573& V.B. of

PimpreBudruk

03 87 97

Total

[No. R- 31015/25/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2594.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अभिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियन 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 . 2678 तारीख 19 अक्तूबर, 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 23 अक्तूबर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि. में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापूर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई - पुणे पाइपलाइन 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 कीथी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 24 फरवरी, 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 सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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 कन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की जाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा। [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

8088

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाय का नाम

उप-खण्ड सं.

कम सं.

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 3

6 7

8 1

गट नंबर 735 और

आंधली

गाँव सीमा के बीच में

येरला नदी

735

00 36

736

738

00 16

739

00 07 64

740

716

00 10 11

741

742

00 16 69

745

00 00 74

715

00 25 94

714

00 08

749

00 00 81

711

00 54 03

710

709

20 27

708

0007 ,

गट नंबर 708 और

00 04

685 के बीच का रास्ता

685

00 06 17

686

00 31 20

687

00 03 92

688

00 37

655

00 05

690

652

00 20 41

651

00 16 32

635

00 38 29

636

00 05

584

00 07

585

00 14

579

00 01 17-

गट नंबर 579 और

577 के बीच का

00 02

गाडी रास्ता

577

00 17 88

578

00 07 52

327

328

00 29

329

00 47 36 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8089

जिला : सांगली

पलुस

तालूका :

सर्वे नंबर

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 2

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

8 5

गट नंबर 329 में

(निरंतर)

आंधली

रास्ता

00 03 27 }

गट नंबर 328 में

रास्ता

330

290

289

288

00 00 48 }

00 32

25 57

00 08 37

गट नंबर 288 और

115 के बीच का

00 05

गाडी रास्ता

115

122

116

119

121

218

217

215

214

213

181

182

208

207

00 20 28

00 26 97

00 11 47

00 37 00 1

00 09

00 27 17 1

00 11 70 2

00 00

00 20

00 19

गट नंबर 207

में रास्ता

184

189

185

188 2 मोराले

241

240

229

239

238

237 2061 GI/2005-14

00 01

}

15 50

00 01 30

00 01 17

00 32

20 कुल

00 21

00 07

00 17 00

03 60

00 05

00 8090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

गट नंबर कम सं.

236 2 मोराले (निरंतर)

235

234

233

231

230 3 बांबवडे

1031

1032

1036

1037

1042

1041

1039

1040

1039 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

04 32

03 60

00 07

00 05 04

कुल

00 92

00 25

17 04

00 52

00 23 04

00 11

00 01

00 24

18 28

गट नंबर 1040 और

1017 के बीच का प्रमुख

00 08

जिला मार्ग 19

1017

1016

1014

1002

1001

997

996

995

994

983

1296

984

986

952

951

00 07

00 13

00 06

00 03 88

00 02 24

00 02

00 03

00 03 89

00 05 10

00 05 49

00 05 95

00 07 51

00 08

17 38

00 01 96

गट नंबर 951 में

नाला

950

949

948

947

946

00 01 59 }

03 13

00 12 08

06 22

07 30

00 17 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005 / श्रावण1 , 1927-

8091

जिला : सांगली

पलुस

तालूका :

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 1

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड

एयर वर्ग मीटर सं. हेक्टर

8 5

6 7

गट नंबर 946 और

बांबवडे (निरंतर)

926 के बीच का

00 03 23

गाडी रास्ता

926

925

924

923

922

921

920

914

913

910

811

815

00 06

00 04

00 01

00 01 18

00 02 53

00 02 57

02 41

00 05

02 89

क

00 30 64

12 87

00 14 81

गट नंबर 815 और

816 के बीच का

00 02

गाडी रास्ता

816

817

819

803

800

802

801

795

796

1291

790

789

761

00 06

00 10

00 16

00 01

00 02

CO 01 35

00 05

00 06

00 06 11

00 06 07

00 07 10

गट नंबर 761 में

00 03 15

राज्य मार्ग नंबर 75

758

756

755

754

740

739

737

735 }

06 75

00 03 82

00 13

00 27

10 42

00 24 14

10 39

00 8092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

गट नंबर कम सं.

4 1

734 बांबवडे (निरंतर)

733

731

730

729

573 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

उप-खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

सं.

6 7

00 05

00 01

00 02

00 04

गट नंबर 573 और

00 02

502 के बीच का नाला

502

501

500

499

498

494

495

498

496

497

1289

513

514

515

516

517

518 }

00 04 42

00 07 89

00 05 48

00 05

00 14 31

00 00 17

00 04 98

00 02 81

00 02 92

00 04 61

00 09

00 15

00 05 07

00 06 81

00 05

00 04

00 02 07

गट नंबर 518 और

00 04 07

422के बीच का रास्ता

422

421

420

419

417

416

424

425

426

427

428

405 }

00 04

00 05 75

00 03 65

00 01

00 05

00 02 25

00 06 90

00 02

00 14 02 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8093

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

391 बांबवडे (निरंतर)

408

412

409

410

407

999

1598 येलावी

1599

1600

1607

1606

1604

1603

1646

1645

1644

1643

1675

1688

1640

1692

1693

1710

1709

1708

1707

1733 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

उप-खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

6 7

00 02

00. 16 64

00 87

00 13 56

00 06 50

00 04 00 कुल

08 36 68

00 02

00 00 13

00 09

00 04

00 10 84

00 04 85

00 09 94

00 16

00 14 01

00 11 98 अ

00 06

32 63

00 13 95

19 82

00 11 73

00 4.0

गट नंबर 1733 और

1946 के बीच का

00 01 81

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

1946

1953

1952

1946

1950

1949

1969

1968

1967 }

00 27

00 04 14

00 13 14

00 06 93

00 04

00 11 00

00 09 8094

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

जिला : सांगली

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र तालूका : पलुस

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

एयर

कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर

6 7

1966

2 (निरंतर)

येलावी

1973

00 65 03

1975

00 08 52

1978

00 14 68

1977

00 03 48

1980

00 05 81

1981

00 06

2056

00 05

2057

00 11 91

गट नंबर 2057 और

2060 के बीच का

00 03

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

}

2059

2060

00 03

2061

09 50

गट नंबर 2061 और

2063 के बीच का

00 02 38

गाडी रास्ता

2063

00 12 17

2064

00 00 97

2065

00 06 31

2066

00 05

2047

00 11 63

2046

00 10

2044

00 05

2042

00 05

2041

00 02 64

2235

00 03 23

2236

00 06

2260

00 21

2256

00 11 91

2258

00 14 12

गट नंबर 2258 और

29 के बीच का

00 02

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

00 13 69

00 18 59

00 02 75

00 06 88

00 08 52 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

8095

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर सं.

6 7

गट नंबर 34 में

रास्ता 4 येलावी (निरंतर)

00 10

00 03

00 19

00 00 13

00 12 28

गट नंबर 39 में

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

}

गट नंबर 40 में

00 04

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

गट नंबर 41 में

08 {

अस्फालटेड रास्ता

291

290

00 02 61

00 02 80

00 03

00 02 70

00 06

39 49

00 81

00 05

गट नंबर 290 और

00 02

285के बीच का रास्ता

285

284

283

282

281

280

279

278

277

276

275

274

273

272 }

00 41 17

00 09

00 05

00 04

00 05

00 03 75

00 09 08

00 03 07

00 03

00 03 44

00 04 04

00 06 64

00 02

80 8096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 4

271 (निरंतर)

येलावी

270

266

265

264

263

262

261

260

259

258

256

257 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

00 03 19

00 02

00 05

00 06 55

00 08

00 07 25

00 10 26

00 09 70

00 09

गट नंबर 257 में

गाडी रास्ता

5 5 हज़ारवाडी

6 }

10 98 22 कुल

17 96

00 49

गट नंबर 6 में

00 01

मेटल्ड रास्ता

27 }

00 38 52

00 25

00 10 17

गट नंबर 27 और 129

के बीच का राज्य

मार्ग 136

129

128

132

134

135

136

137

00 02

00 10 02

00 09

00 10

00 06 79

00 03 25

00 05

गट नंबर 141 और

00 01 65

137 के बीच का नाला

137

136

135

134

133 }

00 03 61

00 09 31

00 21

00 18 38

गट नंबर 125 में

का नाला

125

00 04

}

00 09 96 8097 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

उप -खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

गट नंबर

कम सं.

सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

6 7

8 5

123

00 09 97 हज़ारवाडी (निरंतर)

121

00 09

120

00 03 26

गट नंबर 120 और

119 के बीच का राज्य

00 02 70

मार्ग 1.36

}

अ

119

42 30

116

अ

115

ब

115

00 07 18

गट नंबर 115 /ब में

00 02 82

मेटल्ड रास्ता

}

गट नंबर 114 में

मेटल्ड रास्ता

00 07 80

कुल 04 00 11 6 वसगडे

153

00 51

कुल

00 51 23

[फा. सं. आर-31015/27/2004- ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2005

S. O. 2594.- Whereas , by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2678 dated the 19th October, 2004 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in land) Act , 1962 (50 of1962 ) , ( herein after referred to as the said Act) published in the Gazette of India dated the 23rd October, 2004, 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 an extension pipeline for transportation of Petroleum Products through Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni (Pune) to Pakni ( Solapur ) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharshtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

24-02-2005; And , whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on the Andwhereas , the Competent Authority has under of sub - section (1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act has submitted his report to the Central Government ;

Andwhereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied thatthe said land is required for laying , the pipeline has decided to acquire the right of 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 said land specified in the Schedule 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 layingthe pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all ericumbrances .

2061 GI /2005-15 8098

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

4 2

1 ANDHALI

State : MAHARASHTRA Sub -Division

Area

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8

00 11 41

Yerla River in

between Gat No

735 & V.B

735

736

738

739

740

716

741

742

745

715

714

749

711

710

709

708

00 36 33

00 00 07

00 16 01

00 07 64

00 00 10

00 10 11

00 08 52

00 16 69

00 00 74

00 25 94

00 08 70

00 00 81

00 54 03

00 10 54

00 20 27

07 77

Metalled Road in

between Gat No

04 64

708 & 685

685

686

687

688

655

690

652

651

635

636

584

585

579 }

00 06 17

00 31 20

00 03 92 2

00 37 22

00 05 20

00 37 06

00 20 41

00 16 32

00 38 29

00 05 15

00 07 08

00 14 74

00 01 17

CartTrack in

00 02 11

between Gat No

}

579& 577

577

578

327

328

329

00 17 88

00 07 52

00 29 03

00 47 36 8099 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

Area

Sub-Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No. Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameofthe Village

7 8 3

1 ANDHALI (Contd.)

00 03 27

}

GatNo 329

Metalled Road in

00 00 48

}

Metalled Road in

GatNo 328

330

00 00 32

00 25 57

290

00 32 60

289

288

08 37

00 05 02

CartTrack in

between Gat No

288& 115

}

115

20 28

122

00 60

116

00 26 97

119

00 15 83

121

28 62

218

00 11 47

217

00 28 93

215

37 00

214

CO 09 87

214

00 27 17

213

11 70

213

00 66

181

182

00 20 50

208

00 10 82

207

00 19 00

Metalled Road in

00 01 39

}

GatNo 207

184

00 15 50

189

00 01 30

00 01

185

00 32 63

188

Total

09 69 20

241

21 24 2 MORALE

240

00 07 20

229

00 17 00

239

03 60

238

00 05 76

237

00 04 32 8100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PALUS

Name ofthe

Area

Sub-Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No. Hectare Are Sq.mt Village

7 8

236

00 04 32 2 MORALE ( Contd . )

235

00 03 60

00 07 20

234

00 05 04

233

00 07 20

231

230

05 76

Total

00 92 24 3 BAMBAVADE

00 25 22

1031

1032

00 17 04

1036

00 52 90

23 04

1037

1042

00 00 02

00 11 23

1041

00 01 48

1039

1040

00 24 46

00 18 28

1039

00 08 61

MDR - 19 in between Gat No.

1040 &1017

00 07 33

1017

00 13 64

1016

00 06 63

1014

1002

03 88

02 24

1001

00 02 02

997

03 32

996

00 03 89

995

00 05 10

994

983

05 49

00 05 95

1296

00 07 51

984

00 08 93

986

00 17 38

952

00 01 96

951

Nala in Gat

00 01 59

}

No. 951

950

00 03 13

949

00 12 08

00 06 22

948

00 07 30

947

946

00 17 24 8101 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PALUS

Area

Sub -Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameof the Village

7 8 3 BAMBAVADE ( Contd.)

00 03 23

CartTrack in

between Gat No

946& 926

00 06 71

926

925

04 30

00 01 93

924

00 01 18

923

922

00 02 53

921

00 02 57

920

00 02 41

914

00 05 67

913

00 02 89

910

00 30 64

811

12 87

815

14 81

CartTrack in

between Gat No

00 02 04

815 & 816

}

816

00 06 78

817

00 10 35

819

00 04 50

803

00 16 20

800

00 01 57

802

02 25

801

01 35

795

00 05 40

796

06 12

00 06 11

1291

790

00 06 07

789

00 07 10

761

00 16 65

SH - 75 in Gat

00 03 15

}

No 761

758

00 06 75

756

00 04 50

755

03 82

754

00 13 50

740

00 27 36

739

10 42

737

00 24 14

735

00 10 39 8102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA Sr. Nameofthe

Sub-Division

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare.

Village

05 79

734

3 BAMBAVADE ( Contd . )

733

00 05 41

00 01 27

731

730

00 02 25

729

00 02 06

573

00 04 00

00 02 86

Nala in between

GatNo. 573 & 502

}

502

04 42

501

00 07 89

500

00 05 48

00 05 82

499

498

00 00 17

494

495

00 04 98

498

00 02 81

496

02 92

497

00 04 61

1289

09 78

513

00 15 91

514

00 05 07

00 06 81

515

516

05 41

517

04 57

518

00 02 07

Asphalted Road in

between Gat No

00 04 07

}

518& 422

422

04 16

421

00 05 75

420

00 03 65

419

01 15

417

00 05 68

416

00 02 25

424

00 06 90

425

00 02 46

426

00 02 20

427

00 00 49

428

00 00 05

405

00 14 02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Taluka : PALUS

8103 State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

4 2

391 3 BAMBAVADE ( Contd . )

408

412

409

410

407

999 4 YELAVI

1598

1599

1600

1607

1606

1604

1603

1646

1645

1644

1643

1675

1688

1640

1692

1693

1710

1709

1708

1707

1733 Sub-Division

Area

No.

Sq.mt

Are

Hectare

00 02 23

00 16 64

00 00 87

00 13 56

00 06 50

00 04 00 Total

08 36 68

00 02 76

00 00 13

00 09 22

00 04 02

00 04 37

10 84

00 04 85

00 09 94

00 16 22

00 11 98

00 06 14

00 32 63

00 13 95

00 19 82

00 00 70

00 32 -26

00 11 73

40 01

Asphalted Road in

between Gat No

00 01 81

1733 & 1946

1946

1953

1952

1946

1950

1949

1969

1968

1967

00 27 50

00 04 14

00 13 14

00 06 93

00 04 87

00 08 02

00 05 00

00 11 00

00 09 25 8104

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA Nameof the

Sub -Division

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

Village

8 2

7 1

00 00 30

1966

4 YELAVI ( Contd . )

00 65 03

1973

00 08 52

1975

00 14 68

1978

1977

00 03 48

00 05 81

1980

06 81

1981

05 74

2056

2057

00 11 91

00 03 07

Asphalted Road in

between Gat No

}

2057 & 2060

2059

2060

00 03 65

2061

00 09 50

00 02 38

CartTrack in

between Gat No

2061 & 2063

}

2063

12 17

2064

00 00 97

00 06

2065

2066

00 05 85

2047

00 11

2046

00 10 33

2044

00 05 36

2042

00 05 88

2041

00 02 64

2235

00 03 23

2236

00 06 24

2260

00 21 71

2256

2258

Metalled Road in

between Gat No

02 51

2258& 29

}

00 13 69

18 59

00 02 75

00 06 88

00 08 52 8105 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

State : MAHARASHTRA Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

Sub-Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

No. Hectare

Area Are Sq.mt Nameofthe Village

7 8 3

Mud Road in Gat

00- 02 52 4 YELAVI ( Contd .)

No 34

}

00 10 45

03 28

00 19 91

00 00 13

00 12 28

Asphalted Road in

00 43

GatNo 39

}

Asphalted Road in

00 04 17

GatNo 40

}

00 00 84

00 00 08

Asphalted Road in

GatNo 41

}

00 02 61

00 02 80

00 03 55

00 02 70

06 15

00 06 45

00 39 49

00 34 07

00 81 41

291

00 05

290

02 57

}

Road in between

GatNo 290 & 285

41 17

285

00 09 01

284

05 48

283

00 04 63

282

00 05 23

281

03 75

280

00 09 08

279

00 03 07

278

00 03 92

277

00 03 44

276

00 04 04

275

00 06 64

274

00 02 85

273

00 02 80

272

2061 GI/ 2005-16 8106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] Taluka : PALUS

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

Sub -Division

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

No.

Sr. No.

Sq.mt

Are Name of the Village

Hectare

00 03 19

271

4 YELAVI ( Contd . )

270

00 02 64

266

04 82

265

05 82

264

00 10 55

263

05 25

262

00 06 55

261

00 08 80

260

08 79

00 07 25

259

258

10 26

256

00 09 70

257

00 09 84

00 00 39

CartTrack in Gat

No 257

10 98 22

Total

5 HAZARWADI

17 96

00 49 24

00 01 78

Metalled Road in

GatNo 6

}

00 38 52

00 25 50

10 17-

00 02 39

SH - 136 in

between Gat No

27 & 129

10 02

129

128

09 29

00-

00 09 31

132

134

00 10 63

00 06 79

135

136

00 03 25

137

00 05 45

00 01 65

Nala in between

GatNo.141 & 137

{

137

00 07 39

136

00 03 61

135

00 09 31

134

00 21 86

133

00 18 38

Nala in Gat

00 04 27

No. 125 {

125

00 09 96 8107 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1, 1927.

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

Taluka : PALUS

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mt Name ofthe Village

7 8 1

123

09 97 5 HAZARWADI ( Contd .)

121

09 12

00 03 26

120

00 02 70

SH - 136 in

between Gat No

120& 119

}

42 30

119

116

00 71

36 36

115

00 07 18

02 82

}

Metalled Road in

Gat No 115/B

Metalled Road in

00 16

Gat No 114

}

00 07 80

01 00

Total

00 6 VASAGDE

153

00 51 23

Total

[No. R-31015/27/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2595.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे) से पकनी (सोलापुर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री . एस. एन . कुन्देतकर , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुम्बई- पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना (लोनी से पकनी तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते) , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मेगा सेंटर , मगरपट्टा एम व एन विंग , हादापसर-411 028 (पुणे जिला) , महाराष्ट्र को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

8108

अनुसूची

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 1

738 आंधली

116

213

208

189

190

191

209

206

241 2 मोराले

240

239

238

233

231 3 बांबवडे

1036

1040

1016

1014

1059

1000

995

984

951

950

948

925

924

923

803

796

1291

761

760

756

755

754 राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड

सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 5

6 7

00 05

00 04

00 30 54

00 06 30

00 06 16

00 01 19

00 08

00 66

कुल

06 65

00 04 27

00 13 43 कुल

00 01

00 05

03 83

00 02 41

00 01

60 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

8109

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

सर्वे नंबर

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

उप-खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

गाव का नाम

कम सं.

4 2

734 बांबवडे (निरंतर)

494

497

427

405

412

1607 येलादी

1605

1643

1688

1734

1953

1949

1968

1973

1980

2059

2060

2256

279

275

270

266

265

262

258

257

6 5 हज़ारवाडी

129

134

135

136 सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर

6 7

8 5

00 00 48

00 02

00 01 74

00 00 48

05 कुल 00 43 95

00 06 82

00 04 85 ब

00 11 98

00 02

00 02 77

00 06 83

00 02 98

00 01 12

00 01 28

00 01

00 19 69

00 09

00 01 94

00 01 08

00.00

00 01

00 03

00 00

कुल

01 09 91

00 02 20

00 34

00 08

37 8110

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : पलुस

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

उप-खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

कम सं.

सं. हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

116

5 हजारवाडी (निरंतर)

00 07 34

00 73 00

00 28 79

कुल

01 56 07

[फा. सं. आर-31015/27/2004- ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2005

S. O. 2595.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Loni (Pune) to Pakni (Solapur) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra , an extension pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S.N. Kundetkar, Competent Authority , Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project ( from Loni to Pakni via Hazarwadi ) , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Mega Center , Magarpatta M & N Wing , Hadapsar 411 028 ( Pune District) , Maharashtra.

[भारा II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

8111

SCHEDULE

Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

4 1 ANDHALI

738

116

213

208

189

190

191

209

206 2 MORALE

241

240

239

238

233

231 3 BAMBAVADE

1036

1040

1016

1014

1059

1000

995

984

951

950

948

925

924

923

803

796

1291

761

760

756

755

754 State : MAHARASHTRA Sub-Division

Area

No. Hectare Are Sq.mt 5

6 7 8

00 02

00 05 78 2

00 04 29

00 30 54

00 06 30

00 06 16

00 01 19

00 08 88

00 00 60

Total

00 06 65

00 04 27

00 00 71

00 60

Total

00 13 43

00 01 43

00 05 85

00 00 71

00 00 49

00 00 30

03. 83

00 00 53

00 02 50

00 00 30

00 01 16

00 30

00 00 62

00 01 34

00 00 65

00 00 37

00 01 85

00 00 30

00 00 80

60 8112

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub-Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Name of the Village

734

04 49 3 BAMBAVADE ( Contd .)

494

00 00 48

00 02 63

497

427

00 01

405

00 48

412

00 07 05

Total

00 43 95 4 YELAVI

00 06 82

1607

00 04 85

1605

1643

00 11 98

1688

02 38

26 83

1734

1953

02 77

1949

00 06 83

1968

00. 02 98

1973

00 01 12

1980

00 01 28

2059

00 00 20

01 02

2060

2256

00 00 78

00 00 60

00 19 69

00 09 51

01 94

00 00 17

00 70

279

00 01 08

275

270

00 00 15

266

00 00 77

265

262

00 01 02

00 03 42

258

257

00 41

Total

01 09 91 5 HAZARWADI

00 02 20

00 34 12

129

00 08 80

134

00 00 85

135

00 00 60

136

00 00 37 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

8113

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Taluka : PALUS

District : SANGLI

State: MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Sr. No.

Survey No.

Nameof the Village

Sub-Division No. Hectare Are Sq.mt 1

7 8

116

5 HAZARWADI ( Contd. )

00 07 34

00 73 00

00 28 79

Total

01 56 07

[No. R -31015/27/2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2596.- 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 2732 तारीख 26 अक्तूबर, 2004 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 30 अक्तूबर, 2004 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोणी ( पुणे) से पकनी ( सोलापुर) तक हज़ारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई- पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन 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 10 दिसम्बर, 2004 , 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 उन्त 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 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 से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

2061 GI /2005-17 8114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23, 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

अनुसूची

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : कवठे महांकाळ

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

कम सं.

4 तिसंगी

461

470

468

469

471

482

483

484

489

490

492

493

494

502

501

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

00 19.

00 20 69

00 12

00 10

00 32

00 21

00 43. 98

00 07

00 23 55

00 26

00 02

गट नंबर 501 और

502 के बीच का रास्ता

500

645

646

647

648

649

673

672

674

670

669

678

668

667

665

666

679 2 घाटनांद्रे

100

99 ब

00 05 29

00 02

00 16

00 25

00 12

00 28

00 12

00 -04

00 20

00 03 96

00 01

00 15

00 07 87

00 08

04 69

कुल

00 17

11.

08 8115 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] .

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

जिला : सांगली

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र तालूका : कवठे महांकाळ

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टर

कम सं.

उप -खण्ड सं.

27 2 घाटबांद्रे (निरंतर)

00 02

00 26

09.

00 09

182

00 10

181

179

00 09

183

00 20

193

00 06

192

00 00

191

00 19

246

250

248

00 00

251

00 07

254

00 09

263

00 02

262

261

00 07

260

00 03

258

00 02

257

00 06

284

00 04

282

00 05

285

00 02

गट नंबर 285 और 5927

के बीच का नाला

}

592

00 02

598-

595

00 04

594

00 05 59

00 10

593

589

05 61

588

00 07

587

586

00 10

585

00 02 8116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

जिला : सांगली

तालूका : कवठे महांकाळ

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

गट नंबर

कम सं.

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर

उप -खण्ड सं.

8 2 घाटनांद्रे (निरंतर)

00 04 42

। }

578 के बीच का नाला

गट नंबर 585 और

578

00 41

गट नंबर 578 और

00 03

817 के बीच का

राज्य मार्ग 78

817

00 17

818

00 31

819

00 22

821

00 42

822

00 44

823

गट नंबर 823 के बीच

00 02

}

का रास्ता

824

00 33

05 92 07

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/30/2004- ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi . the 12th July, 2005

S. O. 2596.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number SO. 2732 , dated the 26th October , 2004, 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 October, 2004, 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 , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on the 10th December , 2004;

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

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 layingthe pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8117

SCHEDULE

District : SANGLI

Taluka : KAVTHE MAHANKAL

Gat No.

SurveyNo.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

4 2

461 1

TISANGI

470

468

469

471

482

483

484

489

490

492

493

494

502

501 State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub-Division No.

Hectare Are

Sq.m t 5

7 8

00 20 69

00 00 15

1235

00 10 11

00 3286

00 23 54

00 22 77

00 21 49

00 43 98

00 07 12

00 23 55

00 35 24

00 26 91

00 02 32

00 02 28

Road inbetween

Gat No. 501 & 5025

500

645

646

647

648

649

673

672

674

670

669

678

668

667

665

666

679 2 GHATNANDRE

100

05 29

00 02 59

:00 16 30

00 00 33

00 1219

00 28 08

00 1266

00 04. 83

00 20 50

00 03 96

00 01 20

00 15.75

00 07 87

00 00 26

00 08 20

00 00 10

96 Total

00 17 50

00 00 07

00 11 32

00 08 27 8118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Taluka : KAVTHE MAHANKAL

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)]

District : SANGLI

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

4 1

98 2 GHATNANDRE ( Contd . )

182

181

179

183

193

192

191

246

250

248

251

254

263

262

261

260

258

257

284

282

285 State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub -Division No.

Are

Hectare

Sq.m t 5

7 8

00 18 27

00 05 00

00 02 27

00 01 21

00 26 09

00 09 95

00 10 20

00 00 08

00 09 37

00 20 28

00 06 03

00 00 35

00 19 27

00 00 74

1284

00 00 98

07 92

00 09 30

00 02 27

00 04 86

07 62

00 03 02

00 02 61

00 06 83

00 04 27

00 05 57

00 00 51

00 0299

Nala in between

GatNo285& 592]

592

598

595

594

593

589

588

587

586

585

00 02 55

00 00 02

00 04 20

00 05 59

00 10 27

00 05 61

00 07 08

00 10 17

00 10 02

00 02 72 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

8119

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Taluka : KAVTHE MAHANKAL

District : SANGLI

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Gat No.

SurveyNo.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division No.

Nameofthe Village

Hectare Are Sq.m t 1

7 8 2 GHATNANDRE ( Contd . )

00 04 42

}

Stream in between

GatNo. 585 & 578

578

00 41 74

00 03 26

SH - 78 inbetween

GatNo 578 & 817

817

00 17 33

818

00 31 50

819

00 2244

821

00 4213

822

00 44 77

823

00 5286

00 02 05

Road in between GatNo. 823 }

824

00 33 48

Total

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

नईदिल्ली , 12 जुलाई, 2005

का. आ. 2597. - 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. 632 तारीख 21 फरवरी , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 26 फरवरी , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई - मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 7 मई, 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 लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनि'श्चय किया है ;

8120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 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 हैं ;

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, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : सपोटरा

जिला: करौली

सर्वे नंबर क. सं. ग्राम का नाम

3 1. नीमोदा

1/38

1/35

1/37

1/50

202 2. एदलपुर

210

209

208

207

206

217

243

252

244

245

241

240

246

239

232

238

233

234

265

268

339

339/2

340

336

328 राज्य: राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

0.0720

0.1728

0.2160

0.1008

0.3960

0.0864

0.3740

0.1080

0.5040

0.0072

0.0144

0.0072

0.0720

0.0432

0.0936

0.0648

0.0864

0.0720

0.1224

0.1080

0.0144

0.0432

0.0360

0.0144

0.0432

0.0144

0.0720

0.0288

0.0144

0.0648

0.0720

0.1080

0.1800

0.1008

0.3600

0.0144

0.2760

0.0360 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

3 1

329 2. एदलपुर (जारी

326

325

324

319

53 3. मांडा

416 4. खेडला

417

400

399

394

395

398

392

383

384

381

385

386

378

375

376

368

366

364

363

350

349

347

348

338

336

315

337

312

311

294

278

279

267

160

162

164

243

239

238

168 2061 GI / 2005-18

8121 0.1944

0.1152

0.0720

0.1224

0.1728

0.2808

0.3240

0.1872

0.2304

0.0144

0.0072

0.0792

0.0036

0.0648

0.3024

0.0020

0.1842

0.0074

0.7632

0.0936

0.0072

1.3464

0.1008

0.0020

0.1080

0.1008

0.0072

0.1584

0.0036

0.1944

0.0072

0.1584

0.0036

0.0576

0.1080

0.1512

0.1368

0:1512

0.1008

0.1944

0.1728

0.1440

0.1224

0.1008

0.0072

0.2520

0.2952

0.0020

0.0648

0.1440

0.0216

0.2232

0.2160

1.1520

0.1512

0.4464

0.0288

0.0576

0.1224

0.0360

0.1872 8122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

3 2

204 4. खेडला (जारी

205

203

202

207

195

194

-209

210

211

674

675

676

677

722

724

723

717

716

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii )]

0.0288

0.0936

0.0288

0.0216

0.0936

0.0720

0.0360

0.0072

0.3744

0.0216

0.0072

0.1008

0.1224

0.0010

0.2520

0.0360

0.0576

0.6696

0.0288

(फा.सं. आर-31015/ 87/ 2004-ओआर-11) हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005

S. O. 2597 Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number 8.0.632, dated the 21 February , 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 26th February 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of userin the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Pivala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 7th May, 2005 ;

And whereas theCompetent Authority has , under sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted report to the Central Government :

And whereas the Central Government , after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laving the pipeline , has decided to acquire the right of user therein

Now, therefore, in exereise 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 said land , specified 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 direets that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government . vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL: SAPOTRA S.No. VILLAGE NAME

DISTT : KARAULI SURVEY NO.

11 1 2 1. Nimoda

1 STATE : RAJASTHAN AREA IN HACTARE

0.0720

0.1728

0.2160

0.1008

0.3960

0.0864

0.3740

0.1080

0.5040 [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/श्रावण । , 1927

3 2

1/38 1. Nimoda( Contd ...... )

1/35

1/37

1/50

202 2. Aidalpur

210

209

208

207

206

217

243

252

244

245

241

240

246

239

232

238

233

234

265

268

339

339/2

340

336

328

329

326

325

324

319 3. Manda

75 4. Khedla

416

417

400

399

394

395

398

392

383

384

8123 4

0.0072

0.0144

0.0072

0 0720

0.0432

00936

0.0648

0.0864

0.0720

0.1224

0 1080

0.0144

0.0432

0.0360

0.0144

0.0432

0.0144

0.0720

0.0288

0.0144

00648

0.0720

0.1080

0.1800

0.1008

0.3600

0.0144

0.2760

0.0360

0.1944

0.1152

0.0720

0.1224

0.1728

0.2808

0.3240

0.1872

0.2304

0.0144

0.0072

0.0792

0.0036

0.0648

0.3024

0.0020

0.1842

0.0074

0.7632

0.0936

0.0072

1.3464

0.1008

0.0020

0.1080

0.1008

0.0072

0.1584

0.0036

0.1944

0.0072

0.1584 8124

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

381

0.0036

4. Khedla( Contd ...... )

0.0576

385

386

0.0576

378

0.1080

375

0.1512

376

0.1368

0.1512

368

366

0.1008

364

0.1944

363

0.1728

350

0.1440

0.1224

349

347

0.1008

0.0072

348

338

0.0072

0.2520

336

315

0.2952

0.0020

337

312

0.0648

311

0.1440

0.0216

294

-0.2232

278

0.2160

279

1.1520

267

160

0.1512

162

0.4464

164

0.0288

243

0.0576

239

0.1224

0.0360

238

0.1872

168

0.0288

204

205

0.0936

203

0.0288

202

0.0216

207

0.0936

195

0.0720

0.0360

194

0.0072

209

210

0.3744

211

0.0216

674

0.0072

675

0.1008

676

0.1224

677

0.0010

722

0.2520

724

0.0360

723

0.0576

0.6696

717

716

0.0288

[F.No.R- 31015/87/2004- OR - II ]

Harish Kumar, Under Secretary [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8125

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 12 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2598.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या ( इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वास एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

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

अनुसूची

जिला: करौली

तहसील : सपोटरा

राज्य: राजस्थान

सर्वे नंबर

गावं का नाम

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में क. सं.

267

0.1440 एदलपुर

203

0.0050

327

0.0050 2. मांडा

0.1757

0.1.116

0.0144

396

3. खेडला

0.0050

(फा.सं. आर-31015 / 87/2004-ओआर-II)

हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th July, 2005

S.O. 2598.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Manglya (Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh , an extension pipeline to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule, may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Deepak Nandi, Competent Authority , Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , 1 - C, Bal Mandir Colony, Near Hotel Pink Palace , Sawai Madhopur- 322001 ( Rajasthan), 8126

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

SCHEDULE

STATE : RAJASTHAN

DISTT : KARAULI

TEHSIL : SAPOTRA

AREA IN HACTARE

SERVEY NO.

S. No. VILLAGE NAME

0.1440

267

1. Aidalpur

0.0050

203

0.0050

327

0.1757

2. Manda

0.1116

0.0144

0.0050

396

3. Khedla

[F.No.R-31015/87/2004-OR - II ]

Harish Kumar , Under Secretary

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2599.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेद्रोलियम 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. 3033 तारीख 16 नवम्बर , 2004 , जामनगर भोपाल और काकीनाडा हैदराबाद गोवा पाइपलाइन को आपस में जोडने के लिए गैस द्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमीटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना के संलग्न अनूसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 22 दिसम्बर , 2004 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और पाइपलाइन विछाने के संबंध में जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया. है और अननुज्ञात कर दिया गया;

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 में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

अतः अव , 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 पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध मे उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार मे निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , गैस द्रान्सपोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

अनुसूची

8127

जिल्ला: वलसाड

तहसील: उमरगाम

गांव कानाम

राज्य: गुजरात

आर ओ यु अजित करने के लिये क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर / व्लोक नं

252

1. झरोली

251

253

254

244

243

242

241

240

238

237

235/4/1

233

232

220

231

229

200

226

224

223

202

203

102

101

109

188

107

330 7

330*

330

186

184

185

175

176

174

167

168

165

166

हेकटर आरे

-3

-73

12 8128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

161

निरंतर झराली

162

116

158

154

155

157

141

139

129

123

2. भीलाड

119

117

115

107

104

3. बोरलाइ

102

172

184

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

17 8129 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

78 74/2/1पै

4. अच्छारी

74/1

22 75

71/1

71/2

50 70/3/पै

98 70/1/पै

61 37/5

37/1

15 36/7

57 36/4

92 36/6

1 36/5

44/1

45/3/1पै

45/1/1 पै

45/7

[फा. सं. एल-14014/40/2004-जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th July, 2005

S. 0.2599,-Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3033 , dated the 16th November , 2004, 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) ( hereafter referred to as the said Act) , 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 natural gas through an interconnection between Jamnagar Bhopal and Kakinada Hydrabad - Goa Pipeline by Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Compariy Limited;

And, whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 22nd December , 2004;

Objection received from the public to the laying of the Pipeline have been considered and dissolved by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , the Central Government, after considering the said report 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 conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land specified in the Schedule is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

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 layingthe pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of this declaration , in the Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited free from all encumbrances .

2061 GI /2005-19 8130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

District: Valsad Tehsil : Umargam

Nameof the Village Survey No./Block No. 1

2 1.Zaroli

252

251

253

254

244

243

242

241

240

238

237

235/ P/1

233

232

228

231

229

280

225

224

223

202

203

192

191

189

188

187

330B

330C

330D

186

184

185

175

176

174

167

168

State: Gujarat

Area to be acquired for ROU

Hectare

Are

Sq.m

5 3

89 0

74 0

66 0

71 0

98 0

66 0

18 0

7 0

54 0

52 0

82 0

58 0

85 0

50 0

14 0

7 0

89 0

45 0

79 0

32 0

76 0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

165

Cont'd Zaroli

166

161

162

116

158

154

155

157

141

139

129

2.Bhilad

123

119

117

115

107

104

3.Borlai

102

172

184

8131

5 3

60 0

84 0

92 0

83 0

23 0

20 0

64 1

23 0

16 0

84 0

14 0

56 1

6 0

20 0

34 0

48 0

70 0

84 0

42 0

27 0

18 0

71 0

93 0

87 8132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

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

Cont'd Borlai

74/2/ 1P

4. Achchhari

74/1

71/1

71/2

70/3 /P

70/1 / P

37/5

37/1

36/7

36/4

36/6

36/5

44/1

45/3/1P

45/1/1P

45/7

[ F. No. L -14014/40/2004-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 18 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2600.- 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 हैं) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 930 तारीख 2 मार्च, 2005, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 12 मार्च , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 13 मई , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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 लिये अपेक्षित है , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;

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

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, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 8133 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

अनुसूची

जिला: दक्षिण पश्चिम

तहसील : वसंत विहार

राज्य: दिल्ली

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

क०

सर्वे नंबर

ग्राम का नाम

1. समालखा

40/6/3

0.0160

0.0020

0.0050

36/2/2

0.0160

0.1230

0.0060

0.1130

0.0260

0.1020

0.1150

0.1350

32/5

0.0480

0.0040

0.0900

0.1250

0.1040

0.0070

0.1100

33/1

0.1250

0.0050

0.0320

56/21

22/5

0.1140

0.5010

17/5

0.1550

0.1240

0.1210

0.1070

0.1190

8/5

0.0940

0.0310

0.0710

25/02

0.1550

7/1

0.0260

0.0640

0.0480

0.0910

0.0250

0.0040

6/21

0.0010

5/16

0.0010

0.0270

0.0850

0.1250

0.1230

0.0200

0.0670

0.1650 8134

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

4/11/2

समालखा (जारी...)

13/1

13/2

14/1

3/11

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) 4

0.1210

0.1090

0.0260

0.0240

0.0040

0.1300

0.1140

0.0600

0.0080

0.0090

0.0640

0.0810

0.0860

0.1260

0.1650

56 (राष्ट्रीय राजर्माग )

0.0650

49 (राष्ट्रीय राजर्माग)

0.2310

53 (राष्ट्रीय राजर्माग)

1/13

बिजवासन

16/1/2

17/1

25/1

2/17

23/1

24/1

6/1

5/9

733

नांगल देवत

939

940

941

942

943

944

946 0.0050

0.1070

0.0100

0.1040

0.0220

0.1260

0.0060

0.0990

0.1230

0.1180

0.0760

0.0300

0.1140

0.0560

0.1290

0.1150

0.0850

0.0050

0.1160

0.0340

0.0010

0.0520

0.0140

0.0380

0.0020

0.0030

0.0810

0.1260

0.0300

0.0970

0.1090

0.0180

0.1310 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

3 3.

948

नांगल देवत (जारी..)

951

957/2

958

959

960

961

964

965

966

967

970

971

972

973

1087

1695

1697

1699 4.

56/10

भरथल

55/1

54/ 1

38/24

695 5.

रजोकरी

730

731

733

753

754

758

759

761

762

8135 4

0.1230

0.1250

0.0110

0.0860

0.0420

0.1170

0.1300

0.0010

0.0480

0.1190

0.1330

0.0080

0.0830

0.1250

0.1310

0.0810

0.1540

0.0780

0.0050

0.0040

0.1310

0.0890

0.0690

0.0150

0.0980

0.0070

0.0700

0.1180

0.1380

0.1240

0.0330

0.0400

0.0060

0.0580

0.1360

0.1320

0.0010

0.0820

0.1400

0.0810

0.0040

0.0420

0.0230

0.0990

0.0460

0.0540

0.0960

0.0910

0.1000

0.0010 8136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

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

763

0.0070

रजोकरी (जारी...)

764

0.0520

765

0.0920

778/2

0.0910

780

0.0740

783

0.0590

784

0.0330.

785

0.0890

0.1060

793

0.0480

794

795

0.0080

0.1390

कापसहेड़ा

8 (राष्ट्रीय राजर्माग)

0.8780

45 (राष्ट्रीय राजर्माग )

0.4870

49 (राष्ट्रीय राजर्माग)

[फा० सं०आर० -31015 /90 / 2004- ओ आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार , अवर सचिव,

New Delhi , the 18th July, 2005

S. O. 2600.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 930 , dated the 2nd March , 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 12th March , 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya ( Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 13th May , 2005 ;

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

And whereas the Central Government , atter 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 conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the said land , specified in the Schedule, 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 directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration, in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances .

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8137

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : VASANT VIHAR DISTRICT : SOUTH WEST

S.No.

Survey No. Name of Village

3 1 . SAMALKHA

40/ 6/3

36/2/2

32/5

33/1

56/21

22/5

17/5

8/5

25/02

7/1

6/21

5/16

25 2061 GI /2005-20

STATE : NCT OF DELHI Area in Hectare

0.0160

0.0020

0.0050

0.0160

0.1230

0.0060

0.1130

0.0260

0.1020

0.1150-

0.1350

0.0480

0.0040

0.0900

0.1250

0.1040

0.0070

0.1100

0.1250

0.0050

0.0320

0.1140

0.5010

0.1550

0.1240

0.1210 .

0.1070

0.1190

0.0940

0.0310

0.0710

0.1550

0.0260

0.0640

0.0480

0.0910

0.0250

0.0040

0.0010

0.0270

0.0850

0.1250

0.1230

0.0200

0.0670

0.1650 8138

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

3 1.

4/11/2

SAMALKHA ( Contd ... )

13/1

13/2

14/1

3/11

56 Ν.Η.

49 Ν.Η.

53 Ν.Η.

BIJWASAN

1/13

16/1/2

17/1

25/1

2/17

23/1

24/1

6/ 1

5/9

14 3.

733

NANGAL DEVAT

939

940

941

942

943

944

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

0.1210

0.1090

0.0260

0.0240

0.0040

0.1300

0.1140

0.0600

0.0080

0.0090

0.0640

0.0810

0.0860

0.1260

0.1650

0.0650

0.2310

0.0050

0.1070

0.0100

0.1040

0.0220

0.1260

0.0060

0.0990

0.1230

0.1180

0.0760

0.0300

0.1140

0.0560

0.1290

0.1150

0.0850

0.0050

0.1160

0.0340

0.0010

0.0520

0.0140

0.0380

0.0020

0.0030

0.0810

0.1260

0.0300

0.0970

0.1090

0.0180

0.1310 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

948 3. NANGAL DEVAT ( Contd ... )

951

957/2

958

959

960

961

964

965

966

967

970

971

972

973

1087

1695

1697

1699 4.

BHARTHAL

56/10

55/1

54/1

38/24

RAJOKARI

695

730

731

733

753

754

758

759

761

762

763

764

765

778/2

780

783

784

785

793

794

795

8 Ν.Η.

6. KAPASHEDA

45 Ν.Η.

49 Ν.Η.

8139

0.1230

0.1250

0.0110

0.0860

0.0420

0.1170

0.1300

0.0010

0.0480

0.1190

0.1330

0.0080

0.0830

0.1250

0.1310

0.0810

0.1540

0.0780

0.0050

0.0040

0.1310

0.0890

0.0690

0.0150

0.0980

0.0070

0.0700

0.1180

0.1380

0.1240

0.0330

0.0400

0.0050

0.0580

0.1360

0,1320

0.0010

0,0820

0.1400

0.0810

0.0040

0.0420

0.0230

0.0990

0.0460

0.0540

0.0960

0.0910

0.1000

0.0010

0.0070

0.0520

0.0920

0.0910

0.0740

0.0590

0.0330

0.0890

0.1060

0.0480

0.0080

0.1390

0.8780

0.4870

[ F.N.R - 31015/ 90/2004 - OR - II ] Harish Kumar, Under Secretary 8140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 21 जून, 2005

का.आ. 2601.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जयपुर , (संदर्भ संख्या सी. जी. आई. टी. 6/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/48/2002- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 21st June , 2005

S.O. 2601. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT-6/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 21-6-2005.

[No. L -22012/48/2002 - IR (C - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, जयपुर

प्रकरण संख्या: सीजीआई टी-6/2004

निदेश संख्या: एल-22012/48/2002- आई आर ( सी० एम०- II) दिनांक : 17-07-2003

भारतीय खाद्य निगम,

एग्जीकयूटिव स्टाफ युनियन, 4 नेहरू प्लेस, टोंक रोड,

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

पंचाट

1. केन्द्र सरकार के द्वारा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (संक्षेप में अधिनियम ) , की धारा 10 की उपधाराओं ( एक) के खंड (घ) व 2 ए के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत यह निदेश अधिनिर्णय हेतु इस अधिकरण को संप्रेषित किया गया है जो निम्नवत है :-

"Whether the demand of FCI Executive Staff Union, Jaipur for regularisation of period of absence from 2-8-82 to 23-1-83 and 1-2-83 to 10-4-86 in respect of Sh . Ganeshi Lal Chawla, typist FCI, is legal andjustified ? If so , to what relief the work- man is entitled to ? ""

2. विवाद के सुसंगत तथ्य संक्षिप्ततः इस प्रकार हैं कि प्रार्थी संघ ने श्रमिक गणेशी लाल चावला के संबंध में वाद विवरण में यह उल्लेख किया है कि वह कोटा में टंकक के पद पर पदस्थापित था, जो दिनांक 2-8-1982 से 15-8-1982 व दिनांक 16-8-82 से दिनांक 23-1-1983 तक अपनी बीमारी के कारण चिकित्सा अवकाश पर रहा व समय - समय पर सूचनार्थ संबंधित विभागाधिकारी को प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किया । इसके अतिरिक्त यह कथन भी किया गया है कि उसकी 3 वर्षीय बच्ची पोलियो ग्रस्त है, जिसकी चिकित्सा महाराव भीम सिंह अस्पताल, कोटा में काफी समय से चल रही थी और इस हेतु भी उसे कोटा में उपस्थित रहना पड़ता था । प्रार्थी संघ ने श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत अनेकों प्रार्थना पत्रों व रोगी प्रमाण पत्रों का उल्लेख करते हुए अग्रतर यह अंकित किया है कि विभाग द्वारा कथित अवधि में उसके अस्वस्थहोने के कारण रोगी प्रमाण पत्रों को अस्वीकार करना व उसकी अनुपस्थिति अंकित करना अनुचित एवं अवैध है । वाद विवरण में यह याचना की गई है किविवाद ग्रस्त अवधि में प्रार्थी की अनुपस्थिति को नियमित किया जावे तथा अनुषंगिक अनुतोष उसे प्रदान किये जावें ।

3. विपक्षी द्वारा प्रतिवाद पत्र में प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम का विरोध करते हुए यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि वर्ष 1982 में श्रमिक का स्थानांतरण कोटा से रतनगढ़ किया गया जहाँ वह दिनांक 2-8-1982 से दिनांक 23-1-1983 तक अनुपस्थित रहा । उसके पश्चात् उसका स्थानांतरण रतनगढ़ से बीकानेर किया गया जहाँ वह दिनांक 1-2-1983 से दिनांक 10-4-86 तक अनुपस्थित रहा । इसके अतिरिक्त यह भी दर्शाया गया है कि कर्मचारी उक्त अवधि में अस्वस्थ नहीं था तथा उसके द्वारा दिये चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र असत्य है ।

.............प्रार्थी

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जयपुर

बनाम

वरिष्ठ क्षेत्रीय प्रबंधक,

भारतीय खाद्य निगम, 4 नेहरु प्लेस , टोंक रोड,

4. दोनो पक्षों के अभिवचनों के आधार पर निम्न विवाद बिन्दु बनाये गये :-

I. Whether the workıhan Sh . Ganeshi Lal Chawla is entitled for regularization of the period of his absence from 2-8-82 to 23-1-83 and 1-2-83 to 10-4-86 ? BOA

..........अप्रार्थी

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, जयपुर

उपस्थित: आर. सी. शर्मा , पीठासीन अधिकारी

प्रार्थी कीओर से

: श्रीकुणाल रावत अप्राथी की ओर से

: श्री कांता प्रसाद शर्मा,

31-5-2005

पंचाट की तिथि

II . Whether on account of the decision of the workman Sh . Ganeshi Lal Chawla's application underSection 33 - C( 2 ) of the Act , the principle of res judicata is applicable in the present case ?

5. साक्ष्य के अंतर्गत प्रार्थी संघ के द्वारा डब्ल्यू. डब्ल्यू. 1. गणेशी लाल चावला का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है जबकि विपक्षी की ओर से एम.डब्ल्यू. 1 आर. सी. ढ़ीगरा, उप प्रबंधक का प्रत्याशपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8141

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/श्रावण 1 , 1927

किया गया है । दोनों पक्षों के प्रतिनिधियों द्वारा एक- दूसरे पक्ष के साक्षी से प्रतिपरीक्षण किया गया । दोनो पक्षों ने प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी प्रस्तुत की है । 6. मैंने दोनो पक्षों को सुना व अभिलेख का सावधानीपूर्वक परीशीलन किया गया । विवाद बिन्दुओं की निम्न प्रकार से विवेचना की जा रही है :-

7. विवाद बिन्दु संख्या 1 :-ये तथ्य अविवादित रहे हैं कि श्रमिक कोटा में टंकक के पद पर कार्यतर था जिसका स्थानांतरण रतनगढ़ किया गया, जहां वह दिनांक 2-8-1982 से दिनांक 23-1-1983 तक की अविध में अपनी ड्यूटी से अनुपस्थित रहा । तद्‌नांतर , उसका स्थानांतरण रतनगढ़ से बीकानेर किये जाने पर वह दिनांक 1-2-1983 से दिनांक 10-4-1986 तक अनुपस्थित रहा ।

8. प्रार्थी संघ ने श्रमिक की अनुपस्थिति का कारण यह दर्शाया है कि उसकी तीन वर्षीय बच्ची पोलियो ग्रस्त होने के कारण कोटा में उपचाराधीन थी तथा वह स्वंय विवाद ग्रस्त अवधि में अस्वस्थ रहा, जिसके उसने चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र विपक्षी संस्थान को प्रस्तुत किये , किन्तुविपक्षी संस्थान ने उन्हें इस आधार पर अस्वीकार कर दिया कि ये आर. एम. पी. चिकित्सकों द्वारा जारी किये गये थे , जिनके पंजीकरण होना भी असंदिग्ध था । प्रार्थी संघ का यह भी कथन है कि विपक्षी संस्थान प्रार्थी को उत्पीड़ित करना चाहता था, अतः उसके द्वारा श्रमिक के अवकाश को अस्वीकृत किया गया ।

9. विपक्षी संस्थान की ओर से यह संकथित किया गया है कि श्रमिककोटा से अपना स्थानांतरण नहीं चाहता था, अतः उसने स्थानातरण पर इन दोनों स्थानों, रतनगढ़ व बीकानेर, पर कार्यालय में अपनी उपस्थिति नहीं दी तथा उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र नियमानुसार नहीं है एवं संदिग्ध है । यह कथन भी किया गया है कि उस अवधिमें श्रमिक अस्वस्थ नहीं था ।

10. अब विचारणीय बिन्दु यह उत्पन्न होता है कि.क्या प्रश्नगत अवधिमें श्रमिक अस्वस्थ था तथा उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र विधि अनुसार मान्य है ?

11. श्रमिक ने अपने पक्ष समर्थन में चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र अनुसंलग्नक संख्या 5 , संख्या 8 व संख्या 22 ( क ) प्रस्तुत किये है । अनुलग्नक संख्या 5 चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र दि. 23-1-1983 बीकानेर के एक आयुर्वेदिक चिकित्सक द्वारा जारी किया गया है , चिकित्सा प्रमाण- पत्र संख्या 8 महाराव भीम सिंह चिकित्सालय के डॉक्टर जे. एस. ढाका नेदिया है एवं अनुलग्नक संख्या 22 ( क ) डॉक्टर टी. डी. आसवानी द्वारा प्रचलित किया गया चिकित्सा प्रमाण- पत्र है । निर्विवादित रूप से ये तीनों चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र किसी राजकीय चिकित्सालय के चिकित्सक द्वारा श्रमिक की जाँच के उपरांत नहीं दिये गये है तथा ये निजी चिकित्सकों द्वारा जारी किये गये है । विपक्षी संस्थान की ओर से भी इन्हीं चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्रों को यह दर्शाते हुए प्रस्तुत किया गया है कि श्रमिक द्वारा उसके समक्ष इन चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्रों को प्रस्तुत किया गया था। 12. विद्वान प्रतिनिधिविपक्षी द्वारा परिपत्र संख्या ई. पी. 38 ( 1 )/85 दि. 12-2-1986 प्रस्तुत करते हुए यह तर्क किया गया है कि इस परिपत्र केअनुसार निगम के कर्मचारी केन्द्रीय सिविल सेवाएं( अवकाश ) नियम, 1972में निहित निर्देशों के अनुसार अवकाश स्वीकृत करा पाने के अधिकारी होंगे। नियम 19 ( 1 ) एवं जी. आई. डी. ( 4 ) , एफ. आर. एस. आर. - भाग 3 , अवकाश नियम के अनुसार एक अराजपत्रित कर्मचारी अपनी अस्वस्थताके संबंध में अवकाश स्वीकृति हेतु अधिकृत चिकित्सा प्राधिकारी का प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करेगा तथा यदि उसके निवास से 8 किलोमीटर की परिधि में अधिकृत चिकित्सा प्राधिकारी उपलब्ध नहींहै तब वह आर. एम. पी. का प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत कर सकेगा । 13. इस विधिक प्रावधान के अंतर्गत प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा यह दर्शाया जाना आवश्यक है कि श्रमिक द्वारा जिस अवधि में जिस निजी चिकित्सक के प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया है , उस अवधि में उस स्थान पर उसके निवास से 8 किलोमीटर की परिधि में कोई अधिकृत चिकित्सा प्राधिकारी उपलब्ध नहीं था, क्योंकि निर्विवादित रूप से श्रमिक द्वारा प्रस्तुत किये गये सभी चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र निजी चिकित्सकों ( आर. एम. पी. ) द्वारा जारी किये गये है । इस तथ्य का कोई प्रमाण प्रार्थी संघ की ओर से अभिलेख पर प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है जिसके अभाव में उपरोक्त चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र अमान्य बन जाते है तथा इस विधिक प्रावधान की अनुपालना श्रमिक द्वारा नहीं किये जाने पर प्रार्थी संघ क्लेम को सिद्ध करने में पूर्णतया विफल रहा है । अतः श्रमिक की प्रश्नगत अवधि में उसकी अनुपस्थिति को नियमित करने का कोई विधिकऔचित्य प्रकट नहीं हुआ है ।

14. उक्त मीमांसा के आधार पर प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा याचित क्लेम स्वीकारकिये जाने योग्य नहीं है । अतः इस बिन्दु का निस्तारण प्रार्थी संघ के विरूद्ध एवं विपक्षी संस्थान के पक्ष में किया जाता है ।

विवाद बिदु संख्या 2 : -

15. इस बिन्दु का प्रमाण भार विपक्षी संस्थान पर है , किन्तु विद्वान प्रतिनिधिविपक्षी द्वारा इस पर कोई बल नहीं दिया गया है । अतः , इसका अवधारण विपक्षी संस्थान के विरूद्ध किया जाता है । 16. फलतः , यह निर्धारित किया जाता है कि श्रमिक गणेशी लाल चावला की दिनांक 2-8-1982 से दिनांक 23-1-1983 एवं दिनांक 1-2-1983से दिनांक 10-4-1986 तक की अनुपस्थिति को विपक्षी संस्थान द्वारा नियमित नहीं किया जाना वैध एवं न्यायोचित है तथा इस संबंध में प्रार्थी संघ द्वारा की गई मांग अस्वीकार्य है । श्रमिक किसी अनुतोष को प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । इस रूप में पंचाट पारित कियाजाता है ।

17. पंचाट की प्रतिलिपियाँ केन्द्र सरकार को अधिनियम, 1947 की धारा 17 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत प्रकाशनार्थ प्रेषित की जाए ।

आर. सी. शर्मा, पीठासीन अधिकारी नई दिल्ली, 22 जून , 2005

का.आ, 2602.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, एफ. सी. आई. प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैन्नेई ( संदर्भ संख्या 309/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012 / 56/2003 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी 8142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 22nd June , 2005

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 309/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively .

3. The allegations of the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

S.O. 2602. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 309/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 22-6-2005 .

[No. L - 22012/56/2003 - IR ( CM - II) ] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Tuesday , the 22nd March , 2005

PRESENT

SHRI K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute NO . 309/2004

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen) .

Between

: I Party/ Claimant

The General Secretary, Madras Port United Labour Union , Chennai .

AND

The Senior Regional Manager, II Party/Management Food Corporation of India, Chennai .

Appearance:

For the Petitioner

: Mr. R. Gowtaman, Advocate

For the Management

: Mr. M. Imthias , Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L. -22012/56/2003 - IR(CM -II) dated 3-2-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned dispute in that order is :-

"Whether the demand of the Madras Port United Labour Union for payment of 21 days minimum guaranteed wages to the 27 vacuator workers is justified? If not, to what relief entitled ?"

The Food Corporation of India, the Respondent herein is handling the food grain vessels coming to Madras Harbour and the discharge of food grains from the vessels was done by the contractors appointed by Respondent during 1972 to 1975. From 21-5-76 , Respondent corporation employed the workers directly and they are called as vacuator workers . There are about 215 such workers employed by the Respondent and they are entitled to wage revision . The concerned employees are essentially technical personnel . All of them came under the mechanical wing of Food Corporation of India . They could be absorbed in engineering department in suitable posts . Since the Respondent/Management failed to consider the demand of the union to absorb them in the engineering department , they have raised a dispute in I.D. No. 35/84 before Tamil Nadu State Industrial Tribunal. the Industrial Tribunal has passed an award on 16-11-89 directing the Respondent/Management to absorb the vacuator workers in the engineering department . Against the said award, the Respondent/ Management filed a Writ Petition No. 14057/92 . In that Writ Petition , the High Court has held that they should be absorbed as and when vacancy arises in engineering department with the sanction of Government of India . Even after several representations . , the Respondent/Management has not acceded to their request on the other hand, they have preferred a Writ Appeal No. 431/2000 against the Order of Single Judge , but the Division Bench dismissed the Writ Appeal on 15-3-2000 . But even after that they have not complied with the order of High Court . Therefore , the Petitioner Union approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) and raised industrial dispute under section 2k claiming parity of wages for vacuator workers for the period from August, 1988 , on which date the Respondent /Management has entered into a settlement dated 4-7-88 with the Transport & Dock Workers Union under section 18 ( 1 ) of Industrial Disputes Act and the management has insisted the workers to give option to perform all heavy labour . Meanwhile and during the pendency of the case before the High Court , vacuator workers were directed to work loading and unloading work along with the other Food Corporation of India workers from 4-7-88 and they were asked to give an option for re- designating them as Handling Mazdoors so as to 8143 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

single them along with the other Food Corporation of of India workers . As the case was pending in the Court for taking them in engineering department, some of the vacuator workers have given option under pressure and others were not given their option . But all the workers , the concerned employees in this case, who have not given option herein were also posted along with other mazdoors . Token numbers have also been changed and they were discharged the same duties . Since then the employees have given option and paid with minimum guaranteed wages of 21 days and off and the remaining days are paid with attend wages . The non -opted workers are paid with 16 days minimum guaranteed wages and off and the remaining days are paid with attend wages with lesser basic pay. This discrimination is ever since from 4-7-88 . But, both the groups are discharging the same duties and responsibilities . But there is vast difference in their wages and in the mode of payment . Since it will be fair to pay equal wages for equal work the Petitioner Union had raised the industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ). But the Respondent has not settled the issue, therefore , labour authorities have given advise to the Petitioner Union to file Claim Petition under section 33C ( 2 ) before this Industrial Tribunal . Hence , the Petitioners have filed Claim Petition No. 2/2002 before the Tribunal. But the Tribunal has stated that status of workers cannot be decided under section 33C ( 2 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the Tribunal advised to continue the same dispute under section 2k of Industrial Dispute Act . The status of workers belong to Petitioner union on par with the benefit being enjoyed by other union workers under section 18 ( 1 ) settlement dated 4-7-88 is to be decided and equal pay for equal work is to be ordered since from 4-7-88 . Therefore, the Petitioner Union prays this Tribunal to direct the Respondent/Management to pay equal pay for equal work on par with other workers similarly situated persons for the payment of 21 days of minimum guaranteed wages to the 27 vacuator workers from 4-7-88 .

handling mazdoor and the Writ Appeal No. 431/2000 was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court . But as no vacancy has arisen in the engineering department of Food Corporation of India, it was not possible to absorb any of the vacuator workers in that department . At the time of industrial dispute , there were 191 workers who were vacautor workers covered by the Industrial Dispute and they were being paid 16 days minimum guaranteed wages and during the pendency of that industrial dispute , a voluntary retirement scheme was introduced in the year 1986 to retrench the workmen of Food Corporation of India in Madras harbour and under that scheme , 67 vacuator workers opted for voluntary retirement and left the services, thereby there were only 124 vacuator workers remaining thereafter . Subsequently , no more vacuator machines operated by Food Corporation of India in Madras harbour, a settlement under section 18( 1 ) of Industrial Disputes Act was arrived at on 4-7-88 between the Respondent/Management and Transport & Dock Workers Union namely the recognised trade union representing vacuator workers, whereby it was agreed that the vacuator workers would be treated as regularised handling mazdoor of Food Corporation of India in Madras harbour with the scale of pay prescribed therein and 21 days of minimum guaranteed wages if they opted in writing for the same. Out of 124 vacuator workers , 97 of them voluntarily opted without any compulsion , whatsoever, to be treated as handling mazdoor , while the remaining 27 vacuator workers refused to do so despite repeated requests made by Food Corporation of India to them to consent for the same and they were not willing to do any of the handling mazdoor and requested that they may be given only light work which was acceded. After that those workers who have given option to work as handling mazdoors were given hard work and those workers who have not given option were given only light work. Since the Petitioners have not given option to the Respondent /Management , the 27 vacuator workers themselves , formed a separate group and they have performed only light works and in the above circumstances, there cannot be any application ofprinciple of equal pay for equal work and as such the entire claim made for the parity of wages is misconceived and unjustified. Therefore, the present dispute has been raised by the Union only to harass the Respondent/Management and the Petitioners are guilty of latches and there is no acceptable explanation for their inordinate delay for the belated claim. Hence , for all these reasons, the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim with costs .

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are,-

4. As against this , the Respondent/Management in its Counter Statement contended that vacuator workers were engaged only to help the engineering personnel of Food Corporation of India and they were never designated as Nossilman, tank cleaner , tank supervisor , head mechanic , assistant mechanic . Oilman, foreman etc. as alleged by the union . No doubt, the Petitioner Union has raised a dispute in I.D. No. 35/54 for their absorption in the engineering department and by an award dated 16-11-89 it was answered in their favour and on Writ Petition, it was modified to the effect that of requiring Food Corporation of India to regularise the services of 124 vacuator workers mentioned therein in the cadre of

(1) "Whether the claim of the Petitioner Union for payment of 21 days minimum guaranteed wages to 27 vacuator workers is justified?

8144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] (ii) " To what relief , the 27 vacuators are entitled?"

Point No. 1 :

6. In this case, the contention of the Petitioner Union is that after the settlement entered into between the Respondent/Management and the majority union namely Transport & Dock Workers Union , the workers who had given option and worked for all sorts of work under Respondent/ Management were given 21 days minimum guaranteed wages and other benefits , whereas , the workers who have not given option as mentioned in the agreement have paid only 16 days minimum guaranteed wages and other benefits . But they all along have performed the work given by the management and they worked under Respondent/ Management with other workers who have given option, the same work was given to them and therefore, they are entitled for 21 days minimum guaranteed wages and other benefits as enjoyed by other workers on principle of equal pay for equal work .

Manager of the Respondent/Management was examined as MW1 and on their side documents were marked as Ex. Ml to M11 . Ex. W1 is the copy of award passed by Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 35/84 . Ex. W2 is the copy of order passed in W.P. No. 14057/92 . Ex . W3 is the copy of order passed in Writ Appeal No. 431/2000. Ex. W4 is the copy of dispute raised by the union before labour authorities. Ex. W5 is the copy of letter of Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) advising him to file petition under Section 33C(2) . Ex . W6 is the memo filed by Petitioner Union in C.P. 2/2001 . Ex . W7 is the copy of notice issued by Respondent issuing new token number . Ex . W8 is the copy of job card issued to workers . Ex. W9 are copy of shift card given to workers . On the side of the Respondent/ Management Ex. Ml to M4 are copies of memorandum of settlement dated 28-8-78 , 25-2-82, 30-8-85 and 4-7-88 between the Respondent/Management and Transport & Dock Workers Union . Ex . M5 is the copy of circular to non- optees . Ex. M6 is the copy of letter to all unions issued by Respondent/Management . Ex. M7 is the letter sent by Petitioner Union for Ex. M6 dated 18-8-89 . Ex. M8 is the copy of letter addressed by Sakthivel one of the Members of Petitioner Union as General Secretary of Madras Port Food Corporation of India Workers Union. Ex. M9 is the copy of letter addressed by Transport & Dock Workers Union intimating Food Corporation of India that R.M. Raghunathan , one of the members of Petitioner Union as its Secretary . Ex . M10 and M11 are copies of minutes of periodical meetings attended by Raghunathan.

7. But , as against this the Respondent contended that no doubt, a settlement was entered into between the management and Transport & Dock Workers Union, the recognised trade union representing the vacuator workers , wherein it was agreed that vacuator workers will be treated as regularised handling mazdoor of Food Corporation of India in Madras harbour with the scale of pay prescribed therein and 21 days minimum guaranteed wages , if they are opted in writing for the same . Out of 124 vacuator workers , 97 of them voluntarily opted to be treated as regularised handling mazdoor, while the remaining 27 vacuator workers refused to do so , despite repeated requests made by Food Corporation of India to them to consent for the same and they have also written letter to the Respondent/ Management that they were not willing to do any of the work of handling mazdoor and requested that they may be given only light work which was acceded to and therefore , they were not given any hard work as that of handling mazdoors , who have given option to do hard work and therefore , they are not entitled to the benefits given under the settlement dated 4-7-88.

8. Therefore , the matter to be decided in this case is 'whether the members of the Petitioner Union , who have not given option as mentioned in the settlement under Ex . M4 have done the same work as that of the workers who have given option for hard work ? '

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner Union contended that vacuator workers requested the management that they should be absorbed in engineering department in suitable posts , but the Respondent /Management failed to consider their demand to absorb them in engineering department and therefore , the Petitioner Union has raised an industrial dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) and after the failure of conciliation, it was referred to Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal , Tamil Nadu then, and it was numbered as I.D. No. 35/84 . After hearing both sides , the Industrial Tribunal has passed an award dated 16-11-1989 directing the Respondent corporation to absorb the vacuator workers in the engineering department with continuity of service and back wages . Against that award , the Respondent/Management has preferred a Writ Petition No. 14057/92 in which the High Court has modified the order stating that to regularise the services of 124 vacuator workers mentioned therein , who remain in the cadre of handling mazdoor as and when the vacancy arises in engineering department with the sanction of the Govt . of India but subject to rules of reservation . As against this , the learned counsel for 9. On the side of the Petitioner Union one Mr. Malaisamy and Mr. Shamsudeen , who are members of the Petitioner union were examined as WW1 and WW2 respectively and on their side Ex. W1 to W9 were marked . On the side of the Respondent/ Management one Mr. Ponnusamy , Senior Regional [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8145 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

management to do all the works as per settlement dated 4-7-88 . But the Tribunal has stated that the status of workers cannot be decided under Section 33C(2 ) of I.D. Actand therefore , the Tribunal advised to continue the same dispute claiming parity on the scale . After continuation of the dispute and on failure of conciliation, the matter was again referred to this Tribunal . Since the members of Petitioner Union have done the same work as that of other workers and they have discharged the same duties and responsibilities as that of other workers who have given option as per settlement dated 4-7-88 , the Petitioner Union members are entitled for equal pay, since they have done equal work as that of other workers , Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 1993 ILLJ 239 E. KRISHNA AND OTHERS VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL , INIDIAN COUNCIL OF MEDICAL RESEARCH AND ANOTHER , wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that " in spite of clear cut instructions of the Central Govt . , the National Institute of Nutrition avoided the implementation of guidelines and invented the system of introducing a contractor unilaterally to deprive the workers of benefits that have accrued to them. Autonomous bodies should implement the guidelines of Central Govt. and should fall in line with pronouncement of Supreme Court. Continuous work is available for casual workers but such work is done through agencies of a contractor. Such of the casual labourers who satisfy the eligibility criteria are entitled to be absorbed in regular vacancies. In case, they are not absorbed in regular vacancies, they are entitled to be paid wages on par with regular employees doing similar or identical work. " Relying on this decision, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, contended that since the members of the Petitioner Union have done the similar or identical work as that of the members , who have opted for hard work and therefore , the members of Petitioner Union are entitled for the same wages as that of paid to other workers , who have given option for hard work .

11. But, as against this , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that it is false to allege that members of Petitioner Union have done the same work as that of members who have given option under settlement dated 4-7-88 . In fact, when the members of Petitioner Union have not given the option, the Respondent/Management has sent a letter including to the members of Petitioner Union under Ex.M6 , wherein it is clearly mentioned that they were requested to exercise option to do all the works that are entrusted to them and they have also attached option form to the members of the Petitioner Union . It was also informed through that letter that those who have not submitted the option form, their continuance would be in terms of memorandum of the Respondent/Management preferred a Writ Appeal No. 431/2000 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of Madras High Court on 15-3-2000 . But as no vacancy was arising in engineering department of Food Corporation of India, the Respondent / Management has not absorbed any of the vacuator workers in that department and when the matter was pending before the Industrial Tribunal and as per the agreement dated 30-8-85 , the vacuator workers namely 191 persons who were being paid 16 days minimum guaranteed wages and during the pendency of that industrial dispute , voluntary retirement scheme was introduced in 1986 to retrench the workmen of Food Corporation of India in Madras harbour and as per that scheme , 67 vacuator workers opted for voluntary retirement and left the service of Food Corporation of India and therefore , there were only 124 vacuator workers remaining thereafter and as there was no vacuator machines operated by Food Corporation of India in Madras harbour , a settlement under Section 18 ( 1 ) was arrived at on 4-7-88 under Ex . M4 between the management of Food Corporation of India and Transport & Dock Workers Union and all the workers were advised to give option to perform all heavy labour. Since the matter was pending before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D. No. 35/84 , the Petitioner union members havė not given their option . But however , the Petitioner Union workers who have not given their option like others were also posted along with other mazdoors and have done the same work . The new token new token numbers were also given to them and they were discharging the same duties . But, the employees who have given options were paid with 21 days minimum guaranteed wages and off and the remaining days are paid with attend wages, whereas the non - optce workers namely members of Petitioner Union are paid with 16 days minimum guaranteed wages and off and the remaining days are/ paid with attend wages with lesser basic pay. This discrimination is ever since the date of settlement namely 4-7-88 . Both employees are discharging same duties and responsibilities , but there is vast different in their wages and in mode of payment. Therefore, the Petitioner Union members demand equal wages for equal work. After long number of representations, the Petitioner union members have raised industrial dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) , but the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) has given advise to Petitioner Union by an order dated 9-5-2001 , a copy of which is marked as Ex . W5 that as the matter pertains to discrimination in payment of wages , members are advised to file claim petition under Section 33C(2 ) of I.D. Act before CGIT Cum Labour Court . Hence , the Petitioner Union has filed Claim Petition in C.P.N. 2/2002 before this Tribunal and as per the advise of this Tribunal , the members of Petitioners Union have given their option to the

2061 GI /2005-21 8146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

same work as that of the workers who have given option under settlement dated 4-7-88 and they have worked in the same gang , but received only lesser wage . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that burden ofproving the fact that members of the Petitioner Union were given only light work is upon the Respondent . but the Respondent has not produced any document to establish this fact, on the other hand , they wanted to take advantage of vague inference to be drawn from Ex . M7 which is the letter sent by Petitioner Union to the Respondent for their letter dated 27-7-89.But, on the other hand, the Petitioner has established the fact that they have done the same work as that of the other members through clinching documentary proof and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the members of the Petitioner Union were given only light work and therefore , the priniciple of equal pay for equal work will be applicable to the members of Petitioner Union.

settlement and their pay/ wages will be in accordance with pre- settlement rates. For this , the Petitioner Union has sent a letter dated 18-8-89 wherein they have stated that in the first instance , the Executive Committee want to reiterate their stand that the matter before the Industrial Tribunal is still pending and unless the matter is decided by the Tribunal , the change in working conditions cannot be done . The members of Petitioner Union will not give option to do all the works that are entrusted to them as per memorandum of settlement dated 4-7-88 under section 18( 1 ) of I.D. Act entered between the Food Corporation of India management and representation of Transport & Dock Workers Union and as the I.D. No. 35/84 is still pending before the Industrial Tribunal , it is agreed to the condition that they will be entitled to receive wages as per pre - settlement rates and the status quo ante with regard to the work will be maintained and any change cannot be made at present " . Since they have refused to do hard work and refused to execute the option as per settlement dated 4-7-88 , they were given only light works . The mere pendency of I.D. No. 35/84 do not by any stretch of imagination preclude the aforesaid members of the Petitioner Union from exercising their option being treated as handling mazdoor under the above said settlement dated 4-7-88 . The Petitioner Union members have refused to exercise their option and to do hard work, alleging that it will be change in working condition and therefore , it is false to allege that they have done the soame hard work as that of the workers who have given option as per settlement dated 4-7-88 . The members of the Petitioner Union have formed a separate group and they have performed only light work and therefore , in the above circumstances , they are not entitled to ask for the equal work. Further , only because of the reason that they have not performed hard work and they have performed only light work all these years namely more than 13 years , they have not claimed any parity of wages and only after their not getting any relief under the orders passed by High Court and only after the Food Corporation of India has ceased their port activities from the year 2000 and only after the other members who have opted for hard work , now getting 21 days minimum guaranteed wages under settlement dated 4-7-88 . they have now raised the plea for getting 21 days minimum guaranteed wages without doing any work .

13. But , again the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that merely because the members of Petitioner Union have been allotted new token number and merely because the members of Petitioner Union were worked along with other members in the gang, it cannot be said that they have been given hard work as that of the other persons . When the Petitioner Union has clearly stated under Ex. M7 that they will not do the work as per memorandum of settlement dated 4-7-88 and they are willing to receive wages as per pre - settlement and they also requested the status quo ante with regard to work is to be maintained and no change should be made to the members of the Petitioner Union and under such circumstances the burden of proving that they have done the same work as that of other members is upon the Petitioner Union and merely producing job card and also shift card , the Tribunal cannot presume that they have done the same work as that of other workers . Further . even in the letter dated 20-7-89 , the management has informed the workers , who have not given option and their continuance would be only in terms of memorandum of settlement and their pay wages will be in accordance with pre-settlement rates . Under such circumstances , only because of this , they have not claimed all these years namely more than thirteen years and only because now there is no work for the management in the port and workers were getting minimum wage without doing any work and only because the persons who have given option under memorandum of settlement dated 4-7-88 are getting 21 days minimum guaranteed wages and they are getting only 16 days minimum guaranteed wages, now they wanted to claim 21 days minimum guaranteed wages without doing any work and therefore, they are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

14. Though I find some force in the contention of the Respondent, since the members of the Petitioner 12. But , again the learned cousel for the Petitioner contended that though the Respondent/Management has contended that the persons who have not given option under settlement dated 4-7-88 were given only light work , the Respondent /Management has not established this fact with any clinching proof, on the other hand, the members of the Petitoner Union have produced the job card and also shift card namely Ex. W8 and W9 respectively which clearly establish that the members of the Petitioner Union were also given the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Union have given option under Ex . W6 dated 1-11-2001 as advised by the Tribunal to do all the work as required by the Respondent/Management by individual letters and since there is no bar under the settlement dated 4-7-88 to give option even subsequent to that date, I find though the Petitioners are entitled to get the benefit under settlement dated 4-7-88 from the date of settlement , they are entitled to get the benefits only from 1-11-2001 , from which date they have given option to do all the works . Therefore, I find the members of the Petitioner Union though not entitled to get 21 days of minimum guaranteed wages from 4-7-88, they are entitled to get 21 days minimum guaranteed wages from 01-11-2001 .

Point No. 2 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

15. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the concerned 27 vacuator workers of the Petitioner Union are entitled for payment of 21 days minimum guaranteed waged from 01-11-2001 , the date on which they have given option to do all the works , as required under settlement dated 4-7-88 . Ordered accordingly . No Costs .

16. The reference is answered accordingly .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day 22nd March, 2005)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses examined :

For the II Party/ Claimant : WW1 Sri P. Malaichamy

WW2 Sri M. Shamsudeen For the II Party /Management : MW1 Sri G. Ponnusamy Documents Marked :-

For the I Party/Claimant :-

Ex. No. Date Description

W1 16-11-89 Xerox copy of the award passed in I.D. 35/84 .

W2 24-12-98 Xerox copy of the order in W.P. 14057/ 92.

8147

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

W3 15-03-00 Xerox copy of the order in W.A. No. 431/2000

W4 16-06-00 Xerox copy of the dispute raised by Union .

W5 04-05-01 Xerox copy of the advise issued by Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

W6 01-11-01 Memo filed by the Union in C.P No. 2/2001

W7 24-01-91 Xerox copy of the notice issued by Respondent.

W8 Nil Xeros copy of the series of job card .

W9 Nil

Xerox copy of the series of shift card.

For the II Party/Management :-

Ex. No. Date Description

M1 28-08-78 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement.

M2 25-02-82 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement .

M3 30-08-85 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement .

M4 04-07-88 Xerox copy of the memorandum of settlement .

M5 15-04-89 Xerox copy of the circular to non- optees .

M6 20-07-89 Xerox copy of the letter of Respondent to all unions .

M7 18-08-89 Xerox copy of the letter sent by MPUL union.

M8 02-02-88 Xerox copy of the letter addressed by Sakthivel to Respondent/Management .

M9 23-07-02 Xerox copy of the letter sent by Transport & Dock Workers Union to Respondent regarding their Secretary M10 27-04-02 Xerox copy of the minutes of periodical meeting attended by Raghunathan .

M11 30-05-02 Xerox copy of the minutes of periodical meeting attended by Raghunathan .

8148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1. 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

State

: Jharkhand नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2005

: Coal.

Industry

Dated. the 13th June , 2005

AWARD

का. आ. 2603.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टिस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -1 धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 59/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/ 308/94- आईआर ( सी. - 1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

ByOrder No. L - 20012/308 / 94 - IR ( C - 1 ) dated 21-2-97 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

"Whether the demand of the union for employment to 2nd dependant of Sri A. Samad , who has completed 37 years of service with M/ s . TISCO management is legal and justified? If so . to what relief is the workman entitled ?" S.O. 2603.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government liereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 59/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - l Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employe in relation to the management of TISCO and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-06-2005,

[ No. L - 20012/ 308/ 94 - IR ( C - I ) |

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) of the I.D. Act .

REFERENCE NO . 59 OF 1997

PARTIES :

: Employers in relation to the management ofM/s . TISCO Ltd .. Digwadih Colliery.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT : Shri S. Prasad . Presiding Officer

2. The case of the sponsoring union is that A. Samad is a permanent employce of Digwadih colliery under M/s . TISCO . He was employed on 11-10-1955 and continued in the capacity of Winding Engine Operator . In the meantime he had some problem in his eyes and he was admitted in the Hospital on 11-11-89 . The management by letter dated 4/6-7-1992 advised him to appear before the Medical Board for ascertaining his fitness for the job of Winding Engine Operator. Accordingly he appeared before the Medical Board. The management , thereafter , by letter dated 13-7-1992 informed the workman that the Medical Board declared him unfit for his original job of Winding Engine Operator and hence his service was discharged w.e.f. 17-7-92 . The workman , A. Samad on receipt of the letter of the management made representation before the management. for providing him alternative job on surface. The management after receipt of the above representation from the workman provided him with alternative job for sometimes but later on stopped. The matter was raised in the Union-Management meeting held on 3-12-92 and the union submitted that the concerned workman , A. Samad has worked in the company for 37 years , therefore , his claim for employment of his second son isjustified. but the management did not response . Ultimately, the present dispute has been raised for giving employment to his second son as well as to provide him alternative job but the dispute regarding employment of the second son only has been referred to this Tribunal .

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate

Forthe Workmen :

Shri P.R. Shukla, Authorised Representative .

3. The case of the management , on the other hand , is that the present reference is not maintainable . The management has admitted that the concerned workman . A. Samad , with token No. 30790 of Digwadih colliery had joined his service on 11-10-1955 as Creeper Khalasi . He was promoted as Winding Engine Operator w.e.f 17-7-89 after he obtained the statutory certificate enabling him to work in the capacity of Winding Engine 8149 [ भाग II , खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Therefore, I find that the demand of the sponsoring union for employment of second son of the concerned workman, A. Samad, is not at alljustified.

5. Inthe result, I render following award-

The demand of the union for employment of second dependant of A. Samad, who has completed 36 years 9 months and 6 days service with M/s . TISCO management . isneither legal nor justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

S. PRASAD, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2604.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंगापुर एअर लाइंस 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-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/53/98- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005 Operator. The concerned workman developed eye trouble and it became difficult for him to perform his normal duties , therefore , he was referred to the Medical Board of the company for finding his fitness to perform his duty as Winding Engine Operator . The Medical Board examined him and submitted report dated 8-7-92 declaring him unfit for his job even on the surface on account of defective eyes . Therefore , he was discharged from duty on medical ground w.e.f 17-7-92 . Thus , he has completed his service of 36 years 9 months and 6 days on the day of discharge from his service . As per company's policy of providing employment to dependants of an employee , one son of the concerned workman , namely , Abid Hussain was enrolled in the Employees ' Dependant Register after completion of 15 years of service by the concerned workman and he has already been provided with employment w.e.f. 21-7-80 at Digwadih colliery. As per the company's rule regarding giving employment to the second son the concerned workman had not qualified his 40 years of service , therefore, he did not become eligible for getting his second son registered for employment in the Employees Dependant Register. Therefore , the concerned workman is not justified in demanding employment to his second son . At present work force of the management has grown up to such an extent that it is very difficult to provide employment to the second son of the concerned workman . There is a long list of candidates whose names find place in the register for employment as second . dependant , therefore , the claim of the sponsoring union for employment of the second dependant is unjustified.

S.O. 2604. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947). the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 21/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- New Delhi - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the employers in relation to the man- agement of Singapur Airlines Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 24-06-2005 .

[No. L- 11012/53 /98 - IR ( C - 1 ) ]

S.S. GUPTA . Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI S.S. BAL

I.D. NO. 21/99

IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTE BETWEEN

Shri Amrit Singh S/ o . Sh. Hardwari Lal ,

Workman

Resident of Village Luahana , PostOffice Luahana , Tehsil & District-Rewari (Haryana)-123411

4. Thus, from the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by the parties it is apparent that the concerned workman , A. Samad was a permanent employee who has served the company for a period of 36 years 9 months and 6 days, when he was ultimately discharged on medical ground on being unfit for the job . It is also admitted that the management of M/ s . TISCO has got a policy of giving employment to dependants of an employees after he completes 15 years of service he may register his one dependant for service and after he completes 40 years of service , he may see registered 2nd dependant for service . As per policy of the management a workman is entitled for registering his first dependant for employment on completion of 15 years of service and for employment of second dependant on completion of 40 years of service . The management provide them employment according to the date of their registration subject to vacancy . It is admitted that the management has already provided employment to one of the sons of the concerned workman. Since the concerned workman has not completed 40 years of service on the date he was discharged from service on medical ground on being unfit for the job , he was not at all entitled for getting the second dependant registered for employment inthe company.

8150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

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

The General Manager ,

Singapore Airlines Ltd. , I.G.I. Airport , Terminal - II , New Delhi - 110 037

.......Management

date the respondent/ management commenced its own operations at Delhi . The applicant workman is not on the staff list of Singapore Airlines . The averments of the applicant/workman are false. He is seeking to abuse the process of this Hon'ble Court to seek employment with the respondent/ management .

Appearances : Workman in person Shri M. Wadhwani A/R for the Management .

AWARD

4. On merits para No. 1 to 5 of claim statement are denied as wrong. It is stated that the applicant is not entitled to any relief from the respondent- management .

5. The written statement was followed by rejoinder where in contents of the claim statement are reiterated to be correct and those of written statement are denied.

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012/ 53 / 98 - IR( C - I ) dated 23-12-98 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the workman is employee of the Singapore Airlines ? If yes , whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman w.e.f. 30-7-97 is legal and justified . If not, to what relief he is entitled to ? "

6. Thereafter evidence was adduced by workman by way of affidavit and the case was fixed for cross- examination of the workman and about 11 opportunities were granted for cross - examination of workman and on 27-5-05 parties came to a settlement under which management offered to pay sum of Rs. 60,000/ - towards his claim and workman received a cheque Rs . 60,000 today on 14-6-05 in the court and stated that his entire claim with the management stood satisfied in view of the settlement and no other claim is due . Statement of the workman and A/R for the management were recorded on 27-5-05 and payment through cheque was made today on 14-6-05 . Parties have arrived at settlement and No dispute exists between the parties and therefore . No Dispute Award is passed . File be consigned to record room.

Dated : 14-6-2005

S.S. BAL , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2005

2. Brief facts of this case as culled from the claim statement are that the workman was appointed by the respondent as office attendant on 22-5-96 in their office at 1.G.1. Airport , New Delhi and his pay was Rs . 1800 P.M. and he worked continuously upto 30-6-97 for more than one year: that the management illegally retrenched services of the workman on 1-7-97 without notice , notice pay, compensation violation of the provisions of Section 25- F of the I. D. Act, 1947. His retrenchment/ termination is illegal . unjust , arbitrary , unconstitutional against the principles of natural justice and he has , therefore , claimed the order directing the respondent to reinstate him in service with continuity of service with full back wages and all consequential benefits .

का. आ. 2605.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 27/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/5/97- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S.O. 2605. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 27/1998 ) 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 24-06-2005 .

[No. L -20012/5 /97 - IR ( C -I ) ] S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

3. The claim was contested by the management by filing written statement raising preliminary objections such as that there is no relationship of employer and employce between the workman and the management- respondent did not have any establishment at Delhi during the relevant period and these operations were carried on and managed by M/ s . Jet Air Ltd. , under an Agency agreement as per I. A.T.A. regulations and practice in the aviation trade and industry . The relationship between the Singapore Airlines and M/s . Jet Air Limited was on principal to principal basis and M/s. JetAir Ltd .. is still in exist once and is carrying on its business . Even at the relevant time it was working as agent for several other airlines . The applicant workman was employed and engaged by Jet Air Ltd. , who used to allocate , regulate and supervise the work and duties performed by the applicant/workman his terms of employment were also settled and is charged by M/ s . Jet Air Ltd. The agency agreement between the respondent- management and M/ s . Jet Air Ltd. , came to an end w.e.f. 30-6-97 and M/ s . Jet Air Ltd. withdrew itself and its staff w.c.f. 1-7-1997 including the workman and from the same [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

SHRI B. BISWAS : Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 27 of 1998

Parties : Employers in relation to the inanagement of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M/s . BCCL and their Workman.

Appearances:

Onbehalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers : Mr. H. Nath, Ld.

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 2nd June , 2005 .

AWARD

The Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 5/ 97 - IR (Coal - I ) dated, the 20th February, 1998 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Ram Bachan Rajbhar , Miner/Loader of Angarpathra Colliery w.e.f. 6-1-93 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?" 2. The case of the management according to their written statement is as follows :

Management submitted that the concerned workman was a Miner/Loader at Angarpathra Colliery . They submitted that he started himself absenting from duty w.e.f.6-1-93 without giving any information and taking any permission. Accordingly , a charge- sheet bearing No. AP/CS/ 93 /69dt . 17-5-93 was issued to him for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism . They submitted that on receipt of the said chargesheet he submitted his reply but as the reply given by him was not satisfactory the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and appointed J.K. Sinha , Senior Personnel Officer to hold the said enquiry . They disclosed that the said enquiry officer conducted

8151

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

domestic enquiry with all fairness in presence of the concerned workman who not only participated but also full opportunity was given to him to defend his case . After completion of the said enquiry , the enquiry officer submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges brought against him . They submitted that during 1991 , 1992 and 1993 , the concerned workman worked for 98 days , 32 days and 2 days respectively . Accordingly , Disciplinary Authority after considering enquiry report and also considering all material aspects dismissed him from his service. They alleged that R.C.M.S. Union after passing that order of dismissal raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C ) Dhanbad for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .

Ittranspires from the record that inspite of giving several opportunities neither the sponsoring union/ workman appeared nor any written statement was filed in response to the order of reference challenging the legality and validity of the order of dismissal issued by the management.

Accordingly , the instant reference case was taken up for exparte hearing .

3. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the services of Shri Ram Bachan Rajbhar , Miner/ Loader of Angarparthra Colliery w.e.f. 6-1-93 is justified ? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled? " 4. FINDING WITH REASONS

It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. It transpires that the said issue on preliminary point was disposed of vide Order No. 17dt. 16-3-04 against the management and for which opportunity was given to them to adduce evidence on merit.

In course of hearing the case on merit exparte the management examined one witness as M.W. 1 with a view to establish their case .

From the evidence of M.W. 1 , I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman was Miner/Loader at Angarpathra Colliery . It is the specific allegation of the management that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty with effect from 6-1-93 without any information or taking their prior permission. Accordingly , the Disciplinary Authority issued a charge- sheet to him vide letter No. AP/CS/ 93/69 8152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

about the reason of his absence . Therefore , there is no dispute to hold that absence for the period from 6-1-93 to 17-5-93 was unauthorised and for which it attaches the clause 26:11 of the Certified Standing Orders . Accordingly, there is no scope to say that management committed either any illegality or took any arbitrary decision in issuing charge - sheet to the conecrned workman for committing misconduct under clause 26:11 of the Certified Standing Orders . Considering all materials on record I find no dispute to hold that in course of hearing the case on merit management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against him.

dt . 7-5-93 for committing misconduct on the ground of unauthorised absence under clause 261 : 1 of the Certified Standing Order . Copy of the said charge- sheet during evidence of M.W. 1 was marked as Exht . M/ 1 . They disclosed that after receipt of the said charge - sheet the concerned workman submitted his reply which also during his evidence was marked as Exhibit M/ 2 . Now from the reply given by him it transpires that he was sick and remained at Company's hospital for treatment from 1-1-93 to 5-1-93 . It is seen that he went on unauthorised leave from 6-1-93 without taking permission or giving any intimation to the management . He disclosed that he was under treatment of private doctor and in support of his claim he produced medical certificate . He also further begged apology for the misconduct committed by him and also made an appeal to consider his case compassionatel so that he gets scope to resume his duty and to save his family from starvation .

It is seen that relying on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned workman from his service . The letter of dismissal during evidence of M.W. 1 was marked as Exhibit M-6. In dismissing the concerned workman from his service the Disciplinary Authority observed "As the charges levelled against you are of serious in nature so you are hereby dismissed from service with immediate effect".

Now it is to be taken into consideration if the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief as per provision laid down U/ S II - A of the Industrial Dispute Act.

Sec. II -A of the Industrial Dispute Act speaks as follows:

It is seen that as the reply given by him was not satisfactory the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and appointed Mr. J.K. Sinha . Senior Personnel Officer as Enquiry Officer . Considering enquiry proceeding papers marked as Exht . M - 3 to M - 4/ 4 . I find no dispute to hold that the concerned workman participated fully at the time of hearing of the enquiry proceeding . During that time he too relied on the reply given by him which he submitted in response to the charge- sheet issued to him . It is seen that after completion of enquiry the enquiry officer submitted his report which during evidence of M.W. 1 was marked as Exht . M-5 .

"Where as industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court . Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication may be. is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may , by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any , as it thinks fit , or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require ."

The Enquiry Officer in his report admitted the fact that the concerned workman reported sick at Colliery Dispensary on 1-1-93 and remained under treatment there till 5-1-93 . It is seen further that the concerned workman produced medical certificate at the time of enquiry issued by private Doctor in support of his treatment but the said Enquiry Officer did not believe that medical certificate in absence of treatment papers for his treatment . With utter surprise it is noticed that in course of hearing the management did not consider necessary to produce the medical certificate which the concerned workman relied on , before this Tribunal to verify the authenticity of the claim in question.

Therefore , as per provision of this Section it is to be looked into whether the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman was justified and proportionate to the misconduct committed by him.

It is seen that only this ground the enquiry officer came to the finding that the concerned workman was found guilty to the charge brought against him though he admitted that the concerned workman begged apology for the misconduct committed by him .

As per charge- sheet ( Exht . M - 1 ) the Disciplinary Authority directed the concerned workman to submit his reply within 48 hours . According to clause 27 : 1 of the Certified Standing Order where a workman is charged with a misconduct which may lead to imposition of a minor penalty , he will be informed in writing of the allegation made against him and will be given an opportunity to explain his conduct within 48 hours .

It is seen that charge - sheet to the concerned workman was issued on 17-5-93 . He started remaining himself absent from duty w.e.f. 6-1-93 . It is admitted fact that he did not give any intimation to the management [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Therefore, it is clear that intention of the management was to impose minor punishment for the misconduct committed by the concerned workman . Had that not been so there was scope on the part of the management to follow the course as provised under clause 27 : 2 of the Certified Standing Orders . Again clause 27 : 1 has pointed out as minor penalty which punishment could be imposed upon workman on proof of the charge of misconduct. The Enquiry Officer in his report did not discuss if the misconduct committed by the concerned workman was serious in nature . In the note sheet marked as Exht . M-6/ 1 it has been observed that charges levelled against the concerned workman was serious in nature and from past record it has been revealed that he was to be dismisssed in the past but management had given one chance to improve vide letter No. AP/ 92/ 1617 dt . 26/29-9-92 but only after three months he again absented . It is really curious to note that inspite of claiming so the management did not consider necessary to produce any paper to show that previously the concerned workman was charge- sheeted on the similar ground and he was found guilty for committing mis- conduct and for which instead of imposing major punishment , he was released on giving due warning.

Therefore in absence of any such paper I find no cogent ground to accept the contention of the management . Management also did not explain which serious misconduct the concerned workman committed. It is seen that for remaining absent for about four months charge - sheet was issued to him . No doubt he committed misconduct for violation of clause 26 : 1 : 1 of the Certified Standing Order but if the of misconduct committed by him is taken into consideration there is no scope to say that the misconduct which he committed amounted to serious misconduct . Had that been so the management would definitely follow the provisions as laid down in clause 27 : 2 and not clause 27 : 1 .

Further it is seen that the concerned workman was actually lying ill and remained under treatment of Company's dispensary , immediately before he started remaining himself absent from duty without giving any intimation to the management . It is further seen that the enquiry officer did not believe the medical certificate produce by the concerned workman at the time of enquiry but could not assign cogent reason in that regard . Management also for verification of the said medical certificate did not produce the same before this Tribunal incourse of hearing without assigning any reason . It is further seen that in reply to the charge- sheet the concerned workman begged apology for the misconduct committed by him and that too was recorded by the Enquiry Officer in his report . Inspite of begging apology the Disciplinary Authority did not consider necessary to give him an opportunity for his rectification in future. It is seen that Disciplinary Authority made up 2061 GI /2005-22

8153

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

their mind to dismiss him from service for which made their observation that the misconduct committed by him was serious in nature .

After careful consideration of all the facts & circumstances I hold that the degree of misconduct committed by him was not proportionate to the punishment imposed on him . Order of dismissal for absence of 4/5 months I consider is absolutely unjustified and not in accordance with the principle of natural justice . I , therefore , hold that order of dismissal issued by the Disciplinary Authority was not justified, proportionate and in accordance with the principle of natural justice and for which the same is liable to be set aside . In the result the following award is rendered :

"That the action of the management of Angarpathra Colliery under Katras Area of M/s . BCCL in dismissing the service of Sri Ram Bachan Rajbhar, Miner /Loader of Angarpathra Colliery w.e.f. 6-1-93 was not justified .

Consequently, management is directed to reinstate the concerned workman to his service from the date of his order of dismissal within three months from the date of publication of the award in the Gazettee of India . However, the concerned workman shall not be entitled to get any back wages and other consequential relief w.e.f. 6-1-93 . "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2606.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा .को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -20012/200/ 2003- आईआर( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S.O. 2606. 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 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Dhanbad - 11 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 24-06-2005 .

[No. L-20012/200/2003 - IR ( C -1 ) | S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

8154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 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 LD . Act , 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 19 OF 2004

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

(Ministry's Order No. L - 20012/ 200/ 2003 - IR ( C - I ) Dtd. 24-12-2003)

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman :

Mr. C. Prasad,

Advocate..

On behalf of the employers :

Mr. D.K. Verma,

Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated , Dhanbad, the 2nd June , 2005.

AWARD

Record is put up for order. Perused one petition filed by the management on the point of maintainability of the instant reference case . In view of the reference made by the Ministry the dispute for adjudication is as follows:-

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL Sudamdih Incline Mine to superannuate Shri Hari Majhi w.e.f. 31-3-2002 treating his date of birth as 9-3-42 is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? "

has been submitted by the management that after hearing both sides Hon'ble High Court dismissed the said Writ Petition . Being aggrieved by the order passed of the Hon'ble High Court the concerned workman preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the Judgement and order passed by Ld . Single Judge in L.P.A. Case No. 55/2003 . They submitted that the said appeal also was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court Jharkhand Ranchi with the observation " Learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ application because Form B Register contained the correct date of birth and also because the appellant had sought the change in the date of birth at the fag end of his service career . " After passing that order by the Hon'ble Court the concerned workman through sponsoring Union raised Industrial Dispute over self same issue before the ALC ( C) for conciliation but has the conciliation failed instant reference case was initiated. After registering that reference case as Ref. No. 19/2004 the concerned workman submitted his Written Statement wherein he categorically disclosed that his date of birth as per Mining Sirdarship certificate should be changed . It is seen that the self same matter was agitated before the Single Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand by the concerned workman and Hon'ble Court after hearing the concerned workman as well as management dismissed that Writ Petition . He against that order preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the same Hon'ble High Court but that too was dismissed. It is really curious to note that the concerned workman suppressed this fact while he submitted Written Statement in the instant case . On the contrary he made out a clear case why his date of birth is required to be rectified . This is I should say suppression of material facts . It is expected that whenever any grievance is placed in the Written Statement it should expose with all material facts. It is clear that the concerned workman suppressing the material facts intended to get relief. In course of hearing the representative of the concerned workman has failed to assign any cogent reason why the order of the Hon'ble High Court should be ignored in considering the prayer of the concerned workman afresh . In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court I consider that the concerned workman is estopped from raising any further dispute overself same issue i.e. the rectification of his date of birth . Under the circumstances I consider that it will be highly contemptuous if ignoring the order of the Hon'ble High Court over the self same issue as raised by the concerned workman in the Written Statement is taken into consideration . I hold that the instant reference in view of order of the Hon'ble High Court is not maintainable in the eye of law. In the result, the reference fails for adjudication .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer 2. Management submitted that the concerned workman before raising industrial dispute in the instant reference case filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi vide Writ Petition No. 629/2002 and prayed for issuance of order for correction of his date of birth on the basis of Mining Sirdarship Certificate . They submitted that in the said Writ Petition they appeared and submitted their counter affidavit wherein they categorically mentioned that date of birth of the concerned workman was recorded as 9-3-1942 in the Form B Register which is a statutory Register as per definition of the Mines Act . 1952. In the said Affidavit they further submitted that the concerned workman put his signature in Roman Script and he himself accepted and acknowledged the date of birth as 9-3-42 for which he has been estopped from raising such dispute relying on the Mining Sirdarship Certificate. It [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2607.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 92/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/189/96- आईआर( सी -1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S.O. 2607.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 92/97) ofthe 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 24-06-2005 .

[No. L-20012/ 189/96 - IR (C-I) ] S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer . In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act . 1947 .

REFERENCE NO . 92 OF 1997

PARTIES :

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

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate On behalf of the employers : Mr. S. N. Sinha , Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

: Industry : Coal.

Dated , Dhanbad , the 9th June , 2005

8155

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

AWARD

TheGovt . 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/ 189/ 96-IR (C- I ) , dated, the 27th August, 1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Union for the regularisation/promotion of Shri O. P. Vishwakarma inT & S Grade -Cw.e.f. 11-5-1992 is justified? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

2. Case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on hisbehalf in brief is as follows:-

They submitted that the concerned workman was selected as Junior Data Entry Operator ( Trainee) in Technical and Supervisory Grade -E through departmental selection committee of Sudamdih Area and joined, that post in the month of May , 1989. He was regularised as Junior Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-D after completion of one year training successfully w.e.f. 11-5-90 . They submitted that the concerned workman is B.A. and has completed Computer Programming Course . In view of his obtaining such qualification as per direction of the management he started working as Data Entry Operator with effect from 11-5-92 . They disclosed that as Data Entry Operator he put his attendance for more than 240 days in each calendar ycar . Accordingly he submitted representation to the management for his regularisation as Data Entry Operator in Grade " C" but without any effect . As a result, he raised an Industrial Dispute demanding his regularisation as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C . They submitted that during pendency ofthe hearing of the conciliation matter a tripartite settlement was entered into with the union wherein and whereby management agreed to regularise him as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C after getting approval from the Headquarters . In spite of that tripartite settlement they alleged that the management did not regularies him in the said Grade . Accordingly seeing no other alternative the union again reaised industrial dispute for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication by the order of the Ministry. The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer for passing an Award directing the management to regularise the concerned workman in Technical and Superivsory Grade--C w.e.f. 11-5-92 along with other consequential benefits .

3.Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the sponsoring union asserted in their Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.

8156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

They submitted that the concerned workman was selected as Junior Data Entry Operator vide letterdt . 5-5-89 in Technical and Supervisory Grade-E . The Weigh Bridge of Sudamdih Washery had been computerised since 1988 and he was engaged to operate the Weigh Bridge since 11-5-89 and on that very basis he was regularised in Technical and Supervisory Grade -D along with others as Junior Data Entry Operator. They submitted that the concerned workman made demand before the ALC( C ) for his promotion as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C after completing three years service in Technical and Supervisory Grade -D . The conciliation proceedings were held , matter was settled and the management agreed to promote him as Data Entry Operator Grade - C subject to approval of the BCCL Headquarters , KoyalaBhawan and said settlement was signed on 18-5-94 and the Sudamdih Area referred the matter to the Headquarter as per terms of settlement . They submitted that the proposal to promote him in Technical and Supervisory Gr . C was not considered by the BCCL headquarters on the ground that at Washery Weigh Bridge no sanctioned post of Data Entry Operator is in existence. The concerned workman is working at Weigh Bridge at Sudamdih Washery and operating P.C. The concerned workman's job is to punch the Weight of the incoming and out going trucks only at Weigh Bridge, which is not identical to any of the jobs of the E.D.P Cadre of employees as like the job of Data Entry Operators of Gr . C at Area/ Headquarter. Accordingly management submitted that denial to promote the concerned workman in Technical and Supervisory Grade - C w.e.f. from 11-5-92 is fully justified and he is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever . Accordingly management submitted prayer to pass Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the demand of the Union for the regularisation/promotion of Shri O.P. Vishwakarma in T & S Grade- Cw.e.f. 11-5-1992 is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " 5. FINDING WITH REASONS

It transpires from the record that the sponsoring Union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concernedworkman as WW - 1 , Management also in support oftheir claim examined two witnesses as MW- 1 and MW - 2 .

WW- 1 during his evidence disclosed that he joined the management as Trade apprentice on 7-5-81 . Не submitted that in view of circular issued by the management for filling up the post of Data Entry Operator he submitted application as a candidate for the same . Thereafter he appeared before the interview Board and he was subsequently selected for the said post. Thereafter he was provided with the employment of Junior Data Entry Operator Trainee in Technical and Supervisory Grade -E fromMay, 1989. After completion of that training he was regularised as Junior Data Entry Operator in Grade - D . He submitted that he started discharging his duties as Data

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Entry Operator independently from 11-5-92 regularly and till date he is discharging his duties as such. For the post ofData Entry Operator minimum Grade is Technical and Supervisory Grade-C . Hedisclosed that as he was continuously deployed to work as Data Entry Operator he submitted appliation to the management for his regularisation as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C . But as the management refused to do so he raised an industrial dispute and during pendency of the hearing of the conciliation proceeding a tripartite settlement was entered into and according to that settlement management agreed to provide him in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C as Data Entry Operator subject to approval from the Headquarter . The settlement in question during evidence of WW- 1 was marked as Ext . W- 1 . The office order dt. 22/30-10-98 which the concerned workman relied had been marked as Ext . W- 2 , during his evidence . The said tripartite settlement on the contrary was executed on 18-5-94 . I have considered the terms of said settlement which speaks as follows :

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

"IT IS AGREED :

1. That the case of Sri Om Prakash Vishwakarma has already been processed for promotion in Data Entry Operator Tech. and Supervisory Grade ' C ' after getting approval from the H.Q. he will be promoted.

2. That the management and the union both shall submit their implementation report to the RLC( C )/ALC( C ) Dhanbad - III within 60 days from this settlement . If the implementation report will not be received within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that this settlement has been implemented .

Representative of the management :

(S.C. Soneja)

Sd/- 18-5-94

Representative of the Workmen/Union:

Sd/-

(D. K. Dey.)

18-5-94.

Witnesses :

1. Sd/-

Illegible

Sd/-

(N. K. Prasad) Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Dhanbad - III . " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8157

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

of the sponsoring union that the concerned workman started serving as Data Entry Operator independently from 11-5-92 and till date he is serving in that capacity. This fact has categorically been denied by the management. It is the contention of the management that never the concerned workman was allowed to discharge his duties as Data Entry Operator and not as Junior Data Entry operator. It is seen that the concerned workman submitted a representation to the management marked as Ext. M - 1 on 24-6-97 with prayer for his regularisation as Assistant Loading Inspector in Technical and Supervisory Grade - C . In the petition he admitted that he was posted at Sudamdih Washery Railway siding department as Junior Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade -D. He further submitted inhis petition that as per order of the management he also started discharging his duties as Loading Supervisor and for which he has claimed for his promotion as Asstt . Loading Inspector in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C . As his representation was not considered he raised an industrial dispute. It is admitted fact that during pendency ofthe conciliation proceeding before the ALC ( C) a tripartite settlement was entered into wherein it was agreed upon that promotion in Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade - C will be given to the concerned workman after getting approval from the headquarter . Nowhere in the said tripartite settlement it was mentioned thatpromotion to the concerned workman will be given to the post of Asstt . Loading Inspector in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C . The post of Asstt . Loading Inspector comesunder different grade and it has no bearing with his promotion in Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C . The reference in question was also initiated for consideration of promotion of the concerned workman as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C . It is the contention of the sponsoring union that in spite of that tripartite settlement management did not consider promotion of the concerned workman as DataEntry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C. They submitted that the said decision of the management was not only illegal and arbitrary but also violative to the decision arrived into the tripartite settlement . On the contrary representative of the management submitted that inthe tripartite settlement there was no undertaking given by the management that he will be promoted to the post of Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C. On the contrary it is their contention that his promotion in the said post would be considered if the same is approved by the Headquarter because of the fact that the promotion of any workman in the post of Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C is controlled by the headquarter and for which the Area office or the colliery has no jurisdiction to take any final decision to thateffect . The representative of the concerned workman in course of hearing pointed out a letter issued by the General Manager ( IR & W) marked as Ext . W-3 wherein there was instruction given to the Personnel Manager, As per the terms of the settlement the local management agreedto promote the concerned workman as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C after taking approval from the Headquarters. The application whichhe submitted to the management for his regularisation as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Slupervisory Grade -C was marked as Ext. M- 1 . During cross - examination this witness admitted that he deals with Computer showing loading of wagons and exhibiting particulars of weight etc. which as Operator we process . MW- 1 during his evidence disclosed thatthe concerned workman got his appointment as Trade Apprentice in the year 1981 as Sudamdih Coal Washery and after completion of trade apprenticeship training he got his appointment as Cat . I Mazdoor . In the year 1989 a departmental vacancy for the post of Junior Data Entry Operator in Grade- E was occurred . This witness disclosed thatthe concerned workman was selected for the said post and as trainee he remained under training for one year . After completion of that training period he was regularised asJuniorData Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-D. This witness disclosed that still he is working in the same post i . e . Junior Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisor Grade -D . This witness further disclosed that though the concerned workman is eligible to get his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C the management could not promote him in the said grade as there was no vacancy. He further disclosed that all promotions inGrade-C of Data Entry Operator in this cadre are made by the order of the Headquarter and not by any order of the unit or area. This witness admitted that the concerned workman submitted his representation for his regularisation as Data Entry Operator in Grade -C but his such prayer could not be considered by the Headquarter due to non - availability of the vacancy. This witness admitted that as a result the concerned workman raised an industrial dispute and during pendency of hearing of that dispute a tripartite settlement was entered wherein it was decided that the concerned workman will be promoted to Grade-C Data Entry Operator subject to approval to be givenby the Headquarter . He further disclosed that as per the settlement , promotional matter of the concerned workman was forwarded to the Headquarter for consideration but the Headquarter did not agree to give him promotions in Grade - C and in support of this claim this witness relied on the letter issued by the Headquarter marked as Ext . M-4 . This witness during cross -examination admitted that in the year 1998 the concerned workman was placed inGrade-C under S.L.U. as he by this time completed 10 years of service in Grade- D . MW -2 during his evidence also corroborated the facts which MW- 1 disclosed in course of his evidence . This witness admitted that initially the entry of Data Entry Operator is in Grade - C . Now considering the evidence of the management it is clear that after completion of training as Junior Data Entry Operator the concerned workman was regularised in Technical and Supervisory Grade - D . On the contrary it is the contention 8158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

management . Therefore , in view of this position onus shifts on the sponsoring union to establish that the concerned workman's name was not only recommended by the D.P.C. but alsohe came out successful in the proficiency test as per provision of the Cadre Scheme for getting his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade - C and also there was clear vacancy to that effect . I find no hesitation to say that in course of hearing the representative of the concerned workman has failed to satisfy this Tribunal that inspite of recommendation made by the D. P.C. , inspite of coming out successfully in the proficiency test and inspite of existing vacancy the management illegally and arbirarily denied to promote him to the post of Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C . Just on the basis of Tripartite Settelment there is no scope at all to arrive into conclusion thatmanagement was bound to issue promotional order in favour of the workman to the post of Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C . The settlement entered into was absolutely conditional and until and unless that condition is fulfilled the Area Office and no scope to issue any order of promotion in favour of the concerned workman in the desired post . The conceerned workman claimed his promotion as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C with effect from 11-5-92 . It has been admitted by the concerned workman in course of his evidence that he was provided with employment as Data Entry Operator in Technical and supervisory Grade-E from May , 1989. He further admitted that after a lapes of one year he was regularised as Junior Data Entry Operator in Grade -D . Therefore , in view of his own submission it is clear that not before the month of May, 1990 the concerned workman was not provided with the post of Junior Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade- D as per cadre scheme . For promotion in Electronic Data Processsing personnel /Data Entry Operator a workman should possess three years experience as Junior Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade-D. If this fact is taken into consideration in that case it is seen that the claim of the concerned workman for hispromotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade - C has come out after completion of his two years service as Junior DataEntry Operator. Therefore , in no circumstances as per cadre scheme the concerned workman was legible to get his promotion in Tecnical and Supervisory Grade- C w.e.f. 11-5-92 . Accordingly I hold that the claim of the sponsoring union cannot be acceded to if cadre scheme formulated in connection with promotion as referred to above is taken in to consideration .

In the result, the following Award is rendered: ---

" The demand of the Union for regularisation/ promotion of Shri O.P. Vishwakarma in the T & S Grade - C w.e.f. 11-5-1992 is not justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

Sudamdih Area to the effect to implement the settlement arrived at the earliest . Relying on this letter representative of the workman submitted that Area Office of Sudamdih did not comply with direction given by the G.M. in the matter of the implementation of the tripartite settlement and it was so done for the reason best known to the management . The same G.M. again wrote a letter to Smt . Samita Arora . Section Officer, Govt . of India , Ministry of Coalmarked as Ext . M-5 wherein he made a clear observation to the effect that the management was fully justified in denying promotion to the concerned workman in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C w.e.f. 11-5-92 . Therefore, it is seen thatthe same officer while in the letter marked as Ext . W - 3 instructed local area office to implement the tripartite settlement held different view in the letter dt. 14/ 15-10-96 marked as Ext . M - 5 . Question of implementation of the tripartite settlement comes in by the Area Office subject to approval of the promotion of the concerned workman by theHeadquarter. The representative of the management in course of hearing submitted that promotion as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade - Cfrom Junior Data Entry Operator Technical and Supervisory Grade-D cannot be given automatically by virtue of the fact that the said workman as Junior Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade -D worked for more than 3 years . According to cadre scheme to get promotion to the post of DataEntry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C not only 3 years experience as Data Entry Operator in Technical and Supervisory Grade - D is required but also the concerned workman should pass the proficiency test of8000 KDPH and his name must be recommended by the D.P.C. Therefore, it is clear that promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade- C cannot be claimed just taking the plea that the concerned workman worked for more than 240 days in Technical and Supervisory Grade - D and also worked for more than 3 years in that capacity . The representative of the management however , submitted that even if recommendation is made by the D.P.C. in that case such promotion cannot be acceded to in absence of any existing vacancy . MW - 1 and MW - 2 during their evidence categorically submitted that no vacancy was existed for consideration of promotion of the workman in Technical and Supervisory Grade - C as Data Entry Operator . It has been further submitted that as no promotion could be given to the concerned workman in the said grade , he was provided with S. L. U and to that effect management issued an orderdt . 22/30-10-98 which during evidence of workman was marked as Ext . W - 2. As per the office order the name of the concerned workman is appearing in Sl . No. 101 wherein his designation was disclosed as Data Entry Operator . As S. L.U. was provided to him he was placed in Grade -C . Therefore, this office order marked as Ext . W - 2 speak clearly that his promotion as in ordinary course could not be given due to non - availability of the vacancy management provided him the priviledge of S. L.U. It is seen that the concerned

workman accepted the S.L.U. offered to him by the

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नईदिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2608.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रायल नेपाल एअरलाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नई दिल्ली- I के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/68/2000- आईआर ( सी- I ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June, 2005

S.O. 2608. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 121 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , New Delhi - I now as shown in the Annexure în theIndustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Royal Nepal Airlines and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-6-2005 .

[No. L - 11012/68 /2000- IR (C-I) ]

S.S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER: SHRIS . S. BAL L.D. No. 121/2000

In the matter of dispute between :

Shri Ashok Kumar,

Varisht Loader , and others , Through Shri J. P. Sharma, Chamber No. 320, Patiala House Courts , New Delhi

8159

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 11012/68/ 2000 - IR ( C - I ) dated 30-10-2000 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the demand of the seven workmen given in the list that they be regularised by the management of Nepal Airlines and Shri Ashok Kumar Varisht Loader be reinstated in service and regularised is legal ? If so to what relief the workmen are entitled to and from which date ?" "List.

1. Mr. Ashok Kumar Loader

w.e.f. 12-2-1993

Loader

w.e.f. 1-12-1995 2. Mr. S. Elango

w.e.f. 13-4-1996

Loader

3. Mr. L. D. Aryal

Loader

4. Mr. J. N. Sharma

w.e.f. 15-4-1996 5. Mr. B. R. Sharma Loader

w.e.f. 1-7-1996

Loader

w.e.f. 1-7-1996 6. Mr. B. P. Aryal

Loader

w.e.f. 5-7-1996 ." 7. Mr. A. Thapa

Applicant

Versus

Sh. M. B. Thapa,

The Regional Manager , M/s . Royal Nepal Airlines , 44, Janpath , New Delhi

.....Management

APPEARANCES :

Workman in person.

None for management

2. Brief facts of this case as culled from record i.e. statement of claim of workman and written statement are thatthe workman Ashok Kumar alongwith with six others namely Shri S. Elango , Shri L.D. Aryal, Shri J. N. Sharma, Shri B.R. Sharma, B. P. Aryal and Sh . A. Thapa were engaged as Sweeper- cum - loader and workman Ashok Kumar was working with respondents as Sweeper -cum- Loader w.e.f. 13-9-93 . All the other six persons are still working with respondent except Ashok Kumar workman. All the said workers have been working against permanent vacancies with the respondent and receiving their salaries but they are not being provided minimum wages though they are working for 12 to 16 hours daily . They are not being even paid overtime nor they are being given weekly and other facilities as permissible under the rules . The management is violating statutory provisions of relevant rules of Shops and Establishment Act and minimum wages Act and other local labour laws. All the six were employer on probation for one year except Ashok Kumar . The management was showing the workman as on daily rated wages and was not giving their wages/benefits , all the 7 workmen loaded their complaint on 6-1-99 to the Labour Commissioner, New Delhi during pendency of the complaint before Regional Labour Commissioner Central at Curzon Road Barrackes , New Delhi . The services of the workman Ashok Kumar was illegally terminated without notice and any enquiry or any proceeding i.e. without conducting any enquiry . He was not allowed to come inside the premises his pass was also snatched away and despite efforts by Labour Commissioner the workman was not taken back in service , while other workman were given appoinment letters for one year on probation . Their services 8160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

management- respondent and employee Shri Ashok Kumar if so its effect, OPW .

has not been regularised and workman Ashok Kumar has not been reinstate or taken back in service . It is further stated that the workmen are legally entitled to regularisation of their service and Ashok Kumar has also given notice dated 11-9-2000 of for reinstatement . Thus in view of the above submissions reinstatement of Ashok Kumar and regular- isation of other workmen is sought.

2. Whether the present proceedings are not maintainable for mis -description of the respondent/ management and non - compliance of Section 86 CPC and for want of seeking permission to sue the management/ respondent in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 86 CPC as alleged by the management/ respondent ? OPM .

3. In terms of reference ?

4. To what relief the workman Ashok Kumar is entitled to ?

3. Claim has been contested by the management by filing reply where in preliminary objection was raised that respondent has not been correctly described and its correct name of respondent management is Royla Nepal Airlines Corporation and not M/ s. Royal Nepal Airlines and that M/ s . Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation is a Foreign Sovereign since established by a statute of his Majesty and King of Nepal in the absence of consent/permission of the Central Government , no legal proceedings against the said corporation are maintainable in view of the prohibition as set out under Section 80 of CPC and as such reference is not maintainable . It is further stated that workmen Shri S. Elango , Shri L. D. Aryal, Shri J. N. Sharma, Shri B. R. Sharma, B. P. Aryal and Shri A. Thapa were being engaged by the management as and when there was requirement of Loaders due to extra flight as per exigency of load of work and not on regular basis and they approached for regularising them and on their request settlement was arrived at between them and the Management . Accordingly they are appointed as Loader on probation for a period of one year and subsequently they were confirmed in their employment vide management letter dated 20-6-2001 . In view of the above no industrial dispute as defined in Section 2K of the 1.D. Act is in existence in respect of said six workman and reference about other is bad and incompetent in law. As regards Shri Ashok Kumar , it is state that he was regular employed by the management and as such no relationship of master and servant ever existed between him and the management and he is not a workman as defined in Section 2( s ) of the I.D. Act .

4. Written statement was followed by replication wherein the contents of the written statement were denied and those of the claim statement were reiterated to be correct.

5. Thereafter evidence was recorded and workman filed Shri Ashok Kumar affidavit in evidence . The management did not prosecute its case and was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21-3-05 . Perusal of the record shows that above said workmen except Ashok Kumar are working with the respondent management and have been confirmed and there does not exist any dispute between them and the management.

7. As regards Ashok Kumar the stand of the management as per written statement is that he was not employee of the management and he has not worked with the management therefore , there cannot be any dispute between him and the management under Section 2 ( s ) of the I. D. Act but the workman has filed his affidavit wherein he claimed that he has worked under the management for 12 to 16 hours and he has not been given overtime and wages . He was forced to sign some documents and was not allowed to join duties . He has also filed documents such as letter as dated 13-1-95 written on the pad of respondent/management which is addressed to the Regional Director, India Delhi , mentioning that Ashok Kumar S/ o Manohar Lal is working with them on daily wages basis w.e.f. 12-2-93 as loader and during his tenure he had found him as hard working , sincere and punctual and taking his long service rendered to this organisation , he recommended him to be regularise his services on permanent basis . Similarly a letter dated 24-10-93 addressed to the Regional Manager . New Delhi signed by Station Manager , IGI Airport is also filed by the workman wherein it is mentioned that Ashok Kumar was engaged on daily wage basis as Sweeper/Loader at the Airport and office and while observing his performance, he was found very loyal , honest and hard working and due to shortage of man power he was engaged almost 12 hours at Cargo Unit . He was being paid less wages at Rs . 30 and his wages was recommended to be increased from Inr . 30 to 40 per day . From these letters Ex. WW 1/7 and Ex. WW1/ 8 coupled with the averments made in the affidavit of worker Ex . WWI /A it is proved that Ashok Kumar worked with the management and as such he was their employee and stand of management taken in the written statement that he was not employee of the management and did not work with them is incorrect.

6. The following questions arise for consideration in this case :

1. Whether there exists/ existed relations him of master and servant between the employer

8. As regards the objection that correct name of respondent is not M/ s . Nepal Airlines as depicted in the heading but is M/s . Royal Airlines Corporation and claim is , therefore, liable to be dismissed as the respondent has [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

not been correctly described it may be pointed out that the respondent Nepal Airlines Corporation has defended the case before the Labour Officer and in this Court and contested the case by filing written statement through its representative . Thus it is apparent that the respondent itself is described itself as Royal Nepal Airlines and not as RoyalNepal Airlines Corporation . Therefore, to my mind it has caused any prejudice to the respondent by not mentioning/using word corporation after the words Royal Nepal Airlines . The respondent cannot be said to be misled by not using the word corporation after Royal Nepal Airlines and describing it Royal Nepal Airlines only instead of Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation . In reply dated 3-10-2000 to the notice of the workman , the respondent has been described as Royal Nepal Airlines only by its manager Administration which is apparent from letter Ex. WW1 / 6 . Thus the management has been describing itself as Royal Nepal Airlines . Moreover , no prejudiced has been shown to have been caused to the Respondents management by the said mis-description. Second objection that no legal proceedings against the respondent corporation M / s . Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation can be instituted the same being the foreign sovereign established by statute of his majesty King of Nepal in the absence of consent/permission of the Central Government is also not maintainable in my view because the provisions contained in Section 86 CPC prohibits the institution of any suit in any court in India otherwise competent to try the suit except with the consent of the Central Government certified in writing by the Secretary to the Government. It is pertinent to refer herein the following observations of Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 1964 Supreme Court 444 ( V 51 C 53 ) Captioned the Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh Bahadur of Udaipur Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others .

"Section 86 , the provisions of which are applied in relation to the Ruler of any former Indain State by S. 87-B as they apply in relation to the Ruler of a foreign State, in terms protects a Ruler from being " sued" and not against the institution of any other proceeding which is not in the nature of a suit. A proceedings which does not commerce with a plaint orpetition in the nature of plaint , or where the claim is not in respect of a dispute ordinarily triable in a Civil Court , would prima facie not be regarded as falling with S. 86. The proceeding for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act is founded in a reference made by the local government under S. 10 and the allied section under the Industrial Disputes Actand is not commenced by a plaint or petition. An Industrial Tribunal is again not a Court within the meaning of Section 86, it is a Tribunal constituted for adjudicating industrial disputes . Section 86 of Code ofCivil Procedure excludes the jurisdiction of Civil Courts and must be strictly construed . It does 2061 GI /2005-23

8161

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

not therefore , debar the commencement of proceedings for adjudication of an industrial dispute between the Ruler of former Udaipur State in Rajasthan and his employees for two reasons ; neither party to the proceedings is " sued" by the initiation of the proceedings and the Tribunal is not a Court" .

9. Itis pertinent to refer to Section 86 CPC coupled with Section 87 CPC provides that the ruler of a foreign state may sue and shall be sued in the name of the State provided that in giving the consent referred to in Section 86 the Central Govt. may direct that the ruler may be sued in the name of Agent or in any other name . Thus provisions of Section 86 CPC prohibits the suing ofruler of a foreign state in any ( Indian) Court competent to try the suit without the consent of the Central Govt . in writing by a Secretary to that Government . The head of the Foreign State can be/ may be sued in the name of any Agent or any other name orDirector of the Central Government. The observation in the Supreme Court decision ( Supra ) also expresses the view that the said provisions of Section 86 and 87 CPC protects a ruler from being sued but these provisions are not against the Institution of any other proceedings which are not in nature of a suit . The present proceedings have beencommenced in the form by making of reference by the Central Govt. under ID Act, 1947 and are not in the nature ofa suit. The said provisions of the CPC do not debar the commencement of the proceedings for adjudication of industrial disputes between the ruler of any State . Moreover this Tribunal is not a court thus no trial of suit is being conducted by this Tribunal and the adjudication ofthe proceedings under the ID Act do not constitute trial of suit . As such Section 86 and 87 are not applicable to the said/present proceedings which are maintainable against the respondent . In my view the respondent corporation cannot be said to be State of Nepal which is only an organisation carrying on the function or operation through its official of India under the name and style of M/ s . Royal Nepal Airlines Corporation . Question No. 2 is decided accordingly.

10. From the above discussions it is apparent that no disputes exist between six workman namely Shri S. Elango , L.D. Aryal , J.N. sharma, B.R. Sharma , B.P. Aryal and A. Thapa as they have been confirmed and regularised and No Dispute award is passed in respect of the said six workmen named above .

11. Ashok Kumar workman has worked with the respondent and there exists relationship of employer. and employee between them and that he is entitled to reinstatement and regularisation as he worked from 12-2-93 till May 1999 and not allowed to work w.e.f. June , 1999. Reference is answered and Award is passed accordingly.

Dated: 25-5-2005

S. S. BAL, Presiding Officer 8162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

" Whether the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in super- annuating Smt . Dasi Mudin , Wagon Loader w.e.f. 2-12-91 is Justified ? If not , to what relief Smt . Mudin is entitled ? " .

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

का.आ. 2609.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 129/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/401/1994- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S.O. 2609. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 129/1995) 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 22-6-2005 .

[No. L - 20012/401/ 1994 - IR (C- I) ] S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

Present :

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE NO . 129 OF 1995

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned female worker got her appointment as wagon loader at Nichitpur Colliery on 19-11-1973 . they submitted that after her appointment management issued indentity card to her bearing No. C/ 9328 wherein her date of birth was recorded as 29-9-1947 . They submitted that Basdeo Modi , husband of the concerned female worker also was a workman in the same colliery and as per identity card his date of birth was recorded as 2-9-1940 . They disclosed that management issued service excerpt to the concerned female worker wherein her date of birth though recorded as 29-9-47. It was struck down and re - written as 42 years . They pointed out that in the Coal Mines Family Pension Scheme Form- 2 ( PEN) date of birth of the concerned female workers asrecorded as 29-9-47 . They disclosed that she raised her protest when management served superannuation notice to her wherein they informed her supperannuation willbe effected on and and from 1-12-1991 . Immediately, she submitted representation to the management through her union for rectification of her date of birth as 29-9-47 but as thatrepresentation did not yield any result she raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC (C) for conciliation . They submitted that as different date of birth of the concerned female worker were recorded in different registers of the management as per JBCCI Circular No. 76 her age could have been ascertained through Apex Medical Board but they refused to do so .

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their Workman.

APPEARANCES :

The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned female worker to her service treating her date of birth as 29-9-47 .

Onbehalf of the workman

: Mr. S.C. Gaur ,

Ld. Advocate;

: Mr. H. Nath ,

Onbehalf of employers

Ld . Advocate;

State

: Jharkhand

Coal

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad, the 8th June, 2005

AWARD

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/ 2101/ 94 . I.R. ( Coal - I) dated, the 10th October, 1995.

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 statement submitted for the concerned female worker . They submitted that the concerned workman got her appointment as wagon loader at Nichitpur Colliery on 19-11-73 and at the time of her entry in the service her date of birth was recorded as 42 years in the Form B Register which she authenticated by putting her LTI . They submitted that so long the said female workerremained in service did not raise any objection relating to her age recorded in the Form- B Register , Even after receipt of the service excerpt she also did not make any representation for rectification of her date ofbirth . Only after her superannuation she started [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

agitating and through sponsoring union raised an Industrial Dispute which in the eye of law is not at all tenable.

Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass award rejecting the claim of the concerned female worker.

4. POINT TO BE DECIDED

Whether the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in super- annuating Smt . Dasi Mudin , Wagon Loader w.e.f. 2-12-91 is Justified? If not , to what relief Smt . Mudin is entitled? " .

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

It appears from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined two witnesses as W.W. 1 & W.W. 2 including the concerned female worker . Management also inspport of their claim examined one witness as M. W. 1 .

Considering the evidence on both sides there is no dispute to hold that the concerned female worker got her appointment as wagon loader at Nichitpur Colliery in the year 1973. It has been disclosed by the sponsoring union that after getting appointment as wagon loader management issued identity card to her wherein alongwith other particulars her date of birth wasrecorded as 29-9-1947 . The said Identity Card during evidence of W.W. 1 was marked as Exhit . W/ 1 . It has been further disclosed that the concerned female worker since 1975 was member of C.M.P.F. and her CMPM A/ c No. was D/40/224 . They disclosed that in Form-2 (PEN) of CMPF Scheme 1971 her date of birth was also recorded as 29-9-47 . They further disclosed that in her service excerpt which was issued to her the same date ofbirth was recorded but after striking the said date of birth her age was written as 42 years as on 1973. They alleged that knowing fully well of her date of birth management issued superannuation notice by letter No. 2400/91 dt. 2-11-91 to the concerned female worker intimating her date of superannuation as 1-12-91 . On receipt of the said notice she not only raised protest but her union also took up her matter and wrote a letter dt . 1-12-91 to the management raising protest against that illegal notice of superannuation and also asked the management to place the concerned female worker before Apex Medical Board for assessment of her age .

It has been further disclosed that in the same colliery her husband also was an employee and as per indentity card issued in his favour his date of birth was recorded as 2-9-1940 . It is their contention that the concerned female worker was much younger to her husband and for which management illegally issued notice for her superannuation long before the date of superannuation of her husbad . In course of hearing the sponsoring union failed to produce the identity card of the husband of the concerned female worker . However, it has been admitted by the management that Basdeo

8163

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Modi , husband of the concerned female worker was an employee of Nichitpur Colliery and as per Form B Register his date of birth was recorded as 8-8-1938 . Considering this fact it is clear that husband of the concerned female worker was younger to her though as per her claim she was younger to her husband .

There is no reason to consider that wife should always be younger to her husband . However, when that specific claim has been made onus was on the sponsoring union to establish that concerned female worker was younger to her husband . As per Form -B Register date of birth of her husband was recorded as 8-8-1938. It is not the claim of the sponsoring union that said date of birth of her husband in her Form -B Register was wrongly recorded.

Their contention is when discrepancy in recording age of the concerned workman has been detected indiffernt registers it was responsibility of the management to arrange for causing appearance of the concerned female worker before Apex Medical Board for assessment of her age as per instructions given in J.B.C.C.I. Circular No. 76. They alleged that instead of doing so they superannuated her illegally , arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice .

On the contrary it has been specifically asserted by the management that at the time of appointment alongwith other particulars the age of the concerned workman was recorded as 42 years in the Form -B Register . They submitted that as per Mines Act Form -B Register is treated as statutory register and age recorded therein is binding on both sides . Apart from this fact they further submitted that in the year 1987 service excerpt was issued in favour of the concerned female worker wherein also her age was recorded as 42 years as on the date of appointment . They admitted that in the said service excerpt the date of birth was initially recorded as 29-9-47 but thereafter it was corrected and as per Form- B Register recorded as 42 years . It is their further contention that after receipt of the service excerpt she did not raise any dispute about her age recorded therein . On the contrary accepting that age recorded therein returned back the same to the management which proved that she had no dispute about her age recorded in the Form-B Register. Even after receiving superannuation notice she did not submit any representation raising dispute that she was going to be superannuated on the basis of wrong date of birth . They submitted that after superannuation she raised Industrial Dispute through sponsoring union with ill motive and for which the same can not be aceeded to .

There is no dispute to hold that in the Form - B Register age of the concerned female worker was recorded as 42 years as on the date of her appointment . There is no dispute to hold that as per Mines Act Form-B Register is . considered as a statutory Register and age recorded therein is binding on both sides until & unless it is established that the said age was wrongly recorded. There is no dispute 8164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

to hold that in the year 1987 management issued service excerpt to her wherein also the same age as per Form-B Register was recorded. The Form-B Register during evidence of MW 2 was marked as Exbt . M/2 . The name , other particulars including age of the concerned female worker were recorded in Sl . No. 18 and she put her LTI in the respective column of the said register accepting the particulars recorded therein. It is seen that in spite of receive in the service excerpt she also did not raise any dispute alleging that her age was wrongly recorded therein . During hearing the representative of the soponsoring union failed to give any satisfactory explanation in that regard which goes to establish that the concerned worker had no grievance about her age recorded therein . Accordingly, there is sufficient reason to believe that she has been estopped from raising any further dispute . In spite she raised the dispute after her superannuation relying on the age recorded in the I.D. Card issued to her (Exht . W/ 1 ) and C.M.P.F. Form. II ( Exht . W/3 ) I have carefully considered the entries recorded in the I.D. Card and on close secrutiny, it transpires that different ink had been used in making certain entries including date of birth and the same were written subsequently by fresh ink . Xerox copy of C.M.P.F. Form No. II was produced from personal custody of the concerned female worker and the same was not authenticated by any competent officer either of the management or of C.M.P.F. Officer. Accordingly, there is no scope to give much evidentiary value on these papers in absence of its support by any cogent document . The sponsoring union inspite of getting ample opportunity has failed to produce any authentic paper to show that date ofbirth of the concerned workman was 29-9-1942 .

It is seen that at least four/ five years before her superannuation she came to know that her age was recorded as 42 years in the Form-B Register but she did not consider necessary to raise her voice against the same . Even she failed to show a single serap of paper that she submitted representation raising her voice against wrong recording her age after receipt of the superannuation notice . Therefore , after superannuation the dispute which she raised is to be considered as state dispute particularly when she failed to submit any cogent reason why she kept herself silent fully so long she was in service .

Accordingly, in view of my discussion above I hold that the concerned female worker is not entitled to get any relief as the sponsoring union on her behalf has failed to substantiate the claim with reasonable certainity .

In the result the following award is rendered :

"That the action of the management of Nichitpur Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in super - annuating Smt. Dasi Mudin , Wagon Loader w.e.f. 2-12-91 is Justified?

Consequently, she is not entitled to get any relief . "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 24 जून , 2005

का.आ. 2610.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 290/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/25/2001- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 24th June , 2005

S.O. 2610.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 290/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-6-2005.

[No. L - 11012/ 25/ 2001 - IR (C- I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT , CHENNAI

Friday the 25th February , 2005

PRESENT :

Shri K. Jayaraman , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 290/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Air India Ltd. and theirworkmen)

BETWEEN :

: I Party/Petitioner Sri Oggu Peter Bose

AND

II Party/Management The Senior Regional Manager , AirIndia Ltd. , Chennai .

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner

: Mr. P.N. Prakash &Dr. G. Jayachandran, Advocates Forthe Management

: M/ s . Aiyar & Dolia& N. Krishnakumar, Advocates 8165 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide Order No. L - 11012/25/ 2001 - IR(C-I) dated 24-12-2003 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The schedule mentioned dispute in that order is

" Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd. , No. 19 , Marshalls Road, Egmore, Chennai , in terminating the services of Sri Oggu Peter Bose vide order dated 14-6-95 is just , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman enttitled?" .

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 290/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively .

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:-

All of a sudden, the Respondent issued charge sheet dated 6-1-94 and he was called upon to give his explanation to the charge sheet and not satisfying with his explanation, a domestic enquiry was ordered against the Petitioner and in the domestic enquiry four witnesses including the Petitioner were examined and the officers who have enquired the matter have reported that three chargés framed against the Petitioner have been proved and the Disciplinary Authority on 28-3-1995 accepted the Enquiry Officer's findings and dismissed the Petitioner from service . The Respondent authorities after passing of this order has filed a petition under Section 33 ( 2) ( b) for approval . But, since the matter has not been prosecuted , the application was dismissed on 28-10-96 . Even after that the Respondent has not reinstated the Petitioner in service and therefore , the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and while the matter was pending, the Respondent filed another petition before National Industrial Tribunal to re - hear the case and it was ordered . Subsequently , National Industrial Tribunal has permitted the approval application . Therefore the Petitioner has raised an industrial dispute before labour authorities and on the failure on conciliation , the matter was referred to this Tribunal. The Petitioner alleged that the order dated 8-10-98 passed by National Industrial Tribunal is illegal. Further, the Enquiry Officer has misconstrued the rule 'Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour ' In this case all the three acts alleged by the Respondent were admittedly prior to the Petitioner's joining the service of Respondent and therefore, the show cause notice and domestic enquiry stands vitiated . As regards the first indictment , the entire case was fabricated and he was acquitted by the Sessions Court , Krishna District as early as 26-10-88 and as regards the second indictment , the Petitioner was not prosecuted and the entire proceedings was closed as a mistake of fact' . As regards the third indictment, a combined reading of rule 13 and other relevant rules would go to show that discharge from army under Rule 13 (III) (v) is a non - event and cannot be construed as disgraceful ouster from army . Therefore, the mere incidents cannot form basis for his dismissal from service by invoking the clause ' Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour ' . Based on the incomplete and erroneous information given by the Collector ofMuchilipattinam, charges were framed against the Petitioner. Therefore , the entire proceedings of the Respondent and the enquiry were biased , pre - determined and further no fair opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross examine the witnesses and to put forth the case of the Petitioner effectively. In any event, termination of the services of the Petitioner is highly excessive on the ground that the punishment is disprotionate to the nature ofcharges . Hence , the Petitioner prays to quash the order ofdismissal dated 14-6-95 with consequential relief.

4. As against this, the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the Petitioner for the The Petitioner is a native of Nuzvid town , Krishna District in Andhra Pradesh and he joined Indian Army as a Sepoy in corps of Military Police on 20-4-76 . He was discharged from military service on 13-2-85 in terms of Rule 13 (v) of Army Rules , 1964 on the ground services were no longer required . After his discharge , he came to his native village and settled down in his parental home . On 7-10-85 Nuzvid police registered a case in Crime No. 171/85 and filed a final report in the Court of Judicial Magistrate I Class , Nuzvid for a offence under Section 419 . of IPC . The said case in C.C. No. 149/85 ended in conviction and the Petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs . 2000, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months . Against that order the Petitioner preferred a criminal appeals in C. A. No. 12/88 before Sessions Judge and the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the Petitioner from all the charges on 26-10-88 . The Petitioner fell in love with his sister's daughter Vijayashree . Subsequently , cloped with the said Vijayashree and married her without her parental consent . On the complain made by the father of Vijayashree , Nuzvid police have registered a case under Section 366 of IPC . On coming to know of this case , the Petitioner appeared before the Magistrate I Class , Nuzvid as man and wife and the case was dismissed as a mistake of fact . In the year 1990 , the Petitioner submitted as application to the Respondent for the post of security guared on sccing the advertisement . Subsequently , the Petitioner was appointed as security guard of Air India and was posted at Madras Meenambakkam airport on 6-9-1990. He has successfully completed probation without adverse remarks . While so , show cause notice was served on the Petitioner on 13-11-92 in which it was alleged that the Petitioner has suppressed two facts while filling up the pre - employment form of Air India and the Petitioner has submitted his explanation and the Respondent did not take any action for over two years .

8166

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

offence or fined in any Court of Law, it is clearly established that the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed the information in the attestation form by falsely entering the column as 'No ' and since particulars furnished by the Petitioner are not the correct but false , he has been awarded with the punishment . Further, the previous employer informed the Respondent that the Petitioner was discharged on the ground that ' service no longer required ' under Army Rule 13 III ( v) whereas the petitioner has mentioned that he was discharged on his own request . Therefore . having failed to furnish the correct information inthe attestation form, it is false to allege that the local authorities have furnished wrong information and report and on that basis , false charges have been framed against the Petitioner . Non- submitting of factual information on attestation form certainly false under clause of commission of any act subversive of discipline and good behaviour . The Respondent has lost confidence on the Petitioner to continue him in service and it is established before the enquiry that misconducts for which the Petitioner was charge sheeted were proved and in the enquiry . the Petitioner was given ample oppartunity to corss examine the witnesses, to produce discharge certificate from the previous employer that he was discharged on his request from the Indian Army and since he failed to produce the same , the enquiry Officer has come to a correct conclusion and therefore , the punishment imposed by the competent authority on the Petitioner is fair , proper and justified. If theTribunal comnes to a conclusion that the enquiry held inthis case is not fair and proper, the respondent craves the leave of this Tribunal to lead/adduce evidence before the tribunal to substantiate the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Hence , the Resondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

5. In these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner is just , fair and legal ? "

(ii) To what relief, the Petitioner is entitled ? "

Point No. 1 :-

advertisement issued by the Respondent for the post of security guard at Meenambakkam Airport applied for the same and after physical endurance test and interview , he was selected and appointed as security guard at Meenambakkam Airport . The Petitioner's probation period was held up for testimonial of his character and antecedent verification from the local authorities and previous employer . The District Collector of concerned area has informed the Respondent that the Petitioner was involved in two cases and registration of one more case was against the Petitioner. The previous employer also gave a report that the Petitioner was not discharged on his own request but on the ground his services no more required' . Therefore , the Petitioner was not confirmed in his service after six months as wrongly alleged by him . Because of the misconduct committed by the Petitioner even before joining the organisation by suppressing the fact while filling up the attestation form , the Petitioner was issued with show- cause notice dated 13-11-1992 . Since the reply was not found satisfactory , the Petitioner was issued with charge sheet dated 6-1-94 for the acts of commission and omission in attestation form dated 1-6-90 furnished by the Petitioner. Since the reply was not found satisfactory and since the furnishing of false information or suppression offactual information in attestation form would amount to disqualification and likely to render the candidate unfit for employment in the Respondent organisation , an enquiry committee was formed and enquiry was conducted following the principles of natural justice . It is false to allege that no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross examine the witness . Four witnesses were examined on the side of the Respondent/Management and Petitioner wasprovided with an adquate opportunity to examine the documents and to cross examine the witnesses to refute the charges . 21 documents were marked in the enquiry and based on the findings of the Enquiry Committee, 2nd show - cause notice was issued on 16-12-1994 . After receiving the reply , the competent authority passed an order imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on 20-3-95 . Even the Appellate Authority passed the final order confirming the order of competent authority , since his appeal was not found satisfactory . Since the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be a disqualification and would become unfit for employment in the Respondent organisation . The said act of suppression of factual information would amount to serious misconduct as per model standing orders applicable to the Petitioner. There is no infirmity or illegality in restoring the complaint petition by the National Industrial Tribunal . Since the appointment of the Petitioner was done based on the declaration furnished by the Petitioner on the attestation form and since wrong information furnished by the Petitioner in attestation form in Clause 12 would reveal that he has never been arrested or prosecuted or convicted in any Court of Law for any

6. This industrial dispute was raised by the Petitioner against the order of termination passed by the Respondent/Management . It is alleged by the Respondent that while furnishing the information at the time ofjoining the Respondent/Management service, the Petitioner has given false information or suppressed the factual information in the attestation form that he has not been arrested or prosecuted before that date and therefore , a charge sheet has been issued to him and after getting the explanation, which was not satisfactory , an Inquiry Committee was constituted and after following the procedures , the Petitioner was terminated from the services of the Respondent/Management as security guard.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8167 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

of dismissal order passed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. No witness has been examined on either side .

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground that he has given false information or suppression of factual information in the attestation form with regard to his arrest and prosecution and therefore , it amounts to disqualification and rendered the candidate unfit for employment in the Respondent organisation, but on the other hand, the Petitioner has not suppressed or given false information and therefore, the order passed by the Respondent authorities is not maintainable. It is further contended that Petitioner was charge sheeted on the ground that he has been prosecuted in C.C. No. 149/85 filed by Nuzvid town police station under section 419 of IPC and he has been prosecuted and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and fine of Rs . 2000/ - under section 248( 2 ) of Cr . P.C. by the 1st Class Judicial Magistrat , Nuzvid on 10-12-87 secondly he has also involved in criminal case registered under Crime No. 44/87 under section 366 IPC by Nuzvid Police Station , which was further tried in the Court ofFirst Class Magistrate , Nuzvid in C.C.No. 19/87; and thirdly , while filling column 11 ( a) of the Attestation form, the Petitioner has stated that ' individuals's request forwarded to CMP Canteen & School, orders passed by GOC of PH & HP area , Ambala Catt . " as reasons for leaving his earlier service in the Army , on the other hand, he was discharged by the order of an officer - incharge under the provisions of Army Rule 13 (III) ( V) as' service no longer required' . But, all these charges are baseless on the gound that the misconduct namely commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour cannot be applicalbe in this case because under no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the three alleged incidents fall within the frame work of the aforesaid rule . He further argued that the aforesaid rule comes into play only after person has become fullfledged employee of the Respondent and any act done by a person after commencement of employment with the Respondent/ Management if found to be subversive of discipline or good behaviour can form basis for departmenntal enquiry. In this case, all the three acts were admittedly prior to the Petitioner's joining the services of the Respondent and hence, show - cause notice and consequent doestic enquiry and confirmation order stand vitiated and therefore the charges framed against the Petitioner are not maintainable .

7. In this case , on the side of the Petitioner Ex . W1 to W13 were marked. Ex. W1 is the copy of order passed by Judicial Magistrate I Class , Nuzvid in C.C. No. 149/85 . Ex. W2 is the copy of judgement in C.A. No. 12/88 and Ex. W3 is the copy of show - cause notice issued to Petitioner . Ex. W4 is the copy of charge - sheet dated 6-1-94 issued to Petitioner and Ex . W5 is the reply given by the Peitioner to the charge - sheet dated 29-1-94 . Ex . W6 is the letter of Respondent to Petitioner with regard to appointment of enquiry committee. Ex. W7 is the copy ofreport of enquiry committee. Ex. W8 is the show - cause notice dated 16-12-94 issued to Petitioner . Ex . W9 is the letter from Respondent to the Petitioner and Ex. W10 is the letter from Vigilance & Security Division to Security Manager, Bombay , Ex . W11 is the representation given by the Petitioner to Respondent regarding proposed punishment . Ex .W12 is the copy of dismissal order dated 20-3-95 passed by Respondent/Management Ex. W13 is the Order dated 15-4-99 passed by National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai in Approval Application No. 32/95 . On the side of the Respondent/Management Ex. M1 to M25 were marked by consent. Ex. M1 is the copy of enquiry proceedings dated 2-5-94 . Ex . M 2 is the copy of charge sheet issued to Petitioner dated 6-1-94 . Ex . M3 is the letter ofRespondent to Petitioner with regard to constitution of Enquiry Committee. Ex . M4 is the copy of reply dated 29-1-94 given by the Petitioner to charge sheet . Ex . M5 is . the copy of attestation form dated 2-6-90 submitted by Petitioner. Ex. M6 is the letter dated 16-8-91 sent by Collector, Krishna District to Respondent. Ex. M7 is the letter of Record Officer, Sena Police Corps , Bangalore to Respondent/Management . Ex . M8 is the copy of order in Crime No. 44/87. Ex. M9 is the copy of letter dated 4-4-91 sent by Respondent to Corps of Military police Records . Ex. M10 is the judgement dated 26-10-88 in C.A. No. 12/ 88 and Ex . M11 is the copy of letter from Record Officer , Sena Police Corps , Bangalore to Respondent. Ex. M12 is the copy of letter dated 16-8-91 of District Collector, Krishna District to Respondent/Management . Ex-M13 is the copy of letter dated 26-2-91 from Respondent to Collector, Krishna District. Ex .M14 is the copy of letter from Respondent to Assistant Director (Security) Bombay, Ex . M15 is the extract of FIR in C.R.No 171/85 and 44/87 of Nuzvid police station . Ex . M16 is the copy ofletter dated 8-9-92 from Senior Record Officer, Sena Police Corps , Bangalore to Respondent/Management and Ex . M 17 is the extract of relevant pages of Army rules, 1954. Ex. M18 is the copy of letter from Security Officer to Vigilance Division and Ex. M19 is the copy of FIR in Telugu with translation into English . Ex. M20 is the copy of final statement given by Petitioner to Respondent/ Management Ex . M21 is the report dated 16-11-1994 of Enquiry Committee. Ex . M22 and M23 are letters from respondent to Pettioner dated 16-12-94 and 2-1-95 Ex. M24 is the copy of representation dated 30-1-95 from the Petitioner to Security Officer, Bombay. Ex. M25 is the copy

9. But on the other hand , the learned consel for the Respondent contended that worng information furnished by the Petitioner in the Attestation form in Clause 12 , which would reveal that he has never been arrested or prosecuted or Convicted in any Court of Law or fined in any Court of Law , would amount to his bad behaviour and it also reveals that the Petitioner has deliberately 8168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] suppressed the information in the attestation form by falsely entering the column as ' No. ' Since the particulars furnished by the Petitioner are not correct and the same are false and this false information in the attestation form certainly falls under the clause of commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour and since the Petitioner has not come forward to furnish the correct information which is required to be furnished , the Respondent/Management has lost confidence to continue him in service and therefore , the charges framed against the Petitioner are just and proper and it cannot be said that it is not maintainable .

probation period without any adverse remarks . After a long lapse of time , the Petitioner was charges sheeted and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the charges framed against the Petitioner have been proved and the enquiry was biased , predetermined and the findings are perverse and further no opportunity was given to the Petitioner to cross examine the witnesses examined on the side of the Respondent/Management and therefore , it is vitiated . He further stated that no doubt the charges were framed mainly based on the verification certificate issued by Collector of Muchilipattinam , who is the local authority , but the letter of the Collector does not contain the true state of facts and based on his incomplete and erroneous information , the Respondent/Management has proceeded against the Petitioner . The alleged verification report stated that the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and fined Rs . 2000/ - by I Class Judicial Magistrate. Nuzvid in C.C. No. 149/85 and later the conviction was reversed by the Court of Sessions . Krishna District . Vijayawada , whereas the true fact is the Petitioner was sentenced for a fine of Rs . 2000/ - under section 419 of IPC in C.C. No. 149/85 by Judicial Magistrate I Class . Nuzivid. which on appeal , was reversed by Sessions Court . Krishna Division in Criminal Appeal No. 12/88 on 26-10-88. Since the Petitioner bonafidely believed that having been acquittedfrom the charges , it is not necessary to elaborate the entire history in the attestation form and hence he has mentioned as ' no' in the column . With regard to second allegation mentioned in the charge sheet , though the case has been registered under Crime No. 44/87 in Nuzvid town police station and a calendar case was filed in C.C. No. 19/87 , the said case was closed as a mistake of fact and therefore , it must be deemed to be considered as no case at all Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Petitioner has been prosecuted for the offence under section 366 of IPC . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended thatunder Army Rule 54, 13 ( III) (v) mentions the grounds of discharge as ' All other classes of discharge' and in the column Competent Authority to discharge is 'Brigade sub Area Commander' and Column 4 mentions manner of discharge , wherein it is stated 'the Brigade or Sub Area Commander before ordering the discharge shall , if the Circumstances of the case permit , give to the person , whose discharge is contemplated , an opportunity to show cause against the contemplated discharge . In this case , though the Petitioner has mentioned in the attestation form that he has been discharged on his request , as his service has no longer required , he was discharged , it is alleged when he has not stated the reason for his discharge , they have interpreted this rule that under Army Rule 13 ( III ) (v) the employerhas stated that the remark's service no longer required ' and not on his own request and had further 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that with regard to first indictment , the Petitioner demonstrated that the entire case was fabricated and he was honourably acquitted by the Sessions Court . Krishna District as early as 26-10-88 and no stigma , whatsover can be attached to the Petitioner in respect of that incident. Similarly , with regard to 2nd incident , the Petitioner was not prosecuted in any Court of law and the entire proceeding was closed as a mistake of fact` . With regard to third indictment , the Petitioner has made a request to get discharged form the Indian Army and the authorities in excercise of powers under Rule 13 ( III) (V) of the Indian Army Rules , 1954 discharged the Petitioner from army serivce . A combined reading of rule 13 and other relevant rules would go to show that discharge from Army under rules 13 ( III ) ( v) is an non event and cannotbe construed as disgraceful ouster from the army and the authorities of the Respondent have misconstrued the legal position and had come to a wrong conclusion that Petitioner was discharged from the military service on some allegations. It is his further argument that with regard to the first indictment even if it was disclosed, it would not have disqualified him from the employment . The Petitioner also had a bonafide belief that the had not really screened or suppressed any vital information and since the application form contained objective type questions and without paying serious attention to the questions , the Petitioner mechanically ticked No and therefore , he has not committed any breach or suppressed any fract and these things had happened long prior to his application for the post under the Respondent / Management. With regard to second indictment , the Peittioner was not prosecuted at all and the case filed against the Petitioner was dismissed as mistake of fact and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the Peitioner has been prosecuted for an offence under section 336 of IPC and further with regard to discharge of Petitioner from army service , the respondent authorities have misstated the provision or rule and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that these acts of the Petitioner can fall within the clause commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour ' In this case , the Petitioner has successfully completed the 8169 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

though the Petitioner's Criminal appeal was allowed in the first indictment, even though the criminal case filed against the Petitioner under section 366 has been closed under mistake of fact, since the Petitioner has wantonly and deliberately suppressed the facts in the attestation form, he is not entitled to claim that he has not made any mistake and his act will not amount to serious misconduct as per model standing orders .

come to a wrong conclusion had the dischage been on the request of the Petitioner, it would have been shown under 13 ( III) (iv) and not under 13 ( III ) ( iv) . But Rule 13 ( III ) ( iv) will come into force only if the army man has made a request for discharge before fulfiling the conditions of his enrolment . but, in this case since the Petitioner has not made any request . before fulfilling the conditions of enrolment, he has been discharged under Rule 13 ( III) (v) and not under 13 ( III ) ( iv) and thus , the Respondent has misinterpreted the provisions of law and has come to a wrong conclusion and therefore , the charge framed against the Petitioner is not maintainable .

12. Again , the learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 2004 AIR SCW 2288 BHAGWAN LAL ARYA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE , DELHI AND ANOTHER wherein concerned police constable absented himself for two months , eight days and seventeen hours on medial grounds and while during the period, he remained under treatment of govt . Doctor and sent application for leave on medical grounds supported with medical certificates from competent medical authorities , in accordance with leave rules and also the competent police authority passed an order sanctioning leave without pay for the period of his illness as no other leave was due to him, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Petitioner from service on the ground that it amounts to grave misconduct, wherein the Supreme Court has come to the conclusion that " under no circumstances , this can be termed as grave misconduct or continued misconduct rendering him unfit for police service . " Similarly in this case , the Petitioner was selected as security guard and he has been successfully completed the probation period and after a longer number of years in the service of the Respondent/Management , the Petitioner cannot be dismissed from the service on the ground that he has suppressed certain facts in the attestation form .

11. On the other hand , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Enquiry Officer. since the Petitioner has given a wrong information in the Attestation form in Clause 12 , which would reveal that he has never been arrested or prosecuted of convicted in any Court of Law or fined in any Court of Law, it amounts to a wilful suppression of fact and this act is a deliberate act on the part of the Petitioner and he has falsely filled up the column as ' no ' and if the particulars were given with true fact, he must have thought , he would not have been employed in the services of the Respondent and therefore , he has wantonly suppressed the fact and falsely entered the column as 'no ' and therefore , the order passed by the concerned authority is just and proper . Further , it is contended on behalf of the Respondent that even in the first page of the attestation form warning is given to the applicant that those who have to make entries in the attestation form to the effect that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information would be disqualified and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment in the Respondent organisation . Under such circumstances , when the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed the factual information in the attestation form and falsely made an entry in the column, the action taken by the management is just and proper . It is a case not mere ' suppressio veri ' but one of ' suggestio falsi . ' The Petitioner having failed to fill up correctly the columns and according to the terms and conditions of the appointment the services of the applicant would be terminated without assigning any reason by giving one month notice or on payment of one months ' salary and allowances and hence the question of violation of principles of natural justice would not arise in this case . Further , without giving the correct information in the attestation form, the Petitioner wanted to allege that the local authorities have furnished wrong information and report about him and based on the wrong information , the Respondent/ Management has taken action against him . It is not correct to say that the local authorities have given wrong information with regard to the Petitioner . Even

13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the rulings of Supreme Court and High Court and argued that the Petitioner has suppressed the material information to avoid the situation of not being considered for the job and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the action taken against the Petitioner is not valid in law. The first case cited by the learned counsel for the Respondent is 2003 III LLJ 966 PRASADA RAO K. Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL ) GIDDDALUR SUB DIVISION AND OTHERS, wherein the Petitioner in that case has got appointment in postal department by saying 'No ' against enquiries in a form filled up by him for obtaining the job . The said enquiries were whether the candidate was ever arrested or prosecuted and in fact he had been involved in a criminal case and arrested and he challenged before the Tribunal and show cause notices issued to him and on the dismissal of O.A. by the Tribunal , the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh wherein , the High Court while dismissing the case of the Petitioner 2061 GI /2005-24 8170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

information which is required to be furnished, it must have lost confidence to continue him in service and that is why the order impugned clearly mentions about suppression " and therefore , upheld the order of termination . Thus , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that though the Petitioner has stated so many reasons for filling up the attestation form, it is clearly established that he has suppressed the fact that he has been prosecuted for an offence under IPC and he has been arrested and such things established the fact that he has deliberately suppressed the information in the attestation form and falsely entered the column as ' No ' and since he has failed to furnish the correct information, the action taken against him by the Respondent is just and proper . ' Under no stretch of imagination , it can be said that it is not legal or unjust or unfair and under such circumstances , this claim made by the Petitioner is not maintainable before this Tribunal . I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent.

14. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that the Petitioner bonafidely thought that having been acquitted from the charges and having been closed the crime against him on the ground of mistake of fact and though the incidents have taken place long prior to his employment, he thought it fit that these things need not be mentioned elaborately in the attestation form and this omission was not wilful , on the other hand, his services were unblemished under the Respondent/Management and . he has completed the probation period successfully and no remarks have been made against him during the probation period and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that his action warrants punishment of dismissal from service. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in any event, the termination of Petitioner's service for these charges is highly excessive and under Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act , this court has got power to quash the same on the ground that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is disproportionate to the nature of charges .

observed that " if as represented the Petitioner had suppressed the material information to avoid the situation of his not being considered for the job , he was not a truthful person and it would be safe not to have such a person in the employment " and the High Court further held that " it was not important whether the Petitioner got acquitted in the criminal case or not ? " In the second case relied on by the learned counsel for the Respondent is 2004 2 LLJ 482 B.R. CHOWDHURY VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD . AND OTHERS , wherein dealership was terminated on the information furnished by the appellants found to be untrue . Against that order, he has filed a Writ Petition and it went upto Supreme Court . The Supreme Court has held that "Indian Oil Corporation was well within the right to terminate the agreement for untrue and incorrect information in the application for dealership " . The third case cited by the counsel for the Respondent is reported in 2003 II LLN 523 KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND OTHERS VS. RAM RATAN YADAV. In that case an employee was appointed as Physical Education Teacher by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and he was terminated by the management on the ground that he had concealed the fact that he was prosecuted and a case was pending against him in the Court of Law . The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the order of the management . When the matter came up before the Supreme Court , the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgement of High Court and restoring the order of Central Administrative Tribunal observing that " a criminal case was pending against him, when the Respondent filled the attestation form in which by writing ' No ' against the relevant queries , he plainly suppressed the material information and made a false statement and hence, the termination of his service was justified. " Another case , relied on the Respondent counsel is reported in 1979 1 LLJ 421 T.R. BALAJI 'S: MANAGEMENT OF INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER , wherein an employee was terminated as per the terms of appointment for failure to disclose in the application form information regarding the employment of his father's step- brother in the service of the Bank . He has filed a Writ Petition before the High Court against the termination order, which was dismissed and the employce has preferred Writ Appeal and in that the Division Bench of the Madras High Court has held that "the order of termination in that case is not by way of punishment, where the services of a probationer was terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract " and in that case the Division Bench held that " the reason according to them is that the bank is an institution wherein confidence and confidence alone counts . Where , therefore , an employee

namely the Respondent/Bank is satisfied that the

15. Though , I find some force in the contention, on consideration of the entire evidence in this case, I find the Petitioner has deliberately suppressed the facts with regard to his prosecution and also arrest in the attestation form and thus , he has suppressed the material information to avoid the situation of not being considered him to the post of security guard and therefore, he was liable to be taken action by the Respondent/Management for the alleged charges . Since the Petitioner has not come forward to furnish the information, which was required to be furnished , the Respondent/Management has lost confidence to continue him in service of security post . Under such circumstances , I find there is no point in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Further in this case , the Petitioner hasnot completed the probation period as alleged by him . Only during the consideration of management, whether he applicant has not come forward to furnish an [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

has successfully completed the probation period, it was held up for testimonial of his character and antecedent verification from the local authorities and previous employers and under such circumstances , there is no point inthe contention of the Petitioner that he has successfully completed the probation period . Therefore, I find this point against the Petitioner. I hold the action of the Respondent/ Management in terminating the services of the Petitioner is just, fair and legal .

Point No. 2 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

16. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief. No Costs .

17. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 25th February , 2005 )

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :-

On either side :

None

Documents Marked :-

Date

Ex.No.

Description

W1 10-12-87 Xerox copy of the order in C.C. No. 149/85 .

W2 26-10-88 Xerox copy of the judgement in C.A. No. 12/88 .

W3 13-11-92 Хегox copy of the show cause notice.

Xerox copy of the charge shee. 06-01-94

W5 29-01-94 Xerox copy of the explanation to the chargesheet .

W6 08-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Regarding enquiry.

W7 16-11-94 Xerox copy of the report of enquiry Committee with Documents .

W8 16-12-94 Xerox copy of the show cause notice to proposed Respondents .

W9 02-01-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

W10 26-12-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Vigilance & Security Division to Secruity Manager of Respondent.

W11 30-01-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Security Manager of Respondent.

W12 20/28-3-95 Xerox copy of the dismissal order passed by Respondent .

W13 15-04-99 Xerox copy of the order of National Industrial Tribunal in A.A. No. 32/ 95.

For the II Party /Management :-

Ex.No. Date Description

M1 02-05-94 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings .

8171

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

M2 06-01-94 Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Petitioner .

M3 08-02-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner regarding Enquiry Committee.

M4 29-01-94 Xerox copy of the reply from Petitioner to charge sheet .

M5 02-06-90 Xerox copy of the attestation form submitted by Petitioner.

M6 16-08-91 Xerox copy of the letter of Collector, Krishna District .

M7 16-04-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Record Officer , Sena Police Corps , Bangalore.

M8 Nil

Xerox copy of the proceedings in C.C.No. 44/87 .

M9 04-04-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Corps of Military Police records , Bangalore .

M10 26-10-88 Xerox copy of the order in C.A. No. 12/88 .

M11 16-04-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Record Officer, Sena Police Corps , Bangalore .

M12 16-08-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Collector, Krishna District ..

M13 26-02-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Collector. M14 09-10-91 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Assistant Director , Security.

M15 Nil

Extract of FIR in C.R. No. 171/85 & 44/87.

M16 08-09-92 Xerox copy ofthe letter from Senior Record Officer to Respondent / Management.

M17 Nil

Extract of Army Rules , 1954 with notes .

M18 21-09-92 Xerox copy of the letter from Security Officer to Vigilance Department.

M19 Nil

Xerox copy of the Telugu FIR index translation .

M20 29-06-94/ 07-07-94

Xerox copy of the final statement of Petitioner given to Respondent/Management.

M21 16-11-94 Xerox copy of the report of Enquiry Committee.

M22 16-12-94 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner.

M23 02-01-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner .

M24 30-01-95 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Security Manager , Bombay.

M25 20/28-3-95 Xerox copy of the order of dismisssal passed by Respondent .

8172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 26 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2611.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं. I, चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 408/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/345/ 2000 - आईआर (डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 26th June , 2005

S.O. 2611. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 408/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No. I Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 26-6-2005.

[No. L -40012/345/2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 408/2001

Shri Ravinder Singh C/ o Shri R.K. Sharma , H. No. 372, Sector 20A , Chandigarh

Applicant

Versus

(1) The Chief General Manager , Telecom, Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160001

(2) The Principal General Manager , Telecom, Sector 18, Chandigarh 160001 APPEARANCES : Respondents For the workman Forthe Management

: Shri O.P. Singh : Shri Shiv Kumar & Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Govt. vide notification No. L -40012/345/2000/ IR (DU) dated, 28-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager , Telecom Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom , Chandigarh Distt. in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Ravinder Singh , a workman engaged through contractor M/ s . Gupta w.e.f.

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 27-2-99 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? " 2. Workman AR submits that workman is not contactinghim.nor available and old representative is also not traceable . It appears that workman is not interested . The management representative Shri Shiv Kumar submit that as per postal report workman is not available and he prayed for the dismissal of the reference. Statement of AR ofboth the parties recorded to the effect that old AR is not traceable and workman is not contacting himself to the union and the management has no objection .

In view of the submission of the rep.of the management and that of the workman who is now President ofthe Union Mr. O.P.Singh , it appears that workman is not interested and gainfully employed , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed file be consigned to record. Chandigarh. 20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2612.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट हेल्थ ऑर्गेनाइजेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. I, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011 /7/2000- आईआर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005

S.O. 2612. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air Port Health Organisation and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on27-6-2005 .

[No. L-42011/7/2000 -IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT , NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI S. S. BAL

I.D. No. 72/2000

In the matter of dispute between : Smt . Asha Rani ( Sweeper) ,

C/o. All India Port & Airport Health Employees Union,

Airport Health Organisation , Palam Airport . New Delhi - 110037 .

Workman 8173 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Versus

The General Manager ,

Airport Health Organisation, Delhi Airport, Palam Terminal - I , New Delhi - 110037.

Management

None

APPEARANCES :

AWARD

providing transport services by way of flight within the country and outside even if the claimant is employed at the domesticAirport of IGI , it is providing transport services to the member of the public by way of flight which is a systematic activity of providing transport services with the corporation between the workman and the employer and thus the Management/Respondent comes within the ambit of 'Industry ' as defined in Section 2(j ) of I.D. Act. It cannotbe taken out of the ambit of ' Industry ' simply because the airport is designated as domestic Airport . The Claimant isworking and doing the job of cleanliness for the premises ofthe Respondent . The workman is doing the work under the respondent which is an ' Industry' . Therefore this court/ Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the reference and this objection is nottenable in the eye of law .

1. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -42011 /7/2000/IR (DU) dated, 30-6-2000 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication .

5. Admittedly , the claimant is working with the respondent for the last 25 years and more . The department should sympathetically consider her case for providing her regular appointment of sweeper or any other suitable post if any post is available or becomes available in the near future.

"Whether the action of the Airport Health Officer, Airport Health Organisation, (Director General Health Services ), IGI Airport, New Delhi is not regularising the services of Smt . Asha Rani , Part time sweeper who has been working since 25 years is legal and justified, If not, so what relief the workman is entitled and from what date? "

Dated: 26-05-2005

S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2613.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट, औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय सं. II चंण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी- II/ 2005-06/301 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/20/2004- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th June , 2005 2. The workman Smt . Asha Rani has last appeared on 29-3-03 when the case was fixed for filing documents and admission/denial . Thereafter the workman has not appeared on subsequent on about 7 hearings including today . It appears that the workman , Smt. Asha Rani is not interested in the prosecution of this case . Management representative, Sh . Sanjay Aggarwal is also not appearing since 20-5-2004 and on subsequent about 5 hearings . It appears that neither the workman nor the management is interested in the prosecution of this case. The claimant Simt . Asha Rani has claimed in claim statement that she has been working as part time sweeper with the Respondent "Airport Health Organisation " for the last 25 years , which fact is not denied by the respondent . However some legal objections have been raised such as (i ) That the reference is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable at law . (ii) That the respondent Airport Health Organisation ' is under the control ofAirport Authority which appears to be part of Delhi Airport and this Court has not jurisdiction to determine the dispute of employees and respondent .

3. On merits it is stated in the written statement that there is no sufficient work at Airport as two part time sweeper are working there, one for domestic Airport and another for International Airport and rules do not permit the regularisation ofapart time sweeper into a full time sweeper.

S.O. 2613.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (No. CGIT = II/2005- 06/301 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. II Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2005 .

4. The Claimant is working with Respondent/ Management i.e. Director General of Health Services and is under the control of IGI Airport , New Delhi which is part and parcel of International Indira Gandhi Airport which is

[No. L - 12012/20/2004- IR (B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer 8174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II SEC . 3(ii )] ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- II , H. NO . 1228, SECTOR, 24- B, CHANDIGARH

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI KULDIP SINGH

Case No.L- 12012/ 20/2004 - IR(B-I)

Date of Institution 22-06-2004

misconduct which was deterimental to the Bank's interest and thattarnished the image of the Bank in the eyes of the public, therefore , ordered his removal from service vide orderdated, 28th of October, 2002. The workman preferred an appeal, against the order of the Disciplinary Authority , before the Appellant Authority - Deputy General Manager of the Bank . The Appellant Authority , after due consideration, rejected the appeal .

Date of Decision 31-05-2005

Satnam Singh S/ o Shri Amar Singh R/ o 107 - C , Hansi Road, Street No. 4 Karnal - 132001

Versus

State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Haryana . Panchkula.

Mr. Suman Sharma , Advocate to the workman

Mr. V.K. Sharma, Representative to the Management

AWARD

TheManagement answered para by para to the claim ofthe workman and denied the claim made by the workman in paras 3 to 11. The Management also denied the assertion that the charge sheet, issued against the workman, on 11th ofApril 2002, was in violation of the condition of service and was vague and not proper. The Management also requested to allow them to produce evidence , in case the Court comes to the conclusions that the inquiry against the workman is vitiated for any reason.

The Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012 / 20 /2004/IR (B -I ) dated , 26th May 2004, referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal- cum -Labour Court :

"Whether the action of Management of State Bank of India in removing the services of Shri Satnam Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh C/Clerk w.e.f. 24th of October , 2002 , is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the applicant is entitled to ?"

The reference was received in this Court on 21st of June , 2004 and it was entered in the concerned register . Upon notice , the parties appeared through their representatives . The workman filed claim petition on 19th of August , 2004 and the Management filed written statement on the next date . The workman did not file rejoinder and instead filed his affidavit on 24th of December, 2004. TheManagement also filed an affidavit in support of their claim on 11th of January , 2005 , along wit the documents , copies whereof were given to the workman.

In their written statement the Management claimed that the workman was working as Assistant Accounts/ Cash at ADB Indri Branch Karnal when he committed gross misconduct for which he was charge sheeted vide letter dated, 11th ofApril , 2001. The workman denied the charges. Thereupon a departmental inquiry was ordered by the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry was held after observing the principles of natural justice and fair play. The workman was afforded full opportunity to participate in the inquiry , cross - examine the witnesses . He was also provided with copies of all the documents , relied upon by the Management against the workman , that the Inquiry Officer found charges 1 , 3-6 , 8.1 to 8.3 and 10 proved , charges No. 7.1 , 8 and 4 proved partially . Whereas charges 2. 7.2 and 9.1 were not proved . The Disciplinary Authority , on the basis ofthe finding in the inquiry , decided to impose a punishment of" removal from services" upon the workınan, which was provided for gross misconduct in service and in that regard a notice was issued to him on 18th of July , 2002. The Disciplinary Authority , gave personal hearing to the workman and after consideration of all the record , came to the conclusions that the workman had committed serious

Here, we may record the claim made by the workman , in the statement of claim, filed on 19th of August 2004. The workman has claimed that he was a permanent employee of the Management and was working in ADB Indri Branch in Karnal District and he was subjected to the service conditions Governed by Awards and Bipartite agreement , that he was suspended on 2nd of November , 1999 and was charge sheeted on 11th of April , 2001 , after anunordinate delay, in violation of all services conditions . Otherwise, also the charge framed against him was vague and not proper and the allegations were wrong . He further claimed that the Management ordered an hoax and eye wash inquiry against him . The Enquiry Officer appointed, admitted the documents against the workman even when those were not proved by the witnesses of the Management nor the report of Fact Finding Enquiry , was produced in the proceedings . The workman further claims that the customers of the Bank, whose accounts are alleged to be, defrauded by him, were not produced as witnesses . The inquiry report is full of contradictions and was not based onfacts brought on record. Otherwise also the allegations were proved by the Inquiry Officer on the basis of conjectures and surmises . The Enquiry Officer also did not provide the chance to the workman to cross - examine the witnesses of Management. Also did not bother to consider the plea , made by the workman . He also travelled beyond the charges, framed against the workman . The record shows that some of the allegations were not even levelled in the charge sheet . The lapses made by the Management were noticed by the Inquiry Officer, who noted that the Management failed to lodged FIR of the occurrence . Similarly , Disciplinary Authority did not apply its mind and awarded highest penalty without any rhyme or reason . The workman further challenges the report of inquiry and the order made, by the Disciplinary Authority , as non- speaking and based upon the notions of predecessor of the InquiryOfficer. The workman was allegedly made to sign on blank papers . The minutes of the inquiry proceedings were dictatedby the Management and the workman was made to sign thereon . The Appellant Authority also dismissed the appeal without considering the submissions made by the [ भाग II.- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

workman. The workman has prayed for holding that the action oftheManagement is illegal , invalid and arbitrary.

The workman has come to this Court for passing an Award holding that the action of the Management in removing him from services , is illegal, invalid and arbitrary, that the punishment awarded to him is illegal , unjustified and unsustainable in the eyes of law . He has prayed for the relief of all consequencial benefits , which he would have been entitled to, had the order impugned was not there. The reference, made by the Government of India, also relates to the question whether the termination of services of the workman Satnam Singh w.e.f. 29th of October 2002 was or was not just and legal and in case the Tribunal comes to the conclusions that the order was unjust and illegal, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?

The workman has based his claims on the grounds thatthe Management, in violation ofhis service conditions, took one and a half year to issue charge sheet against him and thereby committed the lapse of long delay, to the prejudice ofthe workman . They further committed the lapse by issuing a vague and improper charge sheet . The Management also failed in its duty when malafidely ordered hoax and eye wash inquiry . the Inquiry Officer admitted the documents , produced by the Management , although the samewere not proved by the witnesses of the Management. The report of the " Fact Finding Officer" was not produced in the inquiry , although disciplinary action was initiated against the workman on the basis thereof. The Management also did not produce Mr. Soni , the " Fact Finding Officer" as witness in the case nor any of the customers of the bank , whose accounts were alleged to have been defrauded by the workman, were examined as the witness .

The further claim of the workman, is that the Enquiry Officer, has not based his report on the evidence produced and has relied upon the statement of the witnesses who made contradictions in their statements . The enquiry is Based upon conjectures and surmises and is made by relying upon the documents the veracity of which was not allowed to be tested by the workman on the touch - stone of cross- examination. The Enquiry Officer also travelled beyond his jurisdiction and recommended major penalty onthe basis of allegations which were not even levelled in the Charge Sheet against the workman . It is alleged that the Inquiry Officer did not observe the principles of natural justice as he tried to prove the charges by hook or by crook . He admitted the lapse on the part of Management for failing to have obtained the opinion of hand writing expert or Forensic Science Scientists . The Management also failed in its duty, by not lodging FIR. The order passed by the Enquiry Officer is non - speaking, bad for having been based upon the observations of his predecessor disciplinary Authority , although the observations of his predecessor were not made part of record.

It is also the case of workman that the Disciplinary Authority gave an eye wash personal hearing . He was made to sign on a blank paper on the plea that the signatures are being taken to acknowledge his presence in the proceedings.

8175

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

The minutes were recorded by the Manager , Disciplinary Procedure Cell . Similarly the Appellent Authority, also did not pass speaking order nor be considered the material available on record before passing the order. Even otherwise the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the alleged conduct of the workman.

The management has disputed all the grounds taken by the workman, in his statement of claim . The workman has filed his Affidavit supporting his claim whereas the Managementhas filed the Affidavit of their Deputy Manager Personnel Section, Region -3 Sh . O.P. Sonalia. From the pleadings of the parties the facts which emerge out as . undisputed are that the workman was posted as Assistant (Account/ Cash) at ADBS, Indri Branch , District Karnal of Management Bank in the years 1998-99 , when he is alleged tohave committed gross misconduct, as detailed in the charge sheet, served upon him, vide letter ofDisciplinaryer of Disciplinary Authority , bearing No. DGM/HARA/DPS/752Dated 11th ofApril, 2001. Asmany as ten charges were levelled against the workman. The Enquiry Officer , conducted the inquiry and made the report whereby he reported that charges bearing Nos . 1,3 , 4, 5, 8,1,8.3 and 10 were proved against the employee proceeded against (EPA) . He further held charges bearing Nos . 7.1.8 and 4 having been proved partially. According to him charges bearing Nos . 2,7. 2,9.1 were not proved.

The workman, in the statement of claim , has not denied that a domestic inquiry was held against him in which he appeared and presented his case. He has also not denied that he was given personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellant Authority . He has only alleged that the personal hearing givento him were shame; that he was served with a delayed charge sheet; the charge sheet was vague and improper ; thatthe Management withheld important piece of evidence , like the report of " Fact Finding Officer '" . They also did not examine as witness the officer who conducted the Fact Finding Enquiry , Sh. Soni , that the Enquiry Officer based his report, on the evidence which is full of contradictions , conjuctures and surmises ; upon documents which were not proved; that the submissions made by the workman were not duly considered and the Enquiry Officer Travelled beyond his jurisdiction, by recommending a major penalty against the workman . He made recommendation upon the allegations which were not even part of the charge sheet ; that the Enquiry Report was bad since the opinion of the Forensic Scientists and Hand Writing Expert was not taken. The Disciplinary Authority did not apply his mind , before taking his decision and passed the order on the observations made by his predecessor, that the order of Inquiry was non - speaking .

In the statement of claim the workman has not specified as to which part of his evidence was not considered by the Enquiry Officer . He has also not shown as to which of the documents were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer for proving the charges against him and were not duly proved. About the allegation that the report of the Fact Finding Officer was not made part of the proceedings nor the Fact Finding Officer 8176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Sh . Soni was examined as witness in the case . The perusal of Enquiry Report shows that the Disciplinary Authority did not base his report on the report of the Fact FindingOfficer. It is settled principle of law that it is optional with the person/authority who wants to prove a case . to choose which of the evidence he would rely upon, in support of his case and the otherside cannot force such a person/authority to produce such and such evidence and in such and such a manner , as pleased to him . Here if the Presenting Officer choose not to produce the report of Fact Finding Officer , against the workman, it cannot be read against the Management . If the Fact Finding Enquiry report was in favour of the workman , what prevented him , from seeking the directions of the Enquiry Officer , to get the report of Fact Finding Officer placed on the record. In my opinion this allegation of the workman is without any merit.

circumstances in which he had executed those documents . The allegation of inducement and coercion came to the mind of workman only at the time he replied to the notice , issued by the Disciplinary Authority. purposing a particular punishment, after holding him guilty of gross misconduct . on 1st of August . 2002 and thereafter at the time of his filing appeal before the Appellant Authority , on 10th of December , 2002, that is , almost after two years of executing the documents exhibits P - 6 , P - 7. P- 8 and P - 9 . Thus the allegation is after thought and manipulated . He has not shown as to who induced him and with what reward and who caused him coersion. He has also not shown as to why he did not level the allegation of coercion and inducement , during the Enquiry even when Sh . K.R. Yaduvanshi , PW-2 appeared as a witness for the Management and proceed documents P-6, P-8 , P - 9 claiming that those documents were executed by the workman in his presence. The workman also did not allege , what to talk ofproved, the malafide on the part of Sh . K.R. Yaduvanshi to make such a statement against him . The account of the workman collaborates exhibit P - 7 to P - 9 . There is , therefore, ample evidence on record to show that the workman made ommissions and commissions while posted in the ADP . Indri Branch of Sh . District Karnal , as was alleged and proved by the Enquiry Officer. I do not find any lapse committed by the Enquiry Officer, in coming to the conclusions, arrived at by him during the inquiry and the charge in this regard has been proved on the basis of the evidence available on record .

It is true that the Management did not produce any ofthe account holders , whose bank accounts were alleged to have been defrauded by the workman , produced as witnesses in the case. Incidentally one of the account holder died before the proceedings culminated against the workman. In my opinion there was not necessity to examine the account holders as witnesses , in the Enquiry since the Management produced the detail of transactions. in the accounts of customers in the books of Bank , whose accounts were alleged to have been defrauded . Besides the workman Satnam Singh, in his own hand writing and in presence of Sh . K.R. Yaduvanshi , admitted, before Shri B.L Arora , Branch Manager , that Sh. Pritam Singh account holder No. 1967 was his distant relation; that whenever he was in need of money , he withdraw money from the account of Shri Pritam Singh , by signing as Pritam Singh such as on 31st of March, 1999 an d 16th of August, 1999 , and he returned the money to Pritam Singh later on . He further admitted that he had made the entry for an amount of Rs . 17,000 in the said account and in the account No. 8072 entered withdrawal that he owed 30,000 rupees to Pritam Singh and after the payment thereof, account of Pritam Singh will be clear. He begged excuse from the Branch Manager, for his lapses .

The workman , neither in the statement of claim nor in hisAffidavit or at any other stage ever alleged that he had not executed documents Ex . P -6 , P - 7 , P - 8 and P - 9 , in presence of Shri K.R. Yaduvanshi or that the said documents were not in his hand writings or that the said documents were written by him under duress or coersin . Now it does not lie in the mouth of the workman to say that there was necessity for production of account holders , whose accounts were alleged to have been defrauded, as witnesses in the inquiry . The matter got clinched when the workman admitted his commissions and ommissions before theBranch Manager. It is a different matter that the workman later on, by another letter dated 7th of February, 2000 , exhibit P- 1 denied all the allegations levelled against him , without making any reference to his earlier written statement dated 18th of October , 1999 , exhibit ED - 6 , P - 7 , P- 8 . P - 9 . The workman also did not stay as to what were the

The workman has challenged the decision of Disciplinary Authority and of Appellate Authority , also on the grounds that a delayed charge sheet was served upon him which was vague and improper ; that the report made by the Enquiry Officer was based ; upon unproved documents ; that the evidence upon which was based that report of enquiry officer, decision of the Disciplinary Authority, was full of contradictions , conjecturers and surmises , therefore , bad in law . It is also claimed that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Inquiry Officer did not take pains to get the opinion of the Hand writing Expert and Forensic Scientist to assess the evidence against the workman . I have considered these submissions in co- relations with the evidence brought on record . I do not understand what more specific charges , the workman could expect when a simple reading of the charge sheet framed against him, clearly show as to what was the lapses committed by the workman while working as Assistant in the Indri Branch of the Management Bank. The workman has also failed to show me which are the documents , as stated earlier, not proved but skill relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and then by the Disciplinary Authority . As stated earlier when the workman admitted the execution of documents P -6 , P -7 , P -8 and P - 9 , there was no necessity to look for other documents and to get them proved. The workman admitted to have meddled with the accounts of customers , including that the Pritam Singh , then where was the necessity to examine Pritam Singh or other customers about the allegations they made and the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

transactions in their account . Despite that the Management examined S / Shri B.L. Batra and K.R. Yaduvanshi as their witnesses who proved the transactions , made by the workman , while posted in ADB Indri Branch of the Management Bank . The workman, the enquiry record shows , had full chance to cross -examine these witnesses and his defence representative , Sh . Batra , did his job very well by putting a number of searching questions to those witnesses, though the same did not prove to be of any help to the workman . On the perusal of the record I am satisfied that the claim of the workman that he was issued a vague and improper charge sheet is not of any merit . He has also failed to show me that he has been prejudiced, by so called delayed charge sheet and reliance of Managements documents against him.

The workman has also made contradictions in the statements of the witnesses of the Managements and conjectures and surmises , as the ground of attack which the workman claims has been given weight by the Enquiry Officer, so as to reach the conclusions . The workman has lost the right that it was not a judicial inquiry rather a domestic inquiry, done by the Officers of the Management . What could benefit the workman is the proof of violation of any natural justice by the Enquiry Officer while conducting the proceedings . As against to it the record of the Enquiry Proceedings show that the Enquiry Officer followed the procedure and respected the principles of natural justice . On 26th of June , 2001 when the workman due to his ill health , could not appear in the inquiry, no proceedings were conducted . Similarly on other occasions the proceedings were done well in presence of Inquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer, Defence Representative and the workman , who acknowledged their participation by putting their signatures on every page of the Enquiry proceedings . The Enquiry Officer also further took the care to not down the statements of the witnesses in their language, that is why, many of the statement were recorded in Hindi . The Inquiry Officer therefore , conducted the inquiry consciously and I have not found any instance where the workman was prejudiced by the conduct of the InquiryOfficer.

It has already been said that it was optional with the Management to produce the evidence , they choose, the best. If the Management failed to get the opinion of the hand writing expert of the Forensic Science Expert , it did not matter much especially when the workman made his breast clean by admitting the transactions in the defrauded accounts . Same can be said about the non- registration of FIR in the case, as the Management was in the commercial field and involvement of police in the working of the commercial institution is not seen with favour by anyone . If the Management decided not to lodge the FIR in the case it has not prejudiced the workman , rather saved him from additional inconvenience .

There is also no basis for the claim that the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority passed non -speaking orders ; and that the Disciplinary Authority based his order on the opinion of his predecessor . The following 2061 GI /2005-25

8177

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

observation ofthe Disciplinary Authority believe this claim of the workman. In para No. 3rd of the report the Disciplinary Authority observed as under :

I have gone through the submissions made by Sh . Satnam Singh, during the personal hearing held on 8-10-2002 and the written submissions submitted by him in the personal hearing. I have also again gone through the entire record , the enquiry proceedings / report . I do not find any reason to alter the tentative decision and have finally decided to " Remove " Sh . Satnam Singh from Bank's service in terms of para 521 (5 ) of " Sastry Award " read with Para 18.28 of " Deasai Award " and Para 15 Sub Para (IV) (b ) of the sixth Bipartite Settlement " dated 14-2- 95 from the date of receipt of final order by Sh . Satnam Singh , which decision I hereby order. While the suspension period of Sh . Satnam Singh shall be treated as such and EPA will not be paid anything more than he has already received by way of subsistence allowance .

From the above observations it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority applied his mind before reaching the conclusion arrived at by him. The reference made by him about the tentative decision arrived at by his predecessor was only to show the proceedings done by his predecessor. It no way shows that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply his mind to evidence before taking the decision of removing the workman from the services. This claim of workman thus fails .

The workman has claimed that the Disciplinary Authority had obtained his signatures on a blank paper without showing as to when it was done . He has also failed to show what document was prepared on that piece of paper against the workman. Moreover , the workman is definitely a literate person who was working in the bank by then for quite some time . How could it be expected that he would have put his signature on a blank sheet especially when it is proved that he had such an enormus capability to commit fraud in the accounts of customers of the Bank to his benefit.

Before I examine the last claim of the workman it would be obligatory to examine the law produced by the parties in support of their respective claims .

The learned counsel for the workman submitted that this Tribunal has enormous powers to set aside the order of punishment passed against the workman in case the order is shown to have been passed upon a report which is contradictory in itself and has been found to be actuated with an ulterior motive . He has relied upon a judgment reported as 2001 ( 1 ) Service Cases Today 301. I have gone through this authority. It was a case where there was sufficient evidence on record to hold that the Inquiry Officer was biased against the person proceeded against , and there were violations of principles of natural justice . Here the workman has failed to show that how and when the Enquiry Officer Committed, violations of principles of natural justice; and that the Enquiry Officer or for that matter, the DisciplinaryAuthority, was biased against him . Neither in 8178

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

conclusion whether or not the delinquent has committed misconduct .

In case of Union of India and Others V/ s B.K. Srivastave reported as AIR 1998 Supreme Court 300 , their lordships laid down the followings:

his pleadings nor in his statement before the Court , he made any such allegations . It is another matter that at a later stage, he levelled the allegations of non -considerations of evidence of the workman , non -application of mind and baised report , prepared on the basis of contradictory evidence, conjectures and surmises. This changed attitude was after thought .. still nothing has been shown to support thisallegations .

As against to it the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a judgment reported as AIR 1996 S.C. 1232 laid down the law as under:

Administrative Tribunals Act ( 13 of 1985 ) , S. 14 - Judicial review Powers of Tribunal Tribunal cannot sit in appeal against order of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities- Enquiry proceedings not violative ofprinciples of natural justice-Enquiry held in accordance with Rules-Disciplinary Authority duly considered report of Enquiry Officer and examined whole of enquiry proceedings-Being satisfied that charges are proved imposed penalty of dismissal-Appellate Authorityby reasoned order was also satisfied that Delinquent Officer was guilty or charges for which he imposed penalty of dismissal- There is no abuse of powers by Disciplinary and Appellate Authority-Tribunal setting aside enquiry report and dismissal order- wrongly exercised its jurisdiction .

The workman has relied upon the judgement of Haryana and Punjab High Court reported as 2001 (4) SCT 936. In that case the Enquiry Officer had taken into consideration the past record of the Delinquent Official regarding which there was no charge served upon the official. It was in those circumstances the Hon'ble High Court held that termination of service in such an inquiry is bad being in violation of principles natural justice. In the present case Enquiry Officer did not base his report on a material which was not made the basis of the charge against the Delinquent Officer .

It is settled law that the Tribunal has only power of judicial review of the administrative action of the appellant on complaints relating to service conditions of employees . It is the exclusive domain of the Disciplinary Authority to consider the evidence on record and record findings whether the charge has been proved or not. It is equally settled law that technical rules or evidence has no application for the disciplinary proceedings and the authority is to consider the material on record . In judicial review , it is settled law that the Court or the Tribunal has no power to trench on the jurisdiction to appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own conclusion . Judicial review is not an appeal from the decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made . It is meant to ensure that the delinquent receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches at , it necessarily correct in the view of the Court or Tribunal . When the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence , Tribunal is devoid of power to re - appreciate the evidence and would come to its own conclusion on the proof of the charge. The only consideration the Tribunal has in its judicial review is to conclude whether the conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence .

InIn another judgment reported as ` 2003 ( 2 ) Recent Service Judgements the Apex Court laid down as under:

The reliance of the workman on the judgment reported as Ajit Jain versus National Insurance Company , reported as 2003 ( 4 ) Service Cases Today Page 600 , is also ofnot help to the workman for the reason that in that case the Apex Court had noticed an informity in the proceedings . However , in the present case the workman has failed to show me that he had accrued some informity in the proceedings ; hence the inquiry report based thereupon is bad in law . I have gone through the proceedings and am of the opinion that Enquiry Officer had taken care of principles ofnatural justice, in conducting the inquiry, therefore , the report is free from any informity .

Constitution of India . Article 226 - Judicial Review - Scope - Judicial review is not kin to adjudication of the case on merits as an Appellate Authority - Review by the Court is of decision making process and where the findings ofthe Disciplinary Authority are based on some evidence , the Court or the Tribunal cannot re- appreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings.

Disciplinary enquiry - Evidence - Standard of proof - in case of disciplinary inquiry the technical rules of evidence have no application -The doctrine of proof beyond doubt has no application- Preponderance of probabilities and some material on record are necessary to arrive at the

The counsel for the workman lastly argued that the punishment awarded to the workman is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct of the workman . I have considered this submission also carefully . There is not denying of the fact that the working of the Financial Institutions much depend on trust the depositors impose in the financial institution . The trust can be maintained only if the Financial Institution takes good core of the deposits made by the Account Holders and they are paid back their money along with interest at a time when they needs it . What can be the facts of account of that depositor [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

with which the employee of that institution medals . It comes as a shock to the depositors when he finds that the amount depositedby him has been withdrawn by an unauthorised person without his knowledge. The trust, the depositor imposes in the institution gets shattered on getting such as information and in the present case of conduct of the workman clearly exhibited that the account of the any of the depositor was not safe in such a bank . In that situation can such an employee should be retained who creates mistrust in the minds of the depositors of the Bank, retained in service . The answer is big no . In my opinion, the punishment awarded to the workman is well proportionate to the conduct of the workman . The Bank, by not lodging criminal case against the workman , in my opinion, save him from further embrasement and may be from the conviction especially in the circumstances when he admitted to have defrauded the bank by forging the signatures of the AccountHolder.

After due consideration of pleadings of the parties, the submissions made by them . I am of the considered opinion that the management of State Bank of India was . well justified to remove the workman from their services and the order passed by them is legal in the eyes of law . Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered in these terms . Let the copy of the Award be sent to the Appropriate Government for necessary action and file be consigned to record after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 27 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2614.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 141/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40012/583/2000 - आईआर( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th June, 2005

S.O. 2614. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 141 / 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2005 .

[No. L -40012/583 /2000- IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

8179

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. L.D. 141/2001

Shri Mukhtiar Ram C/o Shri R.K. Sharma , H. No. 372, Sector 20A, Chandigarh .

......Applicant

Versus

(1 ) The Chief General Manager , Telecom , Punajb Circle, Sector 34 , Chandigarh 160001

(2) The Principal General Manager , Telecom , Sector 18, Chandigarh 160001 .

Respondents APPEARANCES :

Forthe workman

: Shri O.P. Singh

For the Management : Shri Shiv Kumar& Anish Babbar

AWARD

Passed on 20-5-2005

Central Govt. vide notirication No. L-40012/583/2000/ IR (DU) dated 26-3-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom , Chandigarh Distt in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Mukhtiar Ram , a workman engaged through centractor R.K.Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-99 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? " 2. Workman AR submits that the workman is not contacting him nor available and old representative is also not traceable. It appears that workman is not interested . The management representative Shri Shiv Kumar submit that as per postal report workman is not available and he prayed for the dismissal of the reference Statement of AR ofboth the parties recorded to the effect that old AR is not traceable and workman is not contacting himself to the union and the management has no objection .

In view of the submission of the rep.of the management and that of the workman who is now President ofthe Union Mr. O.P.Singh , it appears that workman is not interested and gainfully employed, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed file be consigned to record.

Chandigarh

20-5-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 8180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 28 जून , 2005

(Construction) and their workman . The dispute referred is:

का. आ. 2615.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार श्रम न्यायालय , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 12/1995 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Executive Engineer ( Constn . ) S. Rly . , Podanur in terminating the services of the workman viz . C.R. Unni working underPWI /Palghat w.e.f. 3-7-84 without complying the provisions of the ID Act , 1947 Indian Railway Establishment Manual is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?" [सं. एल-41012/105/95- आईआर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 28th June , 2005

S.O. 2615. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( I.D. No. 12/1995 ) of the Central Government /Labour Court , Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of S. Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-6-2005 .

2. The union filed claim statement raising the following averments :- The workman Mr. C. R. Unni was employed as a casual Labour under permanent way Inspector Cochin /Palakkad . His services were continuous and uninterrupted ever since the date of appointment on 3-1-1984 . He was drawing Rs . 780/- per month, at the time of termination while working. So the services of the workman was terminated on 2-7-1984 without seating any reasons . No compensation or on notice pay was offered to the workman at the time of termination of service . No allegations were raised against the workman atany point oftime. Hence the action of the management terminating the services of the workman is unjustified, unsustainable and against the existing provisions of industrial disputes Act .

[No. L-41012/ 105/ 95 - IR ( B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

The workman is not alternatively employed anywhere , since the date of termination. He is finding if very difficult to pull on his huge family without any earnings.

ANNEXURE IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM (In the Labour Court , Ernakulam)

(Monday , the 28th day of February , 2005)

It istherefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an award directing the management to reinstate the workman with full backwages and continuity in service .

Present: Sri K. K. UTHARAM, B. Sc . , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

3. The management filed written statement raising the following contentions : It is submitted that Sri C. R. Unni , Project Casual Labour under this respondent , on daily rate ofpay Rs. 13/- per day with effect from 22-12-83 and he was retrenched from service on 2-7-84, along with the other 379 such daily rated casual labourers for want of work with L.T.I. No. 517.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 12 of 1995 ( Central) BETWEEN The Executive Engineer ( Construction) , S. Railway , Podanur , Tamil Nadu. AND The workman of the above concern represented by the General Secretary , Dakshina Railway Casual Labour Union, Edapally North , Cochin-682024, Kerala State .

Representations :

ForManagement

Sri P.M.M. Najeeb Khan , Advocate . Ernakulam.

In O. P. No. 7570 of 1987 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala defined that it is well established principle of Industrial Law, Industrial Court , Tribunal authorities do not entertain Stale ' claims . According to the above decision the maximum period of entertaining a stale claim is 4 years . As such this stale claim is 10 years old thus the claim is liable to be dismissed in` limini ' . The photocopy of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerela is produced herewith and marked as exhibit R.I.

For Union

Sri Paulson C. Varghese , Advocate . Ernakulam.

AWARD

The applicant of Sri C. R. Unni , Project Casual Labour has filed a claim petition at Labour Court/ Kozhikode vide No. 33/87 ( Central ) for the arrears of the Ty . Status after completion of 120 days of continuous servicc i.e. from 1-5-84 to 2-7-84 . The respondent Railway has rejected the claim through the counter statement and submitted that the applicant was only a project casual labour and he was in employment in this project only for a period of 190 days .

This reference was made by the Central Government of India as per letter No. L - 41012/ 105/95 IRB dated 5-5-95. Thedispute is between the Executive Engineer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

As such he is eligible for monthly rate ofpay plus Dearness Allowance for two days only as envisaged in the Railway Board letter No. E( NG) / II/ 83/ 1-6/5-4 of 6-6-83 . The Hon'ble Labour Court has agreed and passed an order dt . 29-1-88 Exhibit R.II to pay the difference amount ofRs . 37.90 to the applicant . The same has also paid to the applicant . The photocopy of the said order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R.II. It is humbly submitted that the above complaint is not eligible for temporary status on completion of 190 days ofservice as per with other open line casual labourers . The administration has accepted the difference in wage of two days Rs . 37.90 ( i.e.) the difference of daily rate and monthly rate after completion of 180 days.

Further , the applicant has filed a written petition to the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Ernakulam for the completion of 120 days continuous service , he must be allowed for Temporary status as per order of Government Labour Court/Kozhikode vide C.P. No. 33/87 . And also his termination was made without any notice and said notice was not given to him and the termination is illegal .

It is submitted that , the petitioner was initially engaged as a project casual labour. Project casual labours are not eligible Temporary status / CPC scale/after completion of 120 days service. They are eligible only for temporary status only in the wake of Hon'ble Supreme Court 1985 (2) 648 , w.p. 47,320-69 , 559 in Indrapal Yadav and others and Railway Board Lr. No. E. (NG/ii/ 84 ) (CN/41 of 11-9-86 Exhibit R.III . The above project casual labour has not come under the purview of the above said order, he was in employment of 190 days of service only. Hence he is not eligible for retrenchment compensation and notice of termination. It is clearly seen from the Railway Board Order No. E( II) 8/AT/ 10/1-8 dt. 23-2-82 that the workman (regular or casual ) should be deemed to have completed continuous service for one year under an employer if he has worked for 240 days ( calculated in terms of Section 25B (2) of the I.D. Act) in a period of 12 months proceeding the date with reference to whose calculation is to be made. Even though he might not have been in service of the employer for one wholeyear.

The project casual labour of Sri C. R. Unni has completed only 190 days only in service processing the date ofhis retrenchment . Hence he is not eligible even for temporary status and notice of termination and retrenchment compensation .

In view of the above , it is submitted that Sri C. R. Unni , Project Casual Labour has worked only 190days . He had already been given monthly rates of scale after completion of 150 days and difference also paid . The Hon'ble Labour Court had not ordered to given temporary status to the petitioner and only accept counter of administration as per rules .

8181

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Hence he is not eligible for any temporary status/ retrenchment compensation and notice of termination . It is also submitted that the action of this management to terminate the service of Sri C. R. Unni , Project Casual Labour with effect from 2-7-84 is as per the provision of I.D. Act , 1947. Indian Railway Establishment Manual . He is not eligible for any relief as per I.D. Act . Under the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismissed the claim petition with court to this respondent.

4. The union filed rejoinder raising the following:- In this dispute the workman is seeking temporary status onthe completion of 180 days of his continuous service under the management. In reply to the claim statement filed by the union the Railways filed a reply statement wherein the following facts are emerged .

The entire written statement reverbarates on a single point that the workman in question was a project casual labour. The said workman worked only for 187 days , hence he is not eligible for temporary status, CPC scale and other priveleges unless he completes 360 days , as per the IREM and orders issued thereunder .

Itissubmitted in this backdrop that the workman in question was engaged by the Executive Engineer, Construction S. Railway , Podaner as casual labour and he was in continnuous engagement from 3-1-84 to 2-7-84 for 187 days.

At the outset it is submitted that the workman in question is not a project casual labour. The respondent for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claim of the workman branded him as the project casual labour . As observed by the Supreme Court in L. Robert D ' souza vs. Executive Engineer, construction , Ernakulam ( 1982 ILLJ 330 ) every construction work does not imply project . Project is co- related to planned projects in which the workman is treated as workcharge . The expression project is very well known is a planned development . Therefore, the assertion that the workman was working on the project is factually wrong. The management have no case that the workman was a work charged employee . It is further submitted that construction unit is a regular unit all over Indian Railways . It is permanent unit and cannot be equated with projects . Since the construction activity perpetual in nature which isdistinguished from the ' project ' the denial of temporary status , CPC scale to the workman is highly repugnant and contrary to the provisions of law , and further his temination without affording an opportunity of being heard further intensify the illegality at the hands of the management .

Since the construction activity is not a project the workman was not a project casual labour to deprive him the benefit of temporary status CPC scale . The workman becomes eligible to all privileges applicable to temporary railway servant as he has admittedly completed 187 days to satisfy rules in vogue . In the light of what is stated 8182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

above the workman is to be treated as a casual labour and not in project and he is to be granted the benefits following from paras 2501 , 2505 and set aside the termination as null and void.

It istherefore prayed that necessary directions may be issued to the management to reinstate the workman with backwages and grant him temporary status CPC scale withretrospective effect and to hold that the termination ofthe workman is illegal and unjustifiable .

5. Management filed a reply statement to the rejoinder as follows : The respondents deny all the material allegations made by the applicant except that are expressly admitted herein .

At the outset the respondent deny the existence of an Industrial Dispute between the applicant and the respondent.

The applicant cannot be taken as workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The definition of a workman as per the I.D. Act 1947, is reproduced hereunder .

Workman means any person ( including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual unskilled, skilled reward whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence , of that dispute, or whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person etc. The attention of the Court is invited to the definition itself implies that the workman must be employed that the industry to do ( may please be noted , the stress on present tense ) i.e. should be working or has been dismissed/ discharged/retrenched and whose dismissal/discharge/ retrenchment has led to the dispute .

It is clear that the applicant was a workman under the respondent , but not ' workman ' now as he has not been dismissed/discharged retrenched which has led to any dispute ( The applicant has only asked for payment of assumed arrears of wages which were supposed to be due to him, and not challenged anything regarding dismissal / discharged/ retrenchment ) . Therefore , the applicant is not a workman as per I.D. Act , 1947 and cannot file a claim under I.D. Act .

The applicant was a workman under the respondent have been retrenched in the normal circumstances adopting the establishment rules and regulations.

The definition of Industrial Dispute as per I.D. Act 1947 is of reproduced hereunder:-

``Industrial Dispute means any dispute or difference between employees and employers or between employers and workman , or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non - employment of the

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person .

This also clearly says that the Industrial disputes means any dispute between employer and workmen which is connected with employment or non - employment of the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person.

It isbrought out that there is no evidence that the applicant as aggrieved workman ever made a representation to the respondent and it has been refused by the respondent which is necessary condition for existence of an Industrial Dispute to be adjudicated by an Industrial Tribunal or a Labour Court . Under the I.D. Act the payment of assumed arrears of wages that too based on a court verdict in an incomparable case cannot be assumed to have a nature of Industrial Dispute .

The next for industrial dispute could be that the aggrieved party should be either Workmen ' or ' Employer ' treated as a group . The dispute should be about the employment or non -employment of the terms of employment or immediately after retrenchment for termination if the retrenchment or termination itself is disputed. The present application does not fail in any category of employment or non -employment . At the best it comes under terms of employment . Since the applicant has been working under the respondent with terms of employment and is not challenged it during the course of his employment it is clear that there is no dispute that existed, during the course of employment . Only it is raked up now after a court verdict in an incomparable case when the applicant themselves have ceased to be workmen .

The question at large is not connected with the employment or non - employment the terms of employment or the conditions of labour as provided in the definition of industrial dispute , but only payment of assumed arrears of wages for persons who are not workmen and the respondent ( s ) of the opinion that the Hon'ble court is not the appropriate forum to discuss the issue as neither it is coming under the category of Industrial Dispute nor the applicant is workmen nor any dispute existed or exists between the workman and the employer and on these ground alone the application is liable to be dismissed.

Section 33C (2) of I.D. Act under which the notice has been issued to the respondent also is limited by the wording of the section itself in that the amount at which such benefits should be computed may , subject to any rules that may be made under this Act be determined by such labour court . In as much as the applicant is not workman an here is no dispute as defined in the I.D. Act . Section 33 ( C ) (2) of the I.D. Act also is not applicable .

In spite of the objection made out in the above paras the respondent submit further that the applicant was engaged as casual labour in projects. He has claimed the relief by his application for consideration of which . the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

normal time limit, has already lapsed. It is brought to the notice ofthe court that the time limit for preservation of the records for casual labourers as per the rules of this department is only 10 years . But the applicant is claiming his relief for a period before 10 years on the date of application.

The notice of the court is drawn to verdict of the Hon'ble High Court Kerala in its OP No. 7570 of 1987 , in which it is clearly stated that It is a well established Industrial law and industrial courts , tribunals and authorities do not entertain such stale claims . Even the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 specifies a maximum period of 1 year for making claims with a provision for relaxation . But there is no sufficient grounds made out by the applicant for relaxation . According to Supreme Court the maximum period of entertaining even such claims for relaxation is only four years . Therefore, the claims made by the applicant is stale as per the above court verdicts and on these grounds alone the application is liable for dismissal as in limine.

The respondent deny the contention of the workman thathe is workman under DPO/PGT . The fact is that he was worked under Executive Engineer, Construction , Southern Railway at Podanur who is the District Officer Incharge for casual labourers within the meaning of Section 2 (g ) ( ii ) ( L) of the Industrial Disputes , Central Rules , 1957. The immediate Superior for Executive Engineer or is the Deputy Chief Engineer at Podanur . The next higher authority is Chief Engineer Construction , Southern Railway Madras . The Divisional Personnel Officer Palghat is in no -way connected with the applicant nor can be treated as the employer . In Railways working the Division is in charge of maintenance and operation of Railways for which the Divl . Personnel Officer assists only the Division in personnel matters . The construction department is separate and independent of the Division, works under the control of Chief Engineer who is aided by a separate Senior Personnel Officer who should have been cited as employer , if at all applicant want to cite a Personnel Officer of Railway as employer within meaning of section 2 of 11 (c) of 1.D. Central Rule, 1957. It is presumed that the applicant has included the name of Divl . Personnel Officer Southern Railway Palghat in order to show the application as within the jurisdiction and also extract undue benefits as Divisional Personnel Officer/Palghat may not be fully aware of the facts of the case and benefit of doubt is always given to the applicant.

It isalso brought to the notice of the court that the applicant was engaged in projects in the territorial jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu. His pay drawing office is also situated in Tamil Nadu.

The relief ifgranted, is also to be granted by General Manager/ Southern Railway/ Madras whose office is at Madras . The Divl . Personnel Officer/Palghat is in no -way connected with the claims and the first respondent and his

8183

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

superior officers are also situated in the territorial jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu . Even any relief is granted by the court if it will be executed by the first respondent and his superiors in the territorial jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu only . Therefore , the applicant has filed case without jurisdiction and on this ground also the application can be dismissed as without jurisdiction .

It is also brought to the notice of the court that all the casual labourers who are working in Railways are issued casual labour cards which is an authentic record to establish their claims . It is requested that the applicant is to be directed to produce C.L. cards for considering his application which is issued to him .

It is also brought to the notice of the court that the period of preservation of Muster sheet for the casual labourers are only ten years and the applicant has filed his claims after the stated period of preservation , has expired, with an expectation that the Railways may not be in a position to produce any records at such as distant date and there is a possibility of getting benefits of doubt to the applicant.

In spite of the fact that the above objections out lined in above paras himself is adequate to dismiss the application the respondent wish to submit further that:-

The applicant was engaged as casual labour on projects (for definition of project casual labourers refer below). The claims made by the applicant is on the following grounds:

(a) Claiming scale rate of wages after completion of6 months of casual labourers service .

(b) Claiming temporary status after completion of 6 months of casual labourers service .

(d) Claim interest and cost of litigation .

All the above claims revolves around the rules and procedures governing the terms of employment of project casual labourers and it is necessary to bring to the notice ofthe court and also the applicant the rules regarding terms of employment of project casual labourers in Railways . The respondent take this opportunity to brief the court and also the applicant about the terms of employment of project casual labourers in Railways .

The casual labour refers to Labour put on employment which is essentially intermittent , sporadic , and extend over short period . Labour of those kind is normally recruited from the nearest available source . The casual labourers in Railway are of two categories namely , open line casual labourers (those who are engaged and utilized for maintenance and operation of Railway linc) and project casual labourers ( those who are engaged in projects of Railways) .

8184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

Inbrief the 'project casual labourers ' will be eligible for scale rate of wages on completion of 6 months of continuous service on or after 1-6-74 ( repeat on or before1-6-74 only and they will be eligible for temporary status on or after 1-1-81 as per the following scheme:

Project casual labourers are defined as seasonal labour who are deputed for specific work of less than 6 months duration or on projects . Projects include construction of new lines , major bridges , restoration dismantling lines and other major improvement line works like doubling widening of tunnels , bridges etc.

(1) Those who have completed 5 years of service as on 1-1-81 treated temporary from 1-1-81 .

(ii) Those who have completed 3 years of service but less than 5 years of service as on 1-1-81 treated temporary from 1-1-82 .

The project casual labour engaged in Railway projects as defined above , are eligible for 1/30 of appropriate scale rate ofwages with Dearness Allowance on completion of6 months of continuous service in the same type ofwork with effect from 1-6-74 ( or) on the date from which 6 months continuous services is completed whichever is later by authority of Railway Board letter No. p.G 72 /RLT/ 69 - III dt . 12-6-74 copy of this order enclosed as R.I.

(iii) Those who have completed 360 days but less than 3 years of service as on 1-1-81 , treated temporary from 1-1-82 .

(iv) Those who have completed 360 days of service on or after 1-1-84 treated temporary from 1-1-84 or the date on which 360 days are . completed whichever is later.

It is also brought to the notice of the court that the observations of Hon'ble Judge Shri N.M. Mia Bhai , Retd. Chief Justice . High Court of Gujarat who was the Chairman ofRailway Labour Tribunal by whose order, the scale rate of wages for project casual labour was implemented , is reproduced below :

The benefits as outlines in para 16 will accrue to casual labourers only after attaining temporary status and notbefore and that in any case cannot occur before 1-1-81 , repeat this in any case cannot occur before 1-1-81 .

I may clarify that as a result of my this decision, project casual labourers will not acquire the status of temporary service nor will it have the benefit of any future increments . All that project labours will have under the above decision will be that if the local rates happens to be lower than the scale rate , then after project labour has been employed for a continnuous period of 6 months it will be paid at scale rate.

It is clear that none of the project casual labour were granted the temporary status prior to 1-1-81 and none of the project casual labours were granted scale rate of wages before 1-6-74 . Ifat all any arrears is admissible it will only for the period beyond the above mentioned date and not before and also it is subject to the continuity of service .

The scheme for granting temporary status to casual labourers in Railways was introduced with retrospective effectfrom 1-1-1981 based on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Indrapal Yadav & Others v . Union of India . Copy ofjudgement is enclosed as R- 2 .

The project casual labourers on attainment of temporary status will be eligible for the following benefits:

(a) Period of notice for termination of service subject to provision of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947.

(b ) Scale of rate ofpay.

( c) Compensatory and local allowances .

(d) Attendance .

While verifying the available records the abose project casual labour of Sri . C.R. Unni LTI No. 570 worked under P I / CN /PGT . The above project casual labour was in employment of this construction organisation 190 days only . Hence he is not eligible for temporary status and CPC scale ofpay. It is clearly seen from the Railway Board order No. E ( II ) 8 / AT/ 10/ 1-8 dated 23-2-82 , that the workman (Regular or casual) should be deemed to have completed continuous service for one year under an employer if he has worked for 240 days ( calculated in terms of Section 25(B) (2 ) of I.D. Act) in a period of 12 months preceding the date with reference to whose calculation is to be made . Eventhough with reference to whose calculation is to be made . Even though he might not have been in service of the employer for one whole year .

(1) Provident funds and Gratuity .

Allotment of Railway accomodation and recovery of rent . (g)

The project casual labour of Sri . C.R. Unni has completed only 190 days in service processing the date of his retrenchment . Hence he is not eligible temporary status and CPC scale of pay .

(h) Railway Passes .

(i) Advances or any other benefits specially authorised by Railways .

( j ) The qualifying service for pension and gratuity purpose will be taken as ½ of total temporary status service.

It is respectfully stated that the same type of temporary status cases ( after completion of 6 months continuous service) has been dismissed by labour court . Kozhikode . (44 joint trial cases , common order No. CP ( C) 62/93 to 38/93 and 7 joint trial cases common order No. CP(C) 10/94 to 24/95-dismissed on 29-8-97.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

In spite of the fact that the application is time barred without jurisdiction , not following the established procedures , invalid contentions , still the respondents have verified the application and found that the claims made are not sustainable as per the rules and provisions of Railways elaborated in the preceding paragraphs and therefore request that the application may please be dismissed.

The applicant has pointed the orders of Supreme Court and Robert D'souza versed Executive Engineer. Construction, Southern Railway, Ernakulam in O.A. No. 1613 of 1679 dated 16-2-82 . A simple reading of the said court order will reveal that the court order will apply to the applicant namely Robert D ' souza and not to the applicant in that the Supreme Court decided about whether the termination of service of the said Robert D ' souza was valid or not even in their judgment the Hon'ble judge have observed as follows :

It is thus abundantly clear that is a person , belonging to the category of casual labour employed in construction work other than work charged projects render 6 months continuous service without break , by the operation of statutory rule , the person would be treated as temporary Railway servant after the expiry of 6 months continuous employment. It is again reiterated that the applicant has engaged in work charged project and therefore this case is incomparable to that of those of applicant . The respondent are of the firm view that the applicant's comparison is invalid and there the application is liable to be dismissed.

Further it is clear that the applicant has made infructuous and stale application without jurisdiction which has put the Railways in hardhsip . The Railway for obeying the orders of the court has to bear the cost of filing counters . legal fees , and other management expenses . It is clear that the applicant wilfully filed this petition knowing fully well that his claim is stale and invalid without jurisdiction and as the Railways have been put to tremendous hardship by such stale inconsequential and invalid claims it is requested that the court should take notice of such attempt being made by ex - casual labourers of Railways and direct the applicant to pay the cost to Railways . Such an order will put a full stopto such stale , in consequential and invalid claims and relieve the Railways from attending to infructuous work and concentrate on its main duly to the public namely giving an efficient transport to the public .

6. The management also filed additional written statement raising the following contentions :-Shri C.R. Unni , LTI No. 517 Project Casual Labour engaged on 3-1-84 and he was retrenched from service on 2-7-84 alongwith the other 379 such daily rated casual labourers for want of work. The above Project casual labour was in employment of this construction organisation 182 days only.

Erroneously mentioned 190 days and LTI No. 570 also and now corrected.

As per I.D. Act section 25 (B) (2) the workman (regular or casual) should be deemed to have completed continuous 2061 GI /2005-26

8185

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

service for one year under an employee if he has worked for 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months proceeding the date of with reference to whose calculation is to be made . The above project casual labour has completed only 182 days . Hence he is not eligible for retrenchment compensation and Notice of termination. Further the action ofManagement terminating his services of the workman is justified, sustainable and the existing provision of Industrial DisputeAct .

It is respectfully stated that , the Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeals No. 4613 of 1992 clearly says that by Temporary Status acquired only on completion of 360 days by casual labour in project works . Hence he is not eligible for temporary status after completion of 6 months in continuous service and therefore request that the application may kindly be dismissed ( Copy enclosed) .

Itisrespectfully stated that his name was in the Live Register in Palghat Division with Sl . No. 1026. When vacancy arises his name has to be considered for re- engagement of on the basis of the seniority.

For the reason stated above , it is respectfully stated that he is not eligible for any temporary status /retrenchment compensation and Notice of termination . The action of this management to retrench the service of Sri . C.R. Unni , Project casual labour with effect from 2-7-84 is legal as per the provision of I.D. Act, 1947. He is not eligible for any relief as per I.D. Act . Under the above circumstance it is humbly pray that Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the claim petition with cost of this respondent .

7. The evidence in this case consists of the testimony ofMW1 and Ext. W1 to W3 on the side of the union and the testimony of MW1 on the side of the management .

8. The following points arise for consideration: - 1. Whether the action of the management terminating the service ofthe workman Sri Unni C.R. isjustifiable ?

(ii) If not, what relief the workman is entitled to ?

9. Point Nos . 1 & 2 : The workman Sri . C.R. Unni joined in the management Railway on 3-1-1984 as casual labourer under the permanent Way Inspector, Cochin/ Palakkad. He worked upto 2-7-1984. On 2-7-1984 his service were terminated without assigning any reason . No compensation or notice pay was offered to him at the time of termination. The contention of the management is that the workman was a Project -Casual Labourer and he worked for only 182 days and he has not been completed 360 days work and so he is not entitled to get temporary status . The details of the Project for which the worker was engaged is conspicuously absent in the written statement of the management . The case of the union is that the workman 8186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

was working in the open line wing of the Railway WWI has deposed as follows :-

Regional Language

This would show that the workman was not a project casual labourer but he was working in the open line . Therefore on completion of 120 days continuous service the workman is entitled to get temporary status . Admittedly no notice pay or retrenchment compensation was given to the workman by the railway management . The management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the retrenchment is illegal and the termination of the workman from the service of the management railway is liable to be set aside . During the pendency of the case the union produced office order of the management Railway which is marked as Ext . W3 in this case. As per Ext . W3 office order No. J /W/I/ 18/2004 dated 30-7-2004 of the Divisional Office , Personnel Branch , Palghat , the management appointed the workman Unni . C.R. as temporary trackman on Rs . 2610/- in the scale of Rs . 2610-3540 and posted to the KGO station w.e.f. 23-7-2004 in the terms and conditions mentioned in Ext . W3 order.

In the result , an award is passed holding that the termination of the workman Sri . Unni . C.R. is set aside , but as the management has given appointment to the workman as per order No. J/W /I/ 18/2004 of the Divisional Office, Personnel Branch , Palghat no industrial dispute is pending atpresent for adjudication .

This award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

(Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , transcribed and typed out by her , corrected by me and passed this the 28th day of February , 2005. )

Ernakulam

K. K. UTHARAN, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness Examined on the side of the Management : ---

MW1 -Sri . P.M. Chandra Sekharan .

Witness Examined on the side of the Workman :-

WW1 -Sri . C.R. Unni

Exhibits marked on the side of the Workman :-

W1 -Photo copy of casual labour service card of the workman.

WW2 Photo copy of order C.P.C. No. 33/87 dated 29-1-1988 of the Labour Court , Kozhikode .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 28 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2616.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सार्दन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार श्रम न्यायालय एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. 13/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/1/1994- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th June, 2005 S.O. 2616.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 13/1996 ) of the Central Government Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the industiral dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-06-2005 .

[No. L -41011/ 1/94 - IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

(Inthe Labour Court , Ernakulam )

(Tuesday, the 15th day of February , 2005 ) PRESENT : K. KUTHARAN , B. Sc. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 13 of 1996 ( Central) BETWEEN :

The Executive Engineer (CN), Southern Railway, Ernakulam &Others

And

The workman of the above concern represented by the General Secretary Southern Railway Construction Workers Union, Kochi .

REPRESENTATIONS :

Shri P.M.M. Najeeb Khan ,

ForManagement Advocate , United Law Chamber , S.R.M. Road ,

Kochi .

ForUnion Sri . B.Gopakumar,

Advocate,

Ernakulam.

AWARD

This reference was made by the Central Government ofIndia as per letter No. L- 41011 / 1 /94- IR (B - I ) dated 1-5-96.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

The dispute is between the Executive Engineer ( CN) and their workman. The dispute referred is:

"Whether the demand of the Southern Rly . Construction Workers ' Union for fixing the leave salary to Smt . V.D. Devaky in the scale of pay Rs . 220-250 is legal & justified ? If so , what benefit is the workman entitled to ? Whether the demand of the union for pay in the scale of Rs. 260-450 in respect of 4 Mapla Khalasis namely S/ Shri T. Appu Kuttan, K. Devan , P.K. Aboobacker and C.M. Ashraf islegal andjustified ? If so , what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? "

2. The union filed claim statement raising the following : The above dispute was referred to this Hon'ble Court in- compliance with the directions contained in the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. 17779/95 filed by the Union for a direction to make a reference under Sec . 10 of the I.D. Act regarding those disputes referred to in Ext. Pl and declined in Ext, P6 marked therein,

In fact , other disputes than those declined in Ext . P6 and pending in I.D. 2/95 (Central) on reference by the Government at the instance of the Union on the basis of the report ofthe conciliation officer , is co-related and are to bejointly triedto enable the union to adduce evidence and highlight all aspects concerning the entire disputes raised before the conciliation officer and conciliated for long.

Now the reference is regarding the leave salary due to Smt . V.D. Devaky . According to the union leave salary ought to have been paid in the scale of pay ofRs . 200-250 . But, she was wrongly paid in the scale of Rs . 196-232. In document No. 17 produced in I.D. 2/95 (C) Smt. V.D. Devaky figure as petitioner No. 13 in C.P. No. 26/83 filed before this Hon'ble Court ; in which the positive finding is that all the petitioners therein including Smt . V.D. Devaky were entitled to pay and allowances in the scale of pay of Rs . 200-250 (para 8 of the order) . The document already producedbefore thisHon'ble Court in the connected dispute, would clearly establish that an Award is liable to be rendered in favour of the said worker.

The other dispute referred is regarding the difference in wages payable to 4 Mopla Khalasis , namely Sri . T. Appukuttan and 3 others . According to the union, the Mopla Khalasis are liable to be paid as entitled in the scale ofpay of Rs . 260-400 . Whereas , they are being paid only in the scale ofpay of Rs . 210-290. All the Mopla Khalasis are entitled to get the scale of pay of Rs . 260-400 , even if they are asked to do any unskilled job , so far as their induction as such is as Semi - skilled workers . Sufficient directions are there for the payment of salary in the scale of pay of Rs . 260-400 to the Mopla Khalasis .

3. The management filed written statement raising the following: All the statements and allegations contained

8187

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

in the claim statement , except those which are specifically admitted hereunder are denied .

The statements and allegations contained in paragraph 1 and 2 of the claim statement are misleading and incorrect . The Railway Administration or any of the officials under the Railway Administration (representing Railway) have not been impleaded as parties in O.P. 17779/ 95. The judgement of the Hon'ble High Court in the said O.P. isnot one. , passed on merits . Under such circumstances it ismisleading and incorrect to say that the reference of the dispute in question , is one made on the direction of the Hon'ble High Court. The fact is that the claimant union has deliberately omitted to implead the concerned and affected parties as respondent in the O.P. , and secured an order without proper disclosure of the nature of the scope of the disputes and issues involved. In fact the trial in I.D. 2/95 referred to by the claimant has already started .

The statements and allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the claim statement , are misleading and incorrect and are denied. The issue regarding as to whether Smt . V.D. Devaky etc. are entitled to wages in the scale of pay of Rs . 200--250 or Rs . 196-232 , has been raised in I.D. 2/95 , and it is pending consideration there . This being the position the raising of the very same union , is superfluous and is liable to be dismissed in limini. There is also the further fact that the claim is without any basis or justification.

The statements and allegations contained in paragraph 4 of the claim statement are also misleading and incorrect and are denied . The term Mopla Khalasi, is a term used for specifying casual labourers doing hard and specialised works in connection with bridge works etc. Such casual labourers , engaged in such specialised works , may be paid wages in the scale of pay of Rs. 260-400 . However the mere fact that they have been paid such higher wages when they are engaged in such arduous and specialised works , does not mean that they should always be paid such higher wages , irrespective of the nature of work they are doing . Thus they cannot insist that they should always be paid wages as skilled casual labourers in scale Rs . 260-400 , even when they are not doing any skilled work and no skilled work is available. It is only to avoid their retrenchment and ending them out of employment . that they are permitted to do work along with other casual labourers , even when the arduous words such as bridge works etc. are not available . The facts being as above the claim for payment of wages at the rate of Rs . 260-400 to the workman referred to in paragraph 4 is without any basis orjustification . There are no rules or orders entitling them forthat.

Againthe subject matter of the claims , referred to in the claim statement are service matters , to be agitated before the C.A.T. , and the decision of the C.A. T. regarding the matter is to be final and binding on the parties .

8188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

the other hand Central Administrative Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the Industrial Disputes.

Further the union which has raised the I.D. is not a recognised union, as envisaged in the provisions of Railway Establishment Manual. There are specific provision in the manual regarding Establishment of Unions , negotiating machinery , etc. Therefore claimant union has no locus standi or right to raise sucli a dispute and proceed with it.

Ignorance cannot be a bliss for such officers like one who has filed written objection in the above case . In order to move the machinery available under the Industrial disputes Act , recognition of the Management is not at all necessary , what is required is a registeration of the union as per the provisions of the Trade Union Act . 1926 . Recognition of a union may be obtained by way of concession, or due to political affinity. But , registration of a union is made by the Registrar of the Trade unions the conciliation officer has taken into account the Registration of the union which raised the dispute for taking up the matter in conciliation and the representatives of the Management had participated in the conciliation proceedings , the contention in para 7 of the written objection is nothing but one expressing the ignorance of law.

Save as aforesaid all the allegations and averments in the written objection are hereby denied as baseless . misleading and incorrect.

5. The evidence in this case consists of the testimony of WWI and Ext . W1 to W5 on the side of the union. The management has not adduced any evidence.

6. The following points arise for consideration:

4. The union filed rejoinders as follows It is unfortunate that the Executive Engineer , construction . Ernakulam is finding fault with the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in rendering judgment in O.P. 17779/95 filed by the union , instead of taking up the matter in appeal if it was aggrcived by the same . What ever that be , when the conciliation officer had conciliated the dispute inviting all parties concerned and forwarded the report of the failure of conciliation to the appropriate Govt . it is not necessary that every Dick and Harry present at the time of conciliation are made parties in the original petition filed under Art . 226 of the constitution seeking a mandamus to the appropriate Govt . to pass orders on the same . It is respectfully submitted that the Management can not have a say when the appropriate government is dealing with a Report of failure of conciliation . Anyhow it is respectfully submitted that the statement of the Ex- Engineer appearing in para 3 of the written, objection that union has ' secrued an order must be condemned by this Hon'ble Court so far as the union as well as other parties are only receiving orders and not securing the same .

1. whether this industrial dispute is maintainable in law?

2. whether the demand of the union for fixing the leave salary to Snit . V. D. Devaki in the scale of pay of Rs . 200-250 is legal and justifiable ?

Union has no objection in clubbing I.D. 2/95 with the above dispute , or even having a separate trial However , it remains a fact that the 2 demands referred to the Hon'ble Court in the above case had been raised along with other demands raised in the very same charter of demands , which was conciliated in one and the very same conciliation proceedings. Both demands in the above case are perfectly valid , sustainable and raised with justification .

3. whether the demand of the union for payment in the scale of Rs . 260-450 in respect of 4 Maplah Khalasis namely S/ Sri . T. Appukuttan . K. Devan , P. K. Aboobacker and C. M. Ashraf is legal and justifiable ?

+ what relief the workman are entitled to?

The Ex -Engineer while doing the work of giving instruction for reparing the written objection in case like the above case , or doing the office work , or doing the administration work of this office , he is not doing the specialised or skilled work, of an Engineer . However it may not be proper for the union to say that he should be paid wages of a clerk or Junior Superintendent at such occasions . and he need be paid the wages of Engineer only when he does the specialised work . Union has stated so only to answer his contention that Maplah Khalasis need be paid salary in the scale of 260-400 only when they are doing the specialised work , and they need be paid lassor salary ofunskilled worker when they are asked to perform other duties than the specialised work . It is respectfully submitted that the Temporary status of Railway servants granted to such Maplah Khalasis would confer on them a right to receive the wages in the scale of pay of 260-400 .

It is incorrect to say that the Central Administrative Tribunal alone has jurisdiction to decide disputes of such nature referred to this Hon'ble Court in the above case . On

7. Point No. 1:- The Central Government of India has made the reference as per the reference in order in O. P. 17779/95 of the Honourable High Court ofKerala. The contention of the management is that the decision of the Honurable High Court for the O. P. has not one passed on merits and that the union has deliberately omitted to impleaded the concerned and affected parties . Ext . WI is the copy of the judgment in O.P. 17779/95 . The O.P. was filed by the union against the union of India represented by the secretary to the Government of India. Ministry of Labour , New Delhi and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) Ernakulam with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or which ever or to make under section 10 of the I.D. Act in respect of the dispute raised by the union. The Hon'ble High Court passed the judgment in O.P. on the submission of the Central Government pleader anddirected the respondents in the O.P. to refer the dispute relating to [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the proceedings No. L -41011 / 1 /94 - IR (B.1) dated 23-12-94 issued by the Central Government of India , Ministry of Labour. If the management is aggrieved by the Judgment oftheHigh Court . The management ought to have agitate the matter to the appropriate superior forum and not before this court. The reference is to be made by the Government and the Government has made the reference . The duty of this court is adjudicate the issue referred to this court . So the above contention of the management is not sustainable. The management has also contended that the issue regarding as to whether V. D. Devaki etc. are entitled to wages in the scale pay of Rs . 200-250 or Rs . 196-232 has already been raised I.D. 2/1995 and therefore this I.D. is not. maintainable . This issue has not been raised in I.D. 2/95 ( C) . Pension claim of Smt. V. D. Devaki alone has been claimed in I.D. 2/95 as she has retired from service . Perusal onthe records in I.D. 2/95 (C) would show that only pension claim ofthe worker V. D. Devaki has been claimed in the I.D. 2/95 ( C) . Therefore the above contention of the management is also not sustainable .

8. Another contention of the management is that the union in this case is not a recognised union and so the claimant union has not locus standi or right for raised such. Under the I.D. Act recognition of the union by the management is not necessary . What is necessary is a registration of the union as per the provision of the trade. union Act , 1926. So the above contention of the management is also not sustainable. Therefore , I find that the I.D. is maintainable in law.

9. Point Nos . 2 to 4: In this reference the union has claimed leave salary due to V. D. Devaki in the scale 200-250 . She was wrongly paid in the scale of 196-232 . In C.P. 26/83 this court has found that all the petitioners therein including Smt . V. D. Devaki were entitled to pay and allowance in the scale of Rs . 200-250 wages + D.A together amount to Rs . 337 with effect from 1-6-1974. Ext . W2 is the copy of the order in C.P. 26 of 1983 ( C ) Ext . W2 would show thatV. D. Devaki is the petitioner No. 13 in the C.P. 27/1983 ( C). As per Ext . W2 the petitioners therein are entitled to get the scale rate of Rs . 200-250 + D.A. together among to Rs . 337 per month (Rs . 11.23 per day ) The management paid wages to V. D. Devaki only at the rate of Rs. 196-232. So Smt . V. D. Devaki is entitled to get the balance amounts from the date of C.P.C. scale still her retirement .

10. The union has also claimed that Mapalah Khalasis T. Appukuttan , K. Devan , P. K. Aboobacker and C. M. Ashraf are entitled to get pay Rs . 250-400 . Ext . W3 is the Railway Officer order and statement . Ext . W3 would show that the Maplah Khalasis are entitled to get pay scale of Rs . 250-400. The contention of the management is that the Maplah Khalasis are entitled to get the said pay scale only when they engaged the hard and specialised works . So according to the management the Maplah Khalasis cannot insist that they should always be paid wages for the skilled

8189

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

and unskilled work . The above contention of the management is not at all sustainable as the pay scale is fixed for the post of Maplah Khalasis the four Maplah Khalasis are entitled to get Rs . 250-400 .

In the circumstance and for the above discussion I find that the worker V. D. Devaki is entitled to get pay on the scale of Rs . 200-250 and therefore she is entitled to get the balance amounts from the date of C.P.C. scale till her termination. I also find that the Maplah Khalasis Sri . Appukuttan , T. Devan , P. K. Aboobacker and C. M. Ashraf are entitled to get the pay on the scale of Rs . 260-400 .

In the result, an award is passed holding that the Management is directed to pay the balance amount to the worker V. D. Devaki in the pay scale ofRs. 200-250from the date of C.P.C. scale till her termination. The management is also directed to pay the wages in the pay scale at Rs . 250- 400 of the 4 Maplah Khalasis namely S/Shri T. Appukuttan, D. Devan , P. K. Aboobacker and C. M. Ashraf from the date they attained temporary status casual labourers Maplah Khalasis .

This award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant , transcribed and typed out by her , corrected by me and passed this the 15th day of February, 2005 .

Emakulam.

K. K. UTHARAN, Presiding Officer APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the Management:-Nil Witness examined on the side of the union :-

WW1 - Robert D ' Souza .

Extmarked on the side of the Management:- Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the Union :-

Ext. W1 Photo copy ofJudgment in O.P. No. 17779/95 ofHon'ble High Court of Kerala .

Ext. W2 Photocopy oforder in C.P. 26/83 (C) of Labour Court, Ernakulam dated 5-7-1983 .

Ext. W3 Statement submitted before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Ernakulam by the union.

Ext. W4 True copy list issued by the Southern Railway of5 years completed casual labourers .

Ext. W5 Memorandum No. P. 408 / CN / PTJ dated 17-1-1986 issued by the Executive Engineer, Southern Railway, Podanur .

8190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

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

29-2-96 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank , New Delhi in dismissing the services of Shri A. K. Marwah , Clerk w.e.f. 19-11-92 is legal and justified, If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? " का. आ. 2617.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/200/95- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगााधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2617. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 25/96) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. - I , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005.

[No. L - 12012/ 200/95 - IR (B - II) ] G. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

2. Brief facts of the case are that the workman A. K. Marwah was working as clerk in the Vayu Bhawan Extension Counter branch of the respondent Syndicate Bank and he on 28-4-89 made a facititious credit entry of Rs.2560/ in the acount of customer Shri V. V. Shastry without depositing the said amount in the bank in his account and the workman also admitted his guilt before the enquiry officer on 6-4-91 and in the memorandum of appeal filed before the Appellate Authority . This case was posted for arguments as well as for order today i.e.on 23-6-05 . Workman has not appeared. It is 1.40/- PM. The perusal of record shows that the workman is not appearing in this case for the last many hearings .. Neither workman nor anybody on his behalf appeared for the last about 13-14 hearings since 11-1-2000 . It appears thatworkman is not interested in prosecution of this case . The charge of having made fictitious entry and misappropriation of amount in my opinion stands proved against the workman.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NEW DELHI

SHRI S.S. BAL : Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 25/96

In the matter of dispute between :

Workman

Shri A.K. Marwah Clerk , Through Joint Secretary. Syndicate Bank Staff Union , Syndicate Bank, Mehra Chambers , Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 5

Versus

The AssistantGeneral Manager , Syndicate Bank , Zonal Office , 6. Bhagwan Dass Road, New Delhi - 110001

......Management

3. Workman has not come forward to address arguments on merits and to seek leniency on the point of punishment . However , he has failed to show that the punishment awarded to him is harsh or disproportionate . He has filed written submissions and I have perused the same , wherein he has raised a contention that in the Bipartite Settlement it was mandatory to hold enquiry against him ( workman ) despite his admission and the enquiry officer failed to hold the enquiry and treated his admission as proof of guilt which is contrary to the provisions and spirit of Bipartite agreement and settlement between the parties entered into the employee of the Bank and the management and that the matter has been dealt with in a vindictive manner and that there is no material on record to show that the punishment of dismissal in this case was /is justified and it is further stated that the proceedings were not held and that he was coerced and cajoled. Enquiry conducted but during the enquiry he (workman ) made a genuine mistake of making entry etc. without depositing the amount in the bank is not intentional and a genuine , and there is an extra ordinary delay in issuing the charge sheet.

APPEARANCES : None for the Workman Shri Rajesh Mehendru A/ R for the Management .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/ 200/ 95 - IR (B - 2 ) dated

4. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the above contentions raised in the written statement and Submissions and perused the record meticulously . As regards the holding of enquiry under Bipartite settlement it may be pointed out that the perusal of the record shows that the disciplinary authority ordered [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

enquiry against the workman and enquiry officer even commenced the enquiry proceedings . The workman during of course of enquiry did not dispute the charge but admitted his guilt that he made fictitious entry. On admission of his guilt during the enquiry , no further enquiry was required to be conducted in my view . This contention that enquiry was not held as per provisions ofBipartite Agreement is devoid of any force .

5. Perusal of record shows that there is no material on record that the workman was coerced or cajoled to appear admit the guilt as claimed . He has no where so stated during the enquiry or before the Appellate Authority . He has taken this ground for the first time before this Tribunal . The same is not substantiated from record . However , vide letter dated 28-2-91 the workman- charge sheeted employee was informed by the Enquiry Officer Shri K.G. Gadiyar that he was appointed Enquiry Officer and that he would hold proceedings on 5-4-91 at 11 A.M. at Zonal Office of the Bank at 6 , Bhagwan Dass Dass Road and also on subsequent days if necessary , that during the enquiry , you will be given all opportunities to cross -examine the Management witness and to produce your own evidence . You may also take the assistance of Defence Representative , if necessary, as per the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement . You are advised to appear before me without fail.

6. From the perusal of this letter it is evident that the workman was informed that he would be/ may take assistance of defence representative , if necessary as provisions of Bipartite Settlement but it appears that on the first hearing the workman appeared and admitted the charge against him pertaining to his guilt that he made a fictitious credit entry of Rs . 2560/- into S.B. Account No. 1545 of V.V.S. Shastry , Customer without date and gave effect of such credit to the said S.B. Account and ere by falsifield the accounts/records at the Branch . Admission of his guilt by the charge sheeted employee amounts to admitting the charge and in my view no further enquiry is required to be conducted and charge against the C.S.E. stands proved .

7. I have heard Shri Rajesh Mahendru on the point of punishment . He has supported the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the workman and referred to the decision reported in 2000 LLR 1271 in a case captioned as Janatha Bazar ( South Kanara Central Co- opretive Whole Sale Stores Ltd. ) etc. Vs. The Secretary, Sahkari Noukarare Sangha etc. wherein the Supreme Court has held that once act of misappropriation is proved, may be for a small or large amount , there is no question of showing uncalled for sympathy and reinstatement of employee in service- Labour Court cannot substitute penalty imposed by employer in such cases . The workman has not come forward to seek any leniency or to show that he deserves

8191

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Dated : 23-06-2005

leniency or that the punishment awarded in harsh or is disproportionate . In view of this I have no option but to hold that the action of the management in dismissing the workman Shri A. K. Marwah , Clerk from service w.e.f. 19-11-92 is legal and justified . Filed be consigned to record room . S. S. BAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005 का. आ. 2618.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई स्टीमर एजेन्टस एसो. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 292/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-33011/10/2003 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th, June, 2005

S.O. 2618. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 292/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the Chairman , Chennai Steamer Agents Association and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-6-2005.

[No. L -33011/ 10/2003 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT CHENNAI Friday, the 3rd December , 2004

PRESENT :

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Disput No. 292/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Chennai Steamer Agents Association and their workmen)

Between:

The General Secretary , Transport and Dock Workers' Union,: 1 Party/Claimant Chennai 8192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

And

1. The Chairman.

II Party/ Chennai Steamer Agents Association , Chennai

Management 2. The President .

The Madras Homeward Freight Conference Society . Chennai .

APPEARANCES :

For the Claimant :

M/s . R. Rangaramanujam , Advocates For the Respondent No. 1 : M/ s . T. S. Gopalan & Co ..

Advocates

Sri R Viduthalai , For the Respondent No. 2 :

Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 33011 / 10/ 2003 - IR (B - II ) dated 5-1-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The schedule mentioned in that order is- "Whether the non - employment of the 19 workers of the Madras Homeward Freight Conference Society by the Chennai Steamer Agents Association is justified ? If not , what relief they are entitled to " ?

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 292/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates .

3. When the matter was taken up for enquiry , on behalf of the I Party, the General Secretary of the union has filed a memo stating that the 19 workers , for whose cause the union raised the dispute have now resigned their primary membership from the union and therefore . he is not interested in pursuing the dispute . The Society's advocate represents that he will pursue the case of 19 workers and he wants some time for filing claim statement .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) | was arrayed as 3rd Respondent but he has not made any objection for the 2nd Respondent before the High Court . Under such circumstances , the memo dated 30-6-2004 filed by the Ist petitioner is recorded .

5. In view of the memo filed by the 1st petitioner . this industrial dispute is dismissed as not pressed. but without any costs .

(Dictated to the P.A .. transcribed and typed by him, correct and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3rd December, 2004. )

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2619.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 110/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/127/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2619. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 110/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Andhra Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Govern- ment on 28-6-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/ 127/ 2004 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy . ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

Shri E. ISMAIL , B.Sc , LL.B. Presiding Officer Dated the 7th day of March , 2005 I.D. NO. 110/2004 Between

Gulmohiddin Nagar

4. But, I find there is no bonafide on the part of the society because he is only acted as agent for the Respondent/Management and under such circumstances , he cannot represent the 19 workers in this I.D. Only because under wrong impression that the society has been arrayed as 2nd Petitioner he has no locus standi to espouse the cause of the 19 workers . Therefore, I find there is no substance in the contention of the society . Further, before the High Court in W.P. No. 3445/2004 he

.... Petitioner Shri Y. Venkata Rao , S/o late Y. V. Rao , D. No. 32-42/5-32A, Veeranna Street, Machavaram, Vijayawada [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AND

The Chief Manager,

Andhra Bank . M.G. Road, Labbipet , Vijayawada- 10

.....Respofident APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . M. Ravi Kumar & P. Pavan Kumar , Advocates

For the Respondents : M/s . S. Udayachala Rao . S.

Vikramaditya Babu & S. Mujib Kumar . Advocates .

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its order No. L - 12012/ 127 / 2004 -- IR( B.II ) dated the 15-9-2004 referred the following dispute under section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of Andhra Bank and their workman. This reference is.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Andhra Bank. in imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on Shri Y. Venkata Rao for his unauthorized absence from duty is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? " The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 110/2004 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. Inspite of several adjournments given from 4-1-2005 for filing of claim statement and documents, for seven adjournments including 7-3-2005 the petitioner has not turned - out with claim statement and documents . The petitioner is not evincing any interest for the last seven adjournments . The petitioner has failed to produce any evidence in support of his claim . There is nothing on record to support his claim. Hence , a ' Nil' Award is passed . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 7th day of March, 2005 .

E. ISMAIL , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondents

NIL

2061 GI/2005-27

8193

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Documents marked for the petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 29 जूनं , 2005

का. आ. 2620. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आन्ध्रा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 212/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12025/3/2005 - आईआर( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

1 New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2620. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputs Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 212/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court . Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Andhra Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 28-6-2005.

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

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT :

SHRI E. ISMAIL, B.Sc , LL.B. , Presiding Officer Dated the 16th March , 2005

Industrial Disputes L.C.LD. NO . 212/2004

Between

M. Lakshman Rao

....Petitioner

AND

1. The Andhra Bank

Rep. by its General Manager, Saifabad , Hyderabad .

2. The Andhra Bank

Rep. by its Senior Manager ( P & D )

..... Respondents Zonal Office, Tirupathi 8194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Appearances :

For the Petitioner : M/ s . B.G. Ravinder Reddy and B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates .

For the Respondent : M/ s . Udayachal Rao , Advocate

AWARD

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

This petition was filed under Section 2 ( A ) ( 2 ) stating that the petitioner was appointed as temporary messenger on 3-3-86 with the respondent and terminated on 2-12-2002 . Hence , he prayed that he may be reinstated with full back wages and all attendant benefits .

A detailed counter filed besides other things it was mentioned that the petitioner was also entitled for such temporary appointment on rotation.

Petitioner examined himself as WW1 and marked Exhibits from W1 to W14 and was cross examined by Respondent Counsel. Ex . M1 settlement was also marked .

A memo was filed by the counsel for the Petitioner and Petitioner was also present informing that the bank is ready with appointment order and he should withdraw the LCID and collect the appointment order . Hence, an award may be passed in terms of the Memo .

The petitioner is present and he admitted to the said fact mentioned in the memo .

Accordingly, an award is passed that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on temporary basis . Award passed Accordingly , Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of March , 2005 .

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

WWI

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI : Seniority panel listdt. 9-1-95.

Ex . W2 : Service Certificate dt . 21-11-91 .

Ex. W3 Service Certificate dt. 30-9-95.

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] Ex. W4 : Service Certificate dt. 9-12-2000.

Ex. W5 : Service Certificate dt. 9-12-2000 .

Ex. W6 : Interview call letter dt. 19-9-95 .

Ex. W7 : Service Certificate dt. 9-12-2000 .

Ex. W8 : Service Certificate dt. 9-12-2000.

Ex. W9: Lr. sent by Zonal Office to Petitioner dt. 15-11-2002.

Ex. W10 : Lr . sent by Zonal Office to Petitioner dt. 30-11-2002 .

Ex. WII : Reply to representation from Chief Manager to Petitioner dt. 26-12-03 .

Ex. W12 : Seniority panel list of temp . employees .

Ex . W13 : Transfer Certificate of Petitioner .

Ex. W14: Employment Card .

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1 : Settlement dt . 9-1-95 between Management and Workmen Union.

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2621.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/137/2002 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सीगंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2621. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2004 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Indus- trial Dispute between the the management of Union Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 28-6-2005 .

[No. L- 12011/37/2002 - IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri H. A. Hazarika , Presiding Officer, CGIT - cum - Labour Court , Guwahati .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Ref. Case No. 6 of 2004 .

In the matter of an Industrial dispute between :-

TheManagement of Union Bank of India, Chandmari .

Vs.

Their Workmen rep. by the

General Secretary , Union Employees Union,

K. C. Road , Fancy Bazar .

Date of Award : 22-6-2005 .

AWARD

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour New Delhi , vide its Notification No. L - 12011 / 137 /2002 - IR (B - II ) dated 26-9-2002 referred this Industrial Dispute arose 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 ( i ) and sub - section ( II - A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act, 1947 within the period of 3 years on the basis of the following Schedule .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India to deny filling up of three carried forward vacancies by promotion from Subordinate Cadre to Clerical Cadre in terms of Clause I of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 1-3-1996 is legal, proper and justified? Whether the management's action to identify the vacancies for the above promotionprocess on all India basis as against the provision contained in the Settlement dated 1-3-1996 for identification of such vacancies Statewise is proper and justified ? If not , what relief is the disputant union entitled to? "

2. It is pertinent to note here that at first the matter was received and taken up by the State Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati . After establishment of this CGIT- cum-Labour Court at Guwahati , related proceeding ( record ) is received by this CGIT - cum -Labour Court on 9-12-2004.

3. Accordingly on appearance of both the parties here the proceeding is proceeded as per procedure .

4. The case of the Workmen in brief is that a Memorandum of Agreement was drawn up on 1-3-1996 between the management and All India Union Bank Employces Association on the matter of promotion from Sub- Staff to Clerical Cadre and also settled up under relevant Provision of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. As per Clause - I of the Settlement , 20% of the vacancies in the Clerical Cadre in each State shall be filled up every year by promotion from subordinate Cadre. Accordingly by Circular dated 7-3-96 vacancies were shown for State of Assam as given below:

:3 Nos .

Identified Vacancies

:8 Nos .

Unfilled Vacancies

8195

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Total Vacancies

:11. Nos .

5. Subsequently only one post is shown in 2001 . The entire 3 posts are not filled up. Even it is not carry forward, 3 unfilled vacancies from sub - cadres spilling for year 1997. The Union of Workmen raised protest against the not showing the 3 unfilled vacancies in Circular dated 10-12-2001 . The conciliation process held between the parties however failed and relevant report of failure of conciliation was submitted to Central Government on 1-7-2002.

6. The left over vacancies should have been carry forward to be filled along with clear vacancies in 1998 but in respect of 1998 no test was conducted nor for the years 1999-2000. The examination was held for 2001 on 17-2-2002. The 3 unfilled posts remain unfilled till now. The all total vacancies were 11 which ought to have been filled under the promotion process of 2001 but the management left over the unfilled vacancies unreasonably and arbitrarily .

7. Instead of filling up of vacancies on State-wise basis violating the Clause - I of Memorandum dated 1-3-96 the management adopted a principle of filling up of vacancies on all India basis .

8. The management has clearly violated the Clause -I ofthe Settlement . The management holding back the unfilled posts utterly on unreasonable grounds as provided wastage sanction at all India vacancies figures . Each ground is not computable with the other . When the vacancies exist in terms of the Clause- I and related staff circular dated 7-3-96 the management ought to have been filled up in compliance of Clause - I of the Memorandum dtd. 1-2-96 as management agreed to it.

9. The case of the management in brief that the management admitted the execution of Memorandum dated 1-3-96 so also the Clause - I in the statement for filling up all the vacancies . But as the management is an all India concerned having branch all over States of India therefore the employment policy that may be adopted or agreed upon only at all India basis that means for a particular year when total vacancies are filled up for all the states should be considered to divide the same among the States where there is Branches .

10. That this sort of conducting of all India view to divide among the states are not in derogation or in contradictions to the Settlement arrived at . The Settlement itself does not bar of such distribution amongst the States .

11. That the claim of the Union to back forward is not maintainable because the MOS did not provide the system ofcarry forward and therefore the claim of ca rying forward by theUnion is not in accordance with the Settlement . The filling up of the vacancies accrring in a particular branch is not only the prerogative by the management but the same is also necessary . In the present matter for the year 2001- 2002 there were 99 vacancies and these 99 vacancies were identified for all over India and which are distributed on 8196

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Memorandum dtd . 1-3-96 and Settlement dated 6-3-96 . Further the management claimed that as the Bank management is to work on all India basis . Hence in the share of relevant State is only one . The 99 vacancies are filled on all India basis .

the basis of the Statewise in the ration wastage . The management has endeavour that at least 01 vacancy is provided where wastage are less though the creation and abolition of posts and identification of vacancies are management's function as stipulated in policy registered asSettlement and circulated vide Staff Circular No. 4268 dated 7-3-96 yet the management has endeavour to provide the maximum possible vacancy within the ambit of the policy. Hence, the management claimed that they have not violated any condition incorporated in the Settlement and that the Union is not entitled for relief they claimed.

18. On careful scrutiny of the relevant documents and evidence in the record I find ostensively clear that the relevant Memorandum of Settlement with Staff Circular dated 7-3-96 is duly arrived and accepted by both the parties . The management also admitted the execution as well as the existence of the relevant Memorandum of Settlement and Staff Circular.

12. Heard arguments submitted by learned Advocates Mr. P.N. Choudhury and Mr. B. N. Sarma respectively for Management and the Union with recitation on important points raised in written arguments in this respect.

Perused the evidence recorded by own hand. The management examined Sri J.K. Neog as their solitary witness , so also , Union examined Sri J. K. Chakrabarty as their solitary witness . They are cross examined. Perused the Exhibits submitted by the management as well as the Union concerned .

19. The management claims that there is no system ofcarry forward. But I find there is no bar of carry forward rather spirit of carry forward is existed in Para - 3 of the written argument submitted by the management that there is a precedent of carry forward but management stopped that precedent of carry forward . But in my opinion the management version can not be accepted in the present circumstances of the case that precedent can not be followed. I marked the management has not considered about the vacancies due to retire , death , VRS , and in this connection their solitary witness is evasived in cross- examinationpart.

13. The crux of contention between the parties for not filling up 3 identified posts in the State of Assam. The claim of theUnion is that there were 11 vacancies including 3 identified vacancies .

14. According to Union management shown these vacancies to be filled up in 1997. Out of these 6 vacancies only 3 vacancies were filled up and rests 3 vacancies are not filled upo on the ground that in the written test held, 3 workmen were came out successful and 3 workmen failed to get promotion . Thus in 1997 3 employees were left out without the benefit of promotion . In 1998-2000 no promotion process was conducted. In 2001 promotion process was conducted to fill up only one post .

20. Considering all the documents in the record I find Ext. 1 , the MOS dated 1-3-96 and Staff Circular dated 7-3-96 are most authentic . It is very properly executed and most strong among all documents in the record. The sanctity of the Ext . 1 is to be maintained because it is not declared inoperative and so also not over ruled. The management hascommitted that 3 vacancies are to be filled in the State of Assam in 1997. They can not go back from their own commitment by adopting the policy of wastage of vacancies or of all India basis . Because if this is done then there will be injustice to the workman . The management must respect clause- I of Ext . 1 (MOS dated 1-3-96 and its related staff Circular) .Hence, in my opinion management is not justified for non compliance of Clause - I in relation to MOS and Staff Circular.

15. As per Clause - I of the relevant Memorandum dtd. 1-3-96 and Settlement and related Staff Circular 20 % of the vacancies in clerical cadre in each State would have been filled every year by promotion from subordinate to clerical cadre. Ext. 2 is the list of vacancies published on 7-3-96.

21. Hence , what I find the management of Union Bank ofIndia is notjustified to deny the filling of 3 carry forward vacancy by promotion from subordinate cadre to clerical cadre in terms of Clause - I of MOS dated 1-3-96 and related StaffCircular. The action of the management to identify the vacancies for promotion process of all All India basis as against the Settlement dated 1-3-96 is also not justified . Accordingly the related schedule or issues are decided in favour of the Workmen (Union) . The workmen (Union) are entitled to get promotion as per Clause - I of the Memorandum dated 1-3-96 and its related Staff Circular.

16. While 3 vacancies of 1997 were not filled up the Union represented their grievances vide Ext. A to E series (photo copies) and while the management did not consider their grievances they issued Ext . E (Photo copy ) Strike Notice. Consequently, conciliation held before A.L.C. (C) was failed. The management raised the matter of wastage ratio . The Union claim that the vacancies of 1997 would have been carry forward with clear vacancy in 1998 .

Prepare the award and send it immediately as per procedure.

17. The management agitated that there is no injustice to Union as there is no system of carry forward in the

H.A. HAZARIKA , Presiding Officer.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2622.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. टी. एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40012/46/96- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2622. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II . New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MTNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2005.

[No. L -40012/46/96 - IR (DU)] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER ; CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : R. N. RAL.

I. D. No. 74/98

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri Rajender,

C/o . Sh . T. R. Kashyap , ChamberNo. 741 , WesternWing, TisHazari Court, Delhi - 110054 .

Versus

M/s.Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) , Through the General Manager (s )-I , MTNL, Bhikaji Cama Place, NewDelhi .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -40012/46/ 96- IR (DU) Central Government dtd . 02-03-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication.

8197

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

The point runs as hereunder: --

"Whether the action of the management ofMTNL interminating the services of Shri Rajender, Safai Karamchari , w.e.f. 08-03-1995 isjustified and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to . " The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. Inthe statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was employed as a Safai Karamchari on daily wage basis along with six other workers at the new MTNL building Complex, 8 , Bhikaji Cama Place and worked as such.from 2nd May, 1994 to 08-03-1995 on which date his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the management by a verbal order. In fact new daily wage employees were engaged/given place of the workman . This was obviously done to illegally disrupt the continuity of service of the workman .

That the workman had worked with the management for the above said period without any break and had completed 240 days of work in employment of the management before his services were illegally done away with for ulterior motives . The workman would have continued to be employed because the work of sweeping, cleaning, dusting the office complex etc. against which he was employed was not of a casual one but of continuing and regular nature co - extensive with the occupation and use of the building complex by the employer/management. This truth is further fortifixed by the fact that new daily wage workers were immediately employed after the termination of the services of the present workmen now before this Hon'ble Court .

That no reason whatsoever was assigned to the workman for the termination of his services . On the other hand , Shri B. K. Sharma , Deputy Supdt . had been demanding money from each one of the daily wage workmen for their continuance of the job and assured them to be absorbed on regular basis if they pleased him. But as the workman and his other colleagues were no ready to yield to this illegal demand, they were throw out of employment . From the very next date new daily wage workers were inducted without raising a demand with the employment exchange or following any legal or proper channel which the management was bound to do as a public body . There was no justification whatsoever for replacing old daily wage workers with new daily rated workers . It amounts to an unfair labour practice and is an offence punishable in law. All this was done with ulterior motives .

Thatthe workmen had been discharging his duties withgreat honesty and dedication to his work . There was nothing against his work or conduct . That the workman aforesaid along with his other colleagues entreated the concerned officials to allow them to join their duties on 09-03-1995 but to no use . He found that new workers had been engaged and the petitioner and his other colleagues were not allowed even to enter the premises .

8198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]

on basis that he was appointed on adhoc basis for more than a year. "

That the workman and his other colleagues had no alternative but to serve a notice of Demand on the Management . The notice of demand was duly served on 16-03-1995 calling upon the management to take the workman back on duty . As the management was in no mood to pay any heads to the prayer of the workman . Conciliation proceedings had to be initiated . The conciliation proceedings failed on account of the adamant attitude of the management .

Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Piare Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. The above principle is being followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any exception . It is , therefore , respectfully submitted that in view of the admitted position appropriate Government should have declined to refer the matter to this Hon'ble Tribunal . In the circumstances , to say the least , the reference is bad in law and without application of mind as well .

That it is a well known fact to the knowledge of the claimant as well that the respondent/ management is a licensee of the Government of India , as a matter of policy . has decided that no regular recruitment should be made . The respondent/ management as a matter of policy could not engage the persons like the claimant herein . The impugned reference being violative of public policy is bad in law on this ground as well .

That no notice or pay in lieu of notice as stipulated in the ID Act was given to the workman which is a condition precedent for valid retrenchment . The workman was also not tendered retrenchement compensation but also his earned wages from 01-03-1995 to 08-03-1995 were illegally withheld/ not paid to him . That the act of the management is totally illegal, unjust and arbitrary . The same is void ab- initio being in gross violation inter -alia the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Section 25 ( F) and 25 (H) of the ID Act . 1947. Having been illegally thrown out of employment the poor workman continues to be unemployed and has not been able to find any job for himself.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it is stated that the above matter is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal pursuant to the order of reference made by the appropriate Government reading as under : ---

"Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh. Safai Karamchari with effect from 08-03-1995 is legal and justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ."

The aforesaid impungned reference is bad in law as per the preliminary objections raised herein below .

That as apprised to the Appropriate Government by the management through the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C). New Delhi vide reply dated 31-05-1995 . a copy attached . the respondent/ management as a matter of policy had decided to give the assignment of Safai / Cleanliness and maintenance of offices to the Contractor as detailed hereinafter to the knowledge of the claimant . The claimant whose assignment as a daily casual labourer admittedly has come to an end on afflux of 08-03-1995 ( he having worked as such from 16-08-1994 to 08-03-1995 and not from 02-05-1994 to 08-05-1995 as contended by him) . He should have approached the contractor in view of the new policy of the management for the assignment but he failed todo so and as such he has to blame himself and not the management .

That admittedly , the claimant above named was engaged by the respondent/ management as a wager on daily basis and he was being paid as such as a casual labourer. Accordingly . his contract of assignment came to an end with the afflux of each day . Therefore , he had no legal right to ask for absorption and/ or continuation of his aforesaid assignment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled the Director , Institute of Management Development , UP , Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070. In this connection , the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being pertinent are extracted below :-

That without prejudice to each and every contention of the respondent/management , the respectful submission ofthe answering management is that at the worst the cause of action to the claimant had arisen on 08-03-1995 whereas the impugned reference has now been made say after more three years . The impugned reference suffers from the vice of belatedness and ignores the fundamental aspect of the respondent /management , as a matter of policy , having resorted to the contract system . The reference , as such , is bad in law, highly belated and against the legislative - cum- publicpolicy and warrantsto be declined without any relief to the claimant , in the circumstances of the case .

"Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by afflux of time , the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post . This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year . He cannot claim regularization in service

That the impugned reference is bad in law as it amounts verepping the jurisdiction not vested by law more particularly under Section - 10 of the Contraci Labour ( Regulation & Abolition ) Act , 1970 , the Central Government has not specifically prohibited the respondent/ management a Company under the Company Act [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

incorporated and established in the year 1986 from engaging labour on contract basis , as in the instant case, duly elaborated by he respondent/ management in its reply before the Ld. ALC ( C) , New Delhi supported by the relevant contract as annexure thereto . It is respectfully submitted thatwhere there is no notification issued under this section employment of contract act is not barred 1991 (2 ) Delhi Lawyer 189 (207) .

It is, however, wrong on the part of the claimant to allege that he was engaged , as aforesaid, and worked from 02-05-1994 to 08-05-1995 the true fact to the knowledge of the claimant is that his assignment with the respondent/ management was during the period 16-08-1994 to 08-03- 1995 and he being admittedly a casual/daily wager on ad hoc basis , his assignment would come to end with the afflux of each day as per the well settled laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court having the force of law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Thus the action of the management in causing cessation of his assignment finally on 08-03-1995 and assigning the work to a Contractor M/ s. Bajaj Engineers , New Delhi , as per the arrangement/ agreement pursuant to the tender notice dated 13-01-1995, marked as Annexure M- 1 and the acceptance thereof in March 1995 marked as Annexure M- 2 culminating into the concluded agreement dated 01-05-1995 marked as Annexure M - 3 effective from 01-04-1995 was valid, legal and proper and in conformity with the legislative - cum -public policy. The claimant cannot be permitted to have any grudge on that account . The rest of the contents of this para are not admitted .

The claimant being a daily wager has no legal right to be continued in the assignment of sweeping/ cleaning etc. as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention of the claimant that new daily wage workers are employed after cessasion of employment being wrong to the knowledge of the claimant, is not admitted . The true fact is that the assignment of cleanliness etc. was assigned to a contractor as a matter of administrative policy . As such and every contention raised by the claimant in this para is not admitted as the true facts have been stated heretofore .

The claimant being a daily wager, his assignment would come to an end on the afflux of each time and he has no legal right to ask for continuation of his assignment . The action of the management in giving the assignment of cleaning etc. to the contractor having been based upon the administrative policy in conformity with the legislative- cum -public policy was and is fair and proper. There is not even an iota of unfair labour practice either as untenably contended by the claimant in this para, nor such a policy decision suffers from the vice of ulterior motives as well . In the circumstances and in view of the factual position, the contents of this para are not admitted.

8199

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

The workman applicant has not turned up after filing rejoinder . He has not filed any affidavit in support of his case.

Ithas been admitted from the side of the mangement that he was a contract worker. It has been also admitted that the workman was given the duties of cleaning and sweeping . The management has filed the agreement for sweeping and cleaning of those employees who were taken on contract basis after the termination of the services of the workmen. The management is not authorized to take contract workers for the work of sweeping and cleaning . It is a perennial nature of work and for perennial nture of work contract labour should not be employed . The management has also admitted that the workman applicant has worked for 200 days but the management has not filed the agreement regarding the workman applicant . The management has deliberately concealed this document as itwould show that the workman applicant has worked for more than 240 days .

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . JT 1999 (2 ) SC 435 that contract labour should not be engaged for perennial nature of work. It is against the devout objective as enshringed in the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the workmen who have completed 240 days work in a year are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of respondents . It has been further held that on lifting the veil it would be clear that the work is of a perennial nature and in such nature of work the intermediary has to be kept out and it would be presumed that the relation of master and servant existed . These views have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ( 2004 ) 1 SCC 126 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances the contract labour is a sham or camouflage and the employer will not be relieved of his liability. In JT 2003 ( 1 ) SC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that contract labour should not be taken for perennial nature of work . In AIR 2001 SC 3527, the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the law laid down in 2000 AIR SCW 4566 . 2000 AIR SCW 2870 , 2001 AIR SCW 134 and AIR 1973 SC 2297. From the perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in transpires that contract labour should not be engaged for work of perennial nature or of statutory nature . Such a work is continuous and regular work . Continuous and regular work should be discharged by regular employees and the contract becomes a camouflage and sham . In this case also payment has been directly made to the workman . No agreement of contract has been filed. The name of the contract worker has not been disclosed . In such circumstances the contract is a sham contract. In AIR 2001 SC 3527, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the industrial adjudicator has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters so there is no force in the argument of the management that the Court/Tribunal has no jurisdiction . There reference is not also bad in law in 8200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

view of AIR 2001 SC Supra as such the reference is good in law . The Tribunal has gotjurisdiction to decide such cases and contract workers should not be taken for performing duties of sweeping and cleaning . The law cited by the management, AIR 1992 SC 2070 , AIR 1992 SC2130 , 1991 (2 ) Delhi Law Times 189 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case . If the management is getting this work done through contract workers the management is obviously adopting unfair labourpractice.

The workman has not filed any affidavit and the management has filed affidavit so the affidavit of the management prevails and the workman applicant has failed to prove that he has done 240 days work . Section 25F of the ID Act is attracted only when it is established that the workman has performed 240 days work . It is settled law that the burden to prove this , lies on the workman . The workman has not discharged this burden so he is not able to get the relief sought for on this count only . The law cited by the management are not applicable in view of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . Since claim statement has not been proved by affidavit the workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Rajender, Safai Karamchari w.c.f. 08-03-1995 is legal and justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The award is given accordingly.

Date: 23-6-2005

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2623.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम . टी. एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/49/96- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2623. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/1998) of the Central Gove.nment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II . New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MTNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2005 .

[No. L -40012/49/96 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER ; CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- II NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL

I. D. No. 73/98

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Veer Pal, C/o . Sh . T. R. Kashyap , Chamber No. 741 , Western Wing, TisHazari Court, Delhi- 110054 .

Versus

M/s . Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), Through the General Manager ( s ) -I , MTNL. Bhikaji Cama Place , NewDelhi.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -40012/49/ 96- IR (DU) Central Governmentdt . 03-03-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder : -

"Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Veer Pal , Safai Karamchari , w.e.f. 08-03-1995 isjustified and legal ? Ifnot , what relief the workman is entitled to . " The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was employed as a Safai Karamchari on daily wage basis along with six other workers at the new MTNL building Complex, 8 , Bhikaji Cama Place and worked as such from 2nd May. 1994 to 08-03-1995 on which date his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the management by a verbal order . In fact new daily wage employees were engaged/given place of the workman . This was obviously done to illegally disrupt the continuity of service of the workman.

That the workman had worked with the management for the above said period without any break and had [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

completed 240 days of work in employment of the management before his services were illegally done away with for ulterior motives . The workman would have continued to be employed because the work of sweeping , cleaning , dusting the office complex etc. against which he was employed was not of a casual one but of continuing and regular nature co - extensive with the occupation and use of the building complex by the employer/ management . This truth is further fortifixed by the fact that new daily wage workers were immediately employed after the termination of the services of the present workmen now before this Hon'ble Court .

That no reason whatsoever was assigned to the workman for the termiation of his services . On the other hand , Shri B. K. Sharma , Deputy Supdt. had been demanding money from each one of the daily wage workmen for their continuance on the job and assured them to be absorbed on regular basis if they pleased him. But as the workman and his other colleagues were not ready to yield to this illegal demand, they were thrown out of employment . From the very next date new daily wage workers were inducted without raising a demand with the employment exchange or following any legal or proper channel which the management was bound to do as a public body. There was no justification whatsoever for replacing old daily wage workers with new daily rated workers . It amounts to an unfair labour practice and is an offence punishable in law . All this was done with ulterior motives .

That the workman had been discharging his duties with great honesty and dedication to his work . There was nothing against his work or conduct . That the workman aforesaid along with his other colleagues entreated the concerned officials to allow them to join their duties on 09-03-1995 but to no use . He found that new workers had been engaged and the petitioner and his other colleagues were not allowed even to enter the premises .

That the workman and his other colleagues had no alternative but to serve a notice of Demand on he Management . The notice of demand was duly served on 16-03-1995 calling upon the management to take the workman back on duty . As the management was in no mood to pay any heads to the prayer of the workman . Conciliation proceedings had to be initiated . The conciliation proceedings failed on account of the adamant attitude of the management .

Thatno notice or pay in lieu of notice as stipulated in the ID Act was given to th workman which is a condition precedent for valid retrenchment . The workman was also not tendered retrenchement compensation but also his earnedwagesfrom 01-03-1995 to 08-03-1995 were illegally withheld/not paid to him . That the act of the management is totally illegal, unjust and arbitrary . The same is void ab- initio being in gross violation inter- alia the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Section 25 ( F) and 25 (H) 2061 Gl /2005-28

8201

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

of the ID Act , 1947. Having been illegally thrown out of employment the poor workman continues to be unemployed and has not been able to find any job for himself.

"Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh , Safai Karamchari with effect from 08-03-1995 is legal and justified? Ifnot , what relief the workman is entitled to. "

The aforesaid impugned reference is bad in law as per the preliminary objections raised herein below .

Thatadmittedly , the claimant above named was engaged by the respondent/management as a wager on daily basis and he was being paid as such as a casual labourer. Accordingly , his contract of assignment came to an end with the afflux of each day . Therefore , he had no legal right to ask for absorption and/or continuation of his aforesaid assignment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled the Director , Institute of Management Development , U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070. In this connection , the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being pertinent are extracted below:-

"Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by afflux of time, the appointment comes to an end , the person holding such post can have no right to contine in the post . This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year. He cannot claim regularization in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc basis for more than a year " .

Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Piare singh Vs. State ofHaryana, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. The above principle is being followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any exception . It is therefore , respectfully submitted that in view of the admitted position appropriate Government should have declined to refer the matter to this Hon'ble Tribunal. In the circumstances , to say the least, the reference is bad in law and without application of mind as well.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

impugned reference being violative of public policy is bad in law on this ground as well .

Thatas apprised to the Appropriate Government by the management through the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( c) , New Delhi vide reply dated 31-05-1995 , a copy attached, the respondent/ management as a matter of policy had decided to give the assignment of Safai / Cleanliness and maintenance of offices to the Contractor as detailed hereinafter to the knowledge of the claimant . The claimant whose assignment as a daily casual labourer admittedly has come to an end on afflux of 08-03-1995 (he having worked as such from 16-08-1994 to 08-03-1995 and not from 02-05-1994 to 08-05-1995 as contended by him) . He should have approached the contractor in view of the new policyof the management for the assignment but he failed to do so and as such he has to blame himself and not the management .

Thatwithout prejudice to each and every contention of the respondent/ management, the respectful submission of the answering management is that at the wrost the cause of action to the claimant had arisen on 08-03-1995 whereas the impunged reference has now been made say after more three years. The impugned reference suffers from the vice ofbelatedness and ignores the fundamental aspect of the respondent/ management, as a matter of policy , having resorted to the contract system. The reference , as such , is bad in law, highly belated and against the legislative - cum- publicpolicy and warrants to be declined without any relief to the claimant , in the circumstances of the case .

That the impugned reference is bad in law as it amounts to overstepping the jurisdiction not vested by law more particularly under Section- 10 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation & Abolition) Act , 1970. the Central Government has not specifically prohibited the respondent/ management a Company under the Company Act imcorporated and established in the year 1986 from engaging labour on contract basis , as in the instant case. duly elaborated by the respondent/ management in its reply before the Ld. ALC ( C). New Delhi supported by the relevant contract as annexure thereto . It is respectfully submitted thatwhere there is no notification issued under this section employment of contract act is not barred 1991 ( 2 ) Delhi Lawyer 189 (207).

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] finally on 08-03-1995 and assigning the work to a Contractor M/ s . Bajaj Engineers , New Delhi , as per the arrangement/ agreement pursuant to the tender notice dated 13-01-1995. marked as Annexure M - 1 and the acceptance thereof in March 1995 marked as Annexure M - 2 culminating into the concluded agreement dated 01-05-1995 marked as Annexure M - 3 effective from 01-04-1995 was valid, legal and proper and in conformity with the legislative -cum -public policy . The claimant cannot be permitted to have any grudge onthat account. The rest of the contents of this para are not admitted .

The claimant being a daily wager has no legal right to be continued in the assignment of sweeping/ cleaning etc. as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The contention of the claimant that new daily wage workers are employed after cessasion of employment being wrong to the knowledge of the claimant , is not admitted. The true fact is that the assignment of cleanliness etc. was assigned to a contractor as a matter of administrative policy . As such and every contention raised by the claimant in this para is not admitted as the true facts have been stated here to fore.

The claimant being a daily wager, his assignment would come to an end on the afflux of each time and he has no legal right to ask for continuation of his assignment . The action the management in giving the assignment of cleanireg to the contractor having been based upon the administrative policy in conformity with the legislative- cum-public policy was and is fair and proper . There is not even an iota of unfair labour practice either as untenably contendedby the claimant in this para , nor such a policy- decision suffers from the vice of ulterior motives as well . In ane circumstances and in view of the factual position , the contents of this para are not admitted .

Theworkman applicant has not turned up after filing rejoinder . He has not filed any affidavit in support of his case .

Ithas been admitted from the side of the management that he was a contract worker . It has been also admitted that the workman was given the duties of cleaning and sweeping . The management has filed the agreement for sweeping and cleaning of those employees who were taken on contract basis after the termination of the services of the workmen . The management is not authorized to take contract workers for the work of sweeping and cleaning . It is a perennial nature of work and for perennial nature of work contract labour should not be employed . The management has also admitted that the workman applicant has worked for 200 days but the management has not filed the agreement regarding the workman applicant . The managemen as deliberately concealed this document as itwould show that the workman applicant has worked for more than 240 days .

[ भांग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

8203 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

citedby the management are not applicable in view ofthe recent decisions ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since claim statement has not been proved by affidavit the workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Veer Pal , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 08-03-1995 is legal and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

TheAward is given accordingly . Date: 22-6-2005 R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2624.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. टी. एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40012/48/96- आई आर( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005

S.O. 2624. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.69/ 1998) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of MTNL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 29-06-2005.

[No. L -40012/48/96 - IR(DU)]

KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER ; CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , JT 1999 (2 ) SC 435 that contract labour should not be engaged for perennial nature of work . It is against the devout objective as enshringed in the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the workmen who have completed 240 days work in a year are entitled tobe absorbed permanently as employees of respondents . It has been further held that on lifting the veil it wouldbe clear that the work is of a perennial nature and in such nature of work the intermediary has to be kept out and it wouldbe presumed that the relation of master and servant existed. These views have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2004) 1 SCC 126 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances the contract labour is a sham or camouflage and the employer will not be relieved of his liability. In JT 2003 ( 1 ) SC 465 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that contract labour should not be taken for perennial nature of work. In AIR 2001 SC 3527 , the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the law laid down in 2000 AIR SCW 4566, 2000 AIR SCW 2870 , 2001 AIR SCW 134 and AIR 1973 SC 2297. From the perusal of thejudgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in transpires that contract labour should not be engaged for work of perennial nature or of statutory nature . Such a work is continuous and regular work . Continuous and regular work should be discharged by regular employees and the contract becomes a camouflage and sham . In this case also payment has been directly made to the workman. No agreement of contract has been filed. The name of the contract worker has not been disclosed . In such circumstances the contract is a sham contract . In AIR 2001 SC 3527 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the industrial adjudicator has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters so there is no force in the argument of the management that the Court/Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The reference is not also bad in law in view of AIR 2001 SC Supra as such the reference is good in law . The Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide such cases and contract workers should not be taken for performing duties of sweeping and cleaning . The law cited by the management, AIR 1992 SC 2070 , AIR 1992 SC2130, 1991 (2) Delhi Law Times 189 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case . If the management is getting this work done through contract workers the management is obviously adopting unfair labour practice.

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAL L. D. No. 69/98

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Shri Dinesh ,

C/o . Sh . T. R. Kashyap , Chamber No. 741 , WesternWing, TisHazari Court, Delhi-110054.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Versus

M/ s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) , Through the General Manager( s)-I ,

MTNL,

Bhikaji Cama Place ,

NewDelhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of.Labour by its letter No. L -40012/48/ 96 - IR (DU) Central Government dt. 03-03-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :--

"Whether the action ofthe management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh , Safai Karamchari , w.e.f. 08-03-1995 isjustified and legal?

Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to . " Theworkman applicant has filed statement of claim.

In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was employed as a Safai Karamchari on daily wage basis along with six other workers at the new MTNL building Complex, 8, Bhikaji Cama Place and worked as such from 2nd May, 1994 to 08-03-1995 on which date his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the management by a verbal order. In fact new daily wage employees were engaged/given place of the workman . This was obviously done to illegally disrupt the continuity of service of the workman.

Thatthe workman had worked with the management for the above said period without any break and had completed 240 days of work in employment of the management before his services were illegally done away with for ulterior motives . The workman would have continued to be employed because the work of sweeping , cleaning, dusting the office complex etc. against which he was employed was not of a casual one but of continuing and regular nature co - extensive with the occupation and use of the building complex by the employer/ management. This truth is further fortifixed by the fact that new daily wage workers were immediately employed after the termination of the services of the present workmen now before this Hon'ble Court .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] channel which the management was bound to do as a public body. There was nojustification whatsoever for replacing old daily wage workers with new daily rated workers . It amounts to an unfair labour practice and is an offence punishable in law . All this was done with ulterior motives.

That the workman and his other colleagues had no alternative but to serve a notice of Demand on the Management. The notice of demand was duly served on 16-03-1995 calling upon the management to take the workman back on duty . As the management was in no mood to pay any heads to the prayer of the workman. Conciliation proceedings had to be initiated . The conciliation proceedings failed on account of the adamant attitude of the management .

Thatno notice or pay in lieu of notice as stipulated in the ID Act was given to the workman which is a condition precedent for valid retrenchment . The workman was also not tendered retrenchement compensation but also his earnedwages from 01-03-1995 to 08-03-1995 were illegally withheld/not paid to him . That the act of the management istotally illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The same is void ab- initio being in gross violation inter - alia the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Section 25 (F) and 25 (H) of the ID Act, 1947. Having been illegally thrown out of employment the poor workman continues to be unemployed and has not been able to find any job for himself.

The afe impungned reference is bad in law as per the preliminary objections raised herein below .

aforesaid assignment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled the Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. Vs. Smt. Pushpa Srivastava reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070. In this connection, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being pertinent are extracted below :-

"Where the appointment is purely on adhoc basis and is contractual and by afflux of time, the appointment comes to an end, the person holding such post can have no right to continue in the post. This is so even if the person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year. He cannot claim regularization in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc basis for more than a year."

Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Piare Singh Vs. State ofHaryana , reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. The above principle is being followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any exception. It is therefore , respectfully submitted that in view of the admitted position appropriate Government should have declined to refer the matter to this Hon'ble Tribunal. In the circumstances , to say the least, the reference is bad in law and without application of mind as well.

Thatas apprised to the Appropriate Government by the management through the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , New Delhi vide reply dated 31-05-1995, a copy attached , the respondent/management as a matter of policy had decided to give the assignment of Safai / Cleanliness and maintainance of offices to the Contractor as detailed hereinafter to the knowledge of the claimant. The claimant whose assignment as a daily casual labourer admittedly has come to an end on afflux of 08-03-1995 (he having worked as such from 16-08-1994 to 08-03-1995 and not from 02-05-1994 to 08-05-1995 as contended by him). He should have approached the contractor in view of the new policy of the management for the assignment but he failed to do so and as such he has to blame himself and not themanagement .

That without prejudice to each and every contention of the respondent/ management , the respectful submission of the answering management is that at the wrost the cause

8205

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

of action to the claimant had arisen on 08-03-1995 whereas the impugned reference has now been made say after more three years . The impugned reference suffers from the vice ofbelatedness and ignores the fundamental aspect of the respondent/ management, as a matter of policy , having resortedto the contract system . The reference, as such, is bad in law, highly belated and against the legislative-cum- publicpolicy and warrants to be declined without any relief to the claimant, in the circumstances of the case .

That the impugned reference is bad in law as it amounts to overstepping the jurisdiction not vested by law more particularly under Section - 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 , the Central Government has not specifically prohibited the respondent/ management a Company under the company act imcorporated and established in the year 1986 from engaging labour on contract basis , as in the instant case, dulyelaborated by the respondent/management in its reply before the Ld . ALC (C) , New Delhi supported by the relevant contract as annexure thereto . It is respectfully submitted thatwhere there is no notification issued under this section employment of contract act is not barred 1991 (2) Delhi Lawyer 189(207).

It is, however , wrong on the part of the claimant to allege that he was engaged , as aforesaid , and worked from 02-05-1994 to 08-05-1995. The true fact to the knowledge of the claimant is that his assignment with the respondent/ management was during the period 16-08-1994 to 08-03-1995 and he being admittedly a casual/ daily wager on adhoc basis, his assignment would come to end with the afflux of each day as per the well settled laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court having the force of law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Thus the action of the management in causing cessation of his assignment finally on 08-03-1995 and assigning the work to a Contractor M/s . Bajaj Engineers , New Delhi , as per the arrangement/ agreement pursuant to the tender notice dated 13-01-1995 , marked as Annexure M - 1 and the acceptance thereofinMarch 1995 marked as Annexure M -2 culminating intothe concluded agreement dated 01-05-1995 marked as Annexure M - 3 effective from 01-04-1995 was valid, legal andproper and in conformity with the legislative -cum -public policy. The claimant cannot be permitted to have any grudge on that account. The rest of the contents of this para are not admitted.

The claimant being a daily wager has no legal right to be continued in the assignment of sweeping/cleaning etc. as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The contentionofthe claimant that new daily wage workers are employed after cessation of employment being wrong to the knowledge of the claimant, is not admitted . The true fact is that the assignment of cleanliness etc. was assigned to a contractor as a matter of administrative policy . As 8206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] such and every contention raised by the claimant in this para is not admitted as the true facts have been stated heretofore .

The claimant being a daily wager , his assignment would come to an end on the afflux of each time and he has no legal right to ask for continuation of his assignment The action of the management in giving the assignment of cleaning etc. to the contractor having been based upon the administrative policy in conformity with the legislative- cum -publicpolicy was and is fair and proper . There is not even an iota of unfair labour practice either as untenably contended by the claimant in this para, nor such a policy decision suffers from the vice of ulterior motives as well . In the circumstances and in view of the factual position, the contents of this para are not admitted .

The workman applicant has not turned up after filing rejoinder . He has not filed any affidavit in support of his case.

the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that contract labour should not be taken for perennial nature of work . In AIR 2001 SC 3527 , the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the law laid down in 2000 AIR SCW 4566 , 2000 AIR SCW 2870 , 2001 AIR SCW 134 and AIR 1973 SC 2297. From the perusal of the judgement ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court it transpires that contract labour should not be engaged for work ofperennial nature or of statutory nature . Such a work is a continuous and regular work . Continuous and regular work should be discharged by regular employees and the contract becomes a camouflage and sham . In this case also payment has been directly made to the workman . No agreement of contract has been filed. The name of the contract worker has not been disclosed . In such circumstances the contract is a sham contract . In AIR 2001 SC 3527 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the industrial adjudicator has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters so there is no force in the argument of the management that the Court/Tribunal has no jurisdiction . There reference is not also bad in law in view of AIR 2001 SC Supra as such the reference is good in law . The Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide such cases and contract workers should not be taken for performing duties of sweeping and cleaning . The law cited by the management, AIR 1992 SC 2070 , AIR 1992 SC 2130, 1991 (2) Delhi Law Times 189 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case . If the management is getting this work done through contract workers the management is obviously adopting unfair labour practice .

It has been admitted from the side of the management that he was a contract worker. It has been also admitted that the workman was given the duties of cleaning and sweeping. The management has filed the agreement for sweeping and cleaning of those employees who were taken on contract basis after the termination of the services of the workmen. The management is not authorized to take contract workers for the work of sweeping and cleaning. It is a perennial nature of work and for perennial nature of work contract labour should not be employed . The management has also admitted that the workman applicant has worked for 200 days but the management has not filed the agreement regarding the workman applicant. The management has deliberately concealed this document as it would show that the workman applicant has worked for more than 240 days .

The workman has not filed any affidavit and the management has filed affidavit so the affidavit of the management prevails and the workman applicant has failed to prove that he has done 240 days work . Section 25F of the ID Act is attracted only when it is established that the workman has performed 240 days work . It is settled law that the burden to prove this , lies on the workman. The workman has not discharged this burden so he is not able to get the relief sought for on this count only . The law cited by the management are not applicable in view of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court . Since claim statement has not been proved by affidavit the workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 08-03-1995 is legal and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The Award is given accordingly.

Date: 21-6-2005

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer Ithas been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , JT 1999 (2) SC 435 that contract labour should not be engaged for perennial nature of work . It is against the devout objective as enshringed in the Constitution . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the workmen who have completed 240 days work in a year are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of respondents . It has been further held that on lifting the veil it would be clear that the work is of a perennial nature and in such nature of work the intermediary has to be kept out and it would be presumed that the relation of master and servant existed . These views have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2004) 1 SCC 126 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances the contract labour is a sham or camouflage and the employer will not be relieved of his liability. In JT 2003 ( 1 ) SC 465 , [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2625.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एम.टी.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/47/96- आईआर(डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005

S.O. 2625. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/98) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MTNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2005.

[No. L -40012/47/96 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI

L.D. NO . 72/98 IN THE MATTER OF :

Smt. Suraj Mukhi ,

C/o . Sh . T. R. Kashyap . Chamber No. 741 , Western Wing, TisHazari Court, Delhi-110054.

Versus

M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) , Through the General Manager(s )-I , MTNL. , Bhikaji Cama Place , NewDelhi.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-40012/47/ 96- IR (DU) Central Government dt . 3-3-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication .

8207

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Smt . Suraj Mukhi , Safai karmchari , w.e.f. 8-3-1995 is justified and legal? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to" .

Theworkman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was employed as a Safai Karmachari on daily wage basis along with six other workers at the new MTNL building Complex, 8, Bhikaji Cama Place and worked as such from 2nd May 1994 to 8-3-1995 on which date his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the management by a verbal order . In fact new daily wage employees were engaged/given place of the workman. This was obviously done to illegally disrupt the continuity of service of the workman.

That the workman had worked with the management for the above said period without any break and had completed 240 days of work in employment of the management before his services were illegally done away with for ulterior motives . The workman would have continued to be employed because the work of sweeping , cleaning, dusting the office complex etc. against which he was employed was not of a casual one but of continuing and regular nature co - extensive with the occupation and use ofthe building complex by the employer/ management. This truth is further fortifixed by the fact that new daily wage workers were immediately employed after the termination of the services of the present workmen now before this Hon'ble Court .

That no reason whatsoever was assigned to the workman for the termination of his services . On the other hand, Shri B.K. Sharma , Deputy Supdt . had been demanding money from each one of the daily wage workmen for their continuance on the job and assured them to be absorbed onregular basis if they pleased him . But as the workman and his other colleagues were not ready to yield to this illegal demand, they were thrown out of employment . From the very next date new daily wage workers were inducted without raising a demand with employment exchange or following any legal or proper channel which the management was bound to do as a public body. There was no justification whatsoever for replacing old daily wage workers with new daily rated workers. It amounts to an unfair labour practice and is an offence punishable in law . All this was done with ulterior motives .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 9-3-1995 but to no use . He found that new workers had been engaged and the petitioner and his other colleagues were not allowed even to enter the premises .

person is continued from time to time on adhoc basis for more than a year . He cannot claim regularization in service on basis that he was appointed on adhoc basis for more than a year" .

That the workman and his other colleagues had no alternative but to serve a notice of Demand on the Management . The notice of demand was duly served on 16-3-1995 calling upon the management to take the workman back on duty . As the management was in no mood to pay any heeds to the prayer of the workman. Conciliation proceedings had to be initiated . The conciliation proceedings failed on account of the adamant attitude of the management .

Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Piare Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. The above principle is being followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any exception. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that in view of the admitted position appropriate Government should have declined to refer the matter to this Hon'ble Tribunal . In the circumstances , to say the least, the reference is bad in law and without application of mind as well .

That no notice or pay in lieu of notice as stipulated inthe ID Act was given to the workman which is a condition precedent for valid retrenchment . The workman was also not tendered retrenchement compensation but also his earned wages from 1-3-1995 to 8-3-1995 were illegally withheld/ not paid to him . That the act of the management is totally illegal , unjust and arbitrary. The same is void ab- initio being in gross violation inter - alia the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Section 25 (F) and 25 (H) ofthe ID Act, 1947. Having been illegally thrown out of employment the poor workman continues to be unemployed and has not been able to find any job for himself.

"Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh , Safai Karamchari with effect from 8-3-1995 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to. "

The aforesaid impungned reference is bad in law as perthe preliminary objections raised herein below

Thatas apprised to the Appropriate Government by the management through the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , New Delhi vide reply dated 31-5-1995 , a copy attached , the respondent/management as a matter of policy had decided to give the assignment of Safai / Cleanliness and maintainance of offices to the Contractor as detailed hereinafter to the knowledge of the claimant. The claimant whose assignment as a daily casual labourer admittedly has come to an end on afflux of 8-3-1995 (he having worked as such from 16-8-1994 to 8-3-1995 and not from2-5-1994 to 8-5-1995 as contended by him) . He should have approached the contractor in view of the new policy ofthe management for the assignment but he failed to do so and as such he has to blame himself and not the management .

Thatwithout prejudice to each and every contention ofthe respondent/ management ,. the respectful submission ofthe answering management is that at the wrost the cause of action to the claimant had arisen on 8-3-1995 whereas the impugned reference has now been made say after more three years. The impugned reference suffers from the vice ofbelatedness and ignores the fundamental aspect of the respondent/management, as a matter of policy , having resorted to the contract system . The reference , as such , is bad in law, highly belated and against the legislative -cum- public policy and warrants to be declined without any relief to the claimant , in the circumstances of the case .

That admittedly, the claimant above od was engaged by the respondent/ management as a wager on daily basis and he was being paid as such as a casual labourer . Accordingly , his contract of assignment came to an end with the afflux of each day. Therefore , he had no legal right to ask for absorption and/or continuation of his aforesaid assignment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled The Director , Institute of Management Development, Up, Vs. Smt Pushpa Srivastava reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070. In this connection, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being pertinent are extracted below:-

Government has not specifically prohibited the respondent/ management a Company under the company act incorporated and established in the year 1986 from engaging labour on contract basis, as in the instant case, duly elaborated by the respondent/ management in its reply before the Ld. ALC( C) , New Delhi supported by the relevant contract as annexure thereto . It is respectfully submitted thatwhere there is no notification issued under this section employment of contract act is not barred 1991 (2) Delhi Lawyer 189 (207) .

It is, however, wrong on the part of the claimant to allege that he was engaged , as aforesaid, and worked from 2-5-1994 to 8-5-1995, the true fact to the knowledge of the claimant is that his assignment with the respondent/ management was during the period 16-8-1994 to 8-3-1995 and he being admittedly a casual/daily wager on adhoc basis , his assignment would come to end with the afflux of each day as per the well settled laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court having the force of law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus the action of the management in causing cessation of his assignment finally on 8-3-1995 and assigning the work to a ContractorM/s . Bajaj Engineers, New Delhi , as per the arrangement/ agreement pursuant to the tender notice dated 13-1-1995, marked as Annexure - M - 1 and the acceptance thereof in March 1995 marked as Annexure -M -2 culminating into the concluded agreement dated 1-5-1995 marked as Annexure- M- 3 effective from 1-4-1995 was valid, legal and proper and in conformity with the legislative- cum -public policy. The claimant cannot be permitted to have any grudge on that account . The rest of the contents of this para are not admitted.

The claimant being a daily wager has no legal right to be continued in the assignment of sweeping/ cleaning etc. as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The contention ofthe claimant that new daily wage workers are employed after cessasion of employment being wrong to the knowledge of the claimant , is not admitted. The true fact is that the assigment of cleanliness etc. was assigned to a contractor as a matter of administrative policy . As such and every contention raised by the claimant in this para is not admitted as the true facts have been stated heretofore .

The claimant being a daily wager, his assignment would come to an end on the afflux of each time and he has no legal right to ask for continuation of his assignment . The action of the management in giving the assignment of cleaning etc. to the contractor having been based upon the administrative policy in conformity with the legislative- cum -public policy was and is fair and proper . There is not even an iota of unfair labour practice either as untenably contended by the claimant in this para, ner such a policy decision suffers from the vice of ulterior motives as well .

2061 GI /2005-29

8209

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Inthe circumstances and in view of the factual position, the contents of this para are not admitted.

Theworkman applicant has not turned up after filing rejoinder. He has not filed any affidavit in support of this case.

Ithas been admitted from the side of the management that he was a contract worker . It has been also admitted that the workman was given the duties of cleaning and sweeping . The management has filed the agreement for sweeping and cleaning of those employees who were taken on contract basis after the termination of the services of the workmen . The management is not authorized to take contract workers for the work of sweeping and cleaning. It is a perennial nature of work and for perennial nature of work contract labour should not be employed. The management has also admitted that the workman applicant has worked for 200 days but the management has not filed the agreement regarding the workman applicant . The management has deliberately concealed this document as itwould show that the workman applicant has worked for more than 240 days .

It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , JT 1999 ( 2) SC 435 that contract labour should not be engaged for perennial nature of work . It is against the devout objective as enshringed in the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the workmen who have completed 240 days work in a year are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of respondents . It has been further held that on lifting the veil it would be clear that the work is of a perennial nature and in such nature of work the intermediary has to be kept out and it would be presumed that the relation of master and servant existed . These views have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2004) 1 SCC 126 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances the contract labour is a sham or camouflage and the employer will notbe relieved ofhis liability. In JT 2003 ( 1) SC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that contract labour should not be taken for perennial nature of work. In AIR 2001 SC 3527, the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the law laid down in 2000 AIR SCW 4566 , 2000 AIR SCW 2870 , 2001 AIR SCW 134 and AIR 1973 SC 2297. From the perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it transpires that contract labour should not be engaged for work of perennial nature or of statutory nature . Such a work is a continuous and regular work . Continuous and regular work should be discharged by regular employees and the contract becomes a camouflage and sham . In this case also payment has been directly made to the workman . No agreement of contract has been filed . The name of the contract worker has not been disclosed . In such circumstances the contract is a sham contract. InAIR 2001 SC 3527, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the industrial adjudicator has the jurisdiction 8210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1, 1927

to adjudicate such matters so there is no force in the argument of the management that the Court/Tribunal has no jurisdiction. The reference is not also bad in law in view ofAIR 2001 SC Supra as such the reference is good in law . The Tribunal has gotjurisdiction to decide such cases and contract workers should not be taken for performing duties of sweeping and cleaning. The law cited by the management, AIR 1992 SC 2070, AIR 1992 SC2130, 1991 (2) Delhi Law Times 189 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If the management is getting this work done through contract workers the management is obviously adopting unfair labour practice. The workman has not filed any affidavit and the management has filed affidavit so the affidavit of the management prevails and the workman applicant has failed to prove that he has done 240 days work . Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted only when it is established that the workman has performed 240 days work . It is settled law that the burden to prove this , lies on the workman . The workman has not discharged this burden so he is not able to get the relief sought for on this count only. The law citedby the management are not applicable in view of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Since claim statement has not been proved by affidavit the workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief.

The reference is replied thus:-

The action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Smt . Suraj Mukhi , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 8-3-1995 is legal and justified . The workman applicant is not entitled to ger any relief as prayed for.

TheAward is given accordingly .

Date : 20-6-2005

R. N. RAI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2626.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एम.टी.एन.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के वीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ नं.- II . नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40012/45/96- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2626. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/98) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. II . New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of MTNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-06-2005 .

[No. L -40012/45/ 96 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI

L.D. NO . 75/98

IN THE MATTER OF :

Shri . Bijender , C/o . Sh . T. R. Kashyap . Chamber No. 741 , Westera Wing, TisHazari Court, Delhi - 110054 .

Versus

M/s. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) , Through the General Manager (s ) -I , MTNL. , Bhikaji Cama Place , NewDelhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -40012/45/ 96-IR (DU) Central Government dtd . 2-3-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Bijender , Safai Karmchari , w.e.f. 8-3-1995 is justified and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to " .

The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the workman was employed as a Safai Karmchari on daily wage basis along with six other workers at the new MTNL building Complex , 8 , Bhikaji Cama Place and worked as such from 2nd May , 1994 to 8-3-1995 on which date his services were illegally and arbitrarily terminated by the management by a verbal order . In fact new daily wage employees were engaged/ given place of the workman . This was obviously done to illegally disrupt the continuity of service of the workman .

That the workman had worked with the management for the above said period without any break and had completed 240 days of work in employment of the 8211 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ofthe ID Act, 1947. Having been illegally thrown out of employment the poor workman continues to be unemployed and has not been able to find any job for himself.

The management has filed written statement. In the written statement it is stated that the above matter is pending adjudication before this Hon'ble Tribunal pursuant to the order of reference made by the appropriate Government reading as under : -

management before his services were illegally done away with for ulterior motives . The workman would have continued to be employed because the work of sweeping , cleaning, dusting the office complex etc. against which he was employed was not of a casual one but of continuing and regular nature co - extensive with the occupation and use of the building complex by the employer/ management . This truth is further fortifixed by the fact that new daily wage workers were immediately employed after the termination of the services of the present workmen now before this Hon'ble Court .

" Whether the action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Dinesh , Safai Karamchari with effect from 8-3-1995 is legal andjustified ? Ifnot , what relief the workman is entitled to . "

The aforesaid impungned reference is bad in law as perthe preliminary objections raised herein below .

That no reason whatsoever was assigned to the workman for the termination of his services. On the other hand, Shri B.K. Sharma, Deputy Supdt. had been demanding money from each one of the daily wage workmen for their continuance on the job and assured them to be absorbed on regular basis if they pleased him . But as the workman and his other colleagues were not ready to yield to this illegal demand, they were thrown out of employment . From the very next date new daily wage workers were inducted without raising a demand with the employment exchange or following any legal or proper channel which the management was bound to do as a public body . There was no justification whatsoever for replacing old daily wage workers with new daily rated workers . It amounts to an unfair labourpractice and is an offence punishable in law . All this was done with ulterior motives .

That admittedly , the claimant above named was engaged by the respondent/ management as a wager on daily basis and he was being paid as such as a casual labourer. Accordingly , his contract of assignment came to an end with the afflux of each day . Therefore , he had no legal right to ask for absorption and/or continuation of his aforesaid assignment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled the Director , Institute of Management Development , UP , Vs. Smt . Pushpa Srivastava reported in AIR 1992 SC 2070 . In this connection, the following observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court being pertinent are extracted below:-

That the workman had been discharging his duties with great honesty and dedication to his work . There was nothing against his work or conduct . That the workman aforesaid along with his other colleagues entreated the concerned officials to allow them to join their duties on 9-3-1995 but to no use . He found that new workers had been engaged and the petitioner and his other colleagues were not allowed even to enter the premises.

Thatthe workman and his other colleagues had no alternative but to serve a notice of demand on the management. The notice of demand was duly served on 16-3-1995 calling upon the management to take the workman back on duty . As the management was in no mood to pay any heeds to the prayer of the workman. Conciliation proceedings had to be initiated. The conciliation proceedings failed on account of the adamant attitude of the management .

Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case entitled Piare Singh Vs. State ofHaryana, reported in AIR 1992 SC 2130. The above principle is being followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without any exception . It is therefore , respectfully submitted that in view of the admitted position appropriate Government should have declined to refer the matter to this Hon'ble Tribunal . In the circumstances , to say the least, the reference is bad in law and without application of mind aswell .

That it is a well known fact to the knowledge of the claimant as well that the respondent/management is a licensee of the Government of India, as a matter of policy, has decided that no regular recruitment should be made . The respondent/management as a matter of policy could That no notice or pay in lieu of notice as stipulated inthe ID Act was given to the workman which is a condition precedent for valid retrenchment . The workman was also not tendered retrenchment compensation but also his earned wages from 1-3-1995 to 8-3-1995 were illegally withheld/ not paid to him . That the act of the management is totally illegal, unjust and arbitrary . The same is void ab - initio being in gross violation inter - alia the mandatory statutory provisions contained in Section 25 (F ) and 25 (H ) 8212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] not engage the persons like the claimant herein . The impugned reference being violative of public policy is bad in law on this ground as well .

on 8-3-1995 and assigning the work to a Contractor M/s . Bajaj Engineers , New Delhi , as per the arrangement/ agreement pursuant to the tender notice dated 13-1-1995 , marked as Annexure - M - 1 and the acceptance thereof in March 1995 marked as Annexure - M - 2 culminating into the concluded agreement dated 1-5-1995 marked as Annexure- M-3 effective from 1-4-1995 was valid, legal and proper and in conformity with the legislative - cum -public policy. The claimant cannot be permitted to have any grudge on that account . The rest of the contents of this para are not admitted.

That as apprised to the appropriate Government by the management through the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , New Delhi vide reply dated 31-5-1995 , a copy attached. the respondent/ management as a matter of policy had decided to give the assignment of Safai/ Cleanliness and maintainance of offices to the Contractor as detailed hereinafter to the knowledge of the claimant . The claimant whose assignment as a daily casual labourer admittedly has come to an end on afflux of 8-3-1995 (he having worked as such from 16-8-1994 to 8-3-1995 and not from 2-5-1994 to 8-5-1995 as contended by him) . He should have approached the contractor in view of the new policy of the management for the assignment but he failed to do so and as such he has to blame himself and not the management.

The claimant being a daily wager has no legal right to be continued in the assignment of sweeping/ cleaning etc.as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . The contentionofthe claimant that new daily wage workers are employed after cessation of employment being wrong to the knowledge ofth claimant , is not admitted . The true fact is that the assignment of cleanliness etc. was assigned to a contractor as a matter of administrative policy. As such and every contention raised by the claimant in this para is not admitted as the true facts have been stated heretofore .

Thatwithout prejudice to each and every contention ofthe respondent/management , the respectful submission ofthe answering management is that at the wrost the cause of action to the claimant had arisen on 8-3-1995 whereas the impugned reference has now been made say after more three years . The impugned reference suffers from the vice ofbelatedness and ignores the fundamental aspect of the respondent/ management , as a matter of policy, having resorted to the contract system . The reference , as such , is bad in law, highly belated and against the legislative - cum- public policy and warrants to be declined without any relief to the claimant , in the circumstances of the case .

The claimant being a daily wager, his assignment would come to an end on the afflux of each time and he has no legal right to ask for continuation of his assignment. The action of the management in giving the assignment of cleaning etc. to the contractor having been based upon the administrative policy in conformity with the legislative- cum -publicpolicy was and is fair and proper. There is not even an iota of unfair labour practice either as untenably contended by the claimant in this para, nor such a policy decision suffers from the vice of ulterior motives as well . In the circumstances and in view of the factual position , the contents of this para are not admitted .

Theworkman applicant has not turned up after filing rejoinder. He has not filed any affidavit in support of this case .

That the impugned reference is bad in law as it amounts to overstepping the jurisdiction not vested by law more particularly under Section- 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970, the Central Government has not specifically prohibited the respondent/ management a Company under the Company Act incorporated and established in the year 1986 from engaging labour on contract basis , as in the instant case , duly elaborated by the respondent/management in its reply before the Ld . ALC( C ) , New Delhi supported by the relevant contract as annexure thereto. It is respectfully submitted thatwhere there is no notification issued under this section employment of contract act is not barred 1991 (2 ) Delhi Lawyer 189 ( 207 ) .

Ithas been admitted from the side of the management that he was a contract worker. It has been also admitted that the workman was given the duties of cleaning and sweeping. The management has filed the agreement for sweeping and cleaning of those employees who were taken on contract basis after the termination of the services of the workmen. The management is not authorized to take contract workers for the work of sweeping and cleaning . It is a perennial nature of work and for perennial nature of work contract labour should not be employed . The management has also admitted that the workman applicant hasworked for 200 days but the management has not filed the agreement regarding the workman applicant . The management has deliberately concealed this document as it would show that the workman applicant has worked for more than 240 days .

It is , however, wrong on the part of the claimantto allege that he was engaged , as aforesaid , and worked from 2-5-1994 10 8-5-1995 , the true fact to the knowledge of the claimant is that his assignment with the respondent/ management was during the period 16-8-1994 to 8-3-1995 and he being admittedly a casual/daily wager on adhoc basis , his assignment would come to end with the afflux of each day as per the well settled laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court having the force of law under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Thus the action of the management in causing cessation of his assignment finally 8213 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/श्रावण 1 , 1927

statement has not been proved by affidavit the workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of MTNL in terminating the services of Shri Bijender , Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 8-3-1995 is legal and justified. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

TheAward is given accordingly .

Date. 24-6-2005

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2627.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , देना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 32/87 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/448/86- डी- II ( ए) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2627. In pursuance of Section . 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/87) of the Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-06-2005.

[No. L- 12012/448 /86-D -II (A) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-I AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SRI . M. E. N. PATRUDU, Chairman, Industrial Tribunal - I , Hyd .

Date: 6th day ofMay , 2005

Industrial Dispute No. 32 OF 1987

Between:

... Petitioner Ithas been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, JT 1999 (2 ) SC 435 that contract labour should not be engaged for perennial nature of work. It is against the devout objective as enshrined in the Constitution . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the workmenwhohave completed 240 days work in a year are entitled to be absorbed permanently as employees of respondents . It has been further held that on lifting the veil it would be clear that the work is of a perennial nature and in such nature of work the intermediary has to be kept out and it would be presumed that the relation of master and servant existed. These views have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2004) 1 SCC 126 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in such circumstances the contract labour is a sham or camouflage and the employer will not be relieved ofhis liability . In JT 2003 ( 1 ) SC 465, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that contract labour should not be taken for perennial nature of work. In AIR 2001 SC 3527, the five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has approved the law laid down in 2000 AIR SCW 4566 , 2000 AIR SCW 2870 , 2001 AIR SCW 134 and AIR 1973 SC 2297. From the perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court it transpires that contract labour should not be engaged for work of perennial nature or of statutory nature . Such a work is a continuous and regular work . Continuous and regular work should be discharged by regular employees and the contract becomes a camouflage and sham . In this case also payment has been directly made to the workman . No agreement of contract has been filed . The name of the contract worker has not been disclosed . In such circumstances the contract is a sham contract. In AIR 2001 SC 3527, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the industrial adjudicator has the jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters so there is no force in the argument of the management that the Court/Tribunal has jurisdiction . The reference is not also bad in law in view ofAIR 2001 SC Supra as such the reference is good in law. The Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide such cases and contract workers should not be taken for performing duties of sweeping and cleaning . The law cited by the management , AIR 1992 SC 2070 , AIR 1992 SC2130, 1991 (2) Delhi Law Times 189 are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. If the management is getting this work done through contract workers the management is obviously adopting unfair labour practice . The workman has not filed any affidavit and the management has filed affidavit so the affidavit of the management prevails and the workman applicant has failed to prove that he has done 240 days work . Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted only when it is established that the workman has performed 240 days work. It is settled law that the burden to prove this , lies on the workman . The workman has not discharged this burden so he is not able to get the relief sought for on this count only . The law citedby the management are not applicable in view of the recent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since claim

The Workman (N. Laxminarayana) of Dena Bank , Dharmaram Branch, Rep. by his General Secretary , Dena Bank Employees Union , A. P. Unit, C/o . Dena Bank , Bank Street, Hyderabad 8214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

AND

The Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Sona Towers , 71 , Millars Road, Bangalore- 560052

Respondent APPEARANCES :-

General Secretary of the Petition Union Smt. K. Annapurna Reddy , Advocate for the Respondent .

AWARD

1.00 PETITIONER :

The petitioner is Dena Bank Employees ' Union , Rep . by its General Secretary

2.00 RESPONDENTS :

The Respondent is the Dena Bank , Rep . by its Regional Manager

3.00 DISPUTE:

Thedispute is:

"Whether the action of the management of Dena Bank is justified in inflicting the punishment of stoppage of special allowance (Cash allowance) and also stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect to Shri N. Laxminarayana, Cashier- cum-Clerk Dharmaram Branch ?

If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

4.00 Claim Statement is filed by the Petitioner and Counter is filed by the Respondent .

5.00 In nutshell , the facts are that the management of Dena Bank respondent herein has inflicted the Punishment of stoppage of special allowance and stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect to N. Laxminarayana, the workman herein and whether it is justified or not ? The admitted facts are employment of the workman and also the stoppage of increment and allowance .

6.00 This Tribunal has passed an Award holding that the action of the Management in stoppage of special allowance is justified but stoppage of annual increment with cumulative effect is not justified and therefore directed to release the annual increment .

7.00 Aggrieved by the same , a Writ Petition is filed before the Hon'ble High Court and in W. P. No.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 11104/94 the matter was remitted for fresh consideration .

8.00 Onreceipt of the order of the Hon'ble High Court notices were issued to both parties ,

8.01 General Secretary of Petitioner Union filed a memo ofappearance, Smt . K. Annapurna Reddy , filed Vakalatfor respondent .

9.00 The matter is adjourned from time to time . Finally the matter was heard.

10.00 Onbehalf ofpetitioner the Union of Dena Bank Employees , it is represented by their General Secretary that the workman was removed from service on the charges of misconduct and whereabouts of the workman are not known at present and the workman is not interested in the dispute and since the workman was terminated from service, the payment of special allowance does not arise and the dispute may be dismissed and award may be passed accordingly .

11.00 RESULT:

In the result, I hold that the action of the Management is justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Dictated to the Senior Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the openCourt , on this the 6th day of May, 2005 .

M. E. N. PATRUDU , Chairman APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

BEFORE REMAND

No oral evidence is adduced by either side Documents marked for the Petitioner -Nil-

Documents marked for the Respondent by consent

Ex.MI : Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings against N. Laxminarayana , Head Cashier as per charge sheet No. RP/PER/533 / 82 dated 22-1-82

Ex. M2 : Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings against N. Laxminarayana, Head Cashier as per charge sheet No. RP/PER/5273 / 83 dated 9-6-82

AFTER REMAND

-Nil- [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2628.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार, देना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 51/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/260/ 96- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th June, 2005

S. O. 2628.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 51/97) of the Industrial Tribunal Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management and their workman , received by the Central Government on 28-6-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/260/ 96 - IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- L, AT HYDERABAD

Present : Sri M. E. N. Patrudu ,

Chairman , Industrial Tribunal - I, Hyd.

Dated 6th day of MAY, 2005 Industrial Dispute No. 51 of 1997 BETWEEN :

The General Secretary ,

Dena Bank Employees Union , C/ o . Dena Bank , Bank Street , Hyderabad -500 001

...... Petitioner AND

The General Manager (P) , Dena Bank Head Office, Maker Towers , Coffe Parade, Mumbai -400 005

Respondent APPEARANCES :

Sri A. Prathivi Raj , Representative for the petitioner Sri U. Rama Rao , Representative for the Respondent

AWARD

1.00 The Government of India referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

8215 2.00 The dispute is " Whether the action of the Management of Dena Bank Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sh. Narsimloo , Ex-Badli Peonw.e.f. 2-2-95 without following Sec . 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act is legal and Justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled ? " 3.00 Both parties appeared and filed their respective claim statement and counter .

4.00 On behalf of petitioner two witnesses are examined and on behalf of Respondent two witnesses are examined.

5.00 Exs - W1 to W15 are marked for petitioner . Ex-M1 to M3 are marked for the respondent.

6.00 The Tribunal has pronounced an Award on 14-9- 1998 holding that the Petitioner Sh. Narshimloo is not entitled for any relief.

7.00 Aggrieved by the same the employees union preferredwrit petition No. 36555 of 1998 .

7.01 The Hon'ble High Court was pleaded to remit the matter to this Tribunal and the Impugned Award is set aside and the Hon'ble High Court observed " The matter is remitted back to the Industrial Tribunal and the Tribunal may give an opportunity to the management to lead evidence only to the aspect that the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously during the relevant period i.e. on calendar year preceding the date of termination , apart from the evidence already available on record, and pass appropriate award, in accordance with law" .

8.00 The copy of the above order is received on 13-9-2004 and as per the directions of the Hon ble High Court the dispute is to be disposed off before 12-12-2004 hence notices were issued to both parties to appear on 5-10-2004 and also a letter was addressed to the Hon'ble High Court of records.

8.01 Records from the Hon'ble High Court were not received till 21-2-2005 . The records are received only on 21-2-2005 . The matter is heard . The petitioner reported that they have no further evidence .

8.02 The representative of the management reported that they have not maintained any attendance register orwage register for the temporary employees and the workman in dispute is only a temporary employee . Therefore , there is no record either to show that the workman has worked for 1 day or 1 year. It is further stated that the workman did not work continuously and as and when his services are utilized by the bank the amount was paid and the same was debited into his account No. 4387 .

8216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

They have produced the leave register of regular employees through affidavit .

9.00 Heard arguments of both sides .

10.00 The point for determination is Whether the workman had worked for 240 days in the calendar year preceding his termination ?

10.01 Point :

The specific directions of the Hon'ble High Court is that an opportunity has to be given to the management to lead evidence whether the workman had not worked for 240 days continuously during the relevant year i.e. one calendar year preceding date of termination.

10.02 In this case the management of the Dena Bank i.e. , terminated the services of Sh . Narsimuloo the peon and the said termination was questioned as whether itis legal and justified without following Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act .

10.03 The specific case of the petitioner is that the workman worked continuously from 11/89 to 7/91 and again from 28-2-92 to 2-2-1995 .

10.04 The specific case of management his services were utilized as and when required .

10.05 Ex - W6 is document relied by the petitioner to establish that the workman was paid @ Rs. 15/ -per day and all the days he worked and he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination from 3-1-1989 .

10.06 The petitioner relied on the evidence of WW1 to prove that the workman has worked continuously with the respondent bank and also worked for 240 days before his termination . They have also relied on Exs -W1 to W15 .

10.07 The respondent relied on the evidence of MW1 and MW2 and also Exs - M1 to M3 to canvas their case that the termination of services of workman is legal.

10.08 I have minutely gone through the evidence of WW1 . WW1 is the workman in dispute . His evidence is disclosing that he worked with the respondent as sub- staff and in case of absence of any regular staff his services used to be utilized and the bank used to pay Rs . 15 per day for extra work and he is to be paid Rs . 150 per month as salary and this amount used to be accounted in his Savings Bank A/c . No. 4287.

10.09 In support of his evidence Ex - WI and W2 are marked and the contents of both the documents

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] are clearly establishing that the respondent bank used to utilize the services of the petitioner.

10.10 Exs - W6 is the statement prepared by the bank showing that the petitioner has worked as sub- staff. Ex - W6 is disclosing that the petitioner used to work from 3-10-1989 and an amount of Rs . 15/ - per day was paid through debit vouchers . Perusal ofEx - W6 discloses that the petitioner has worked for 221 days in the year 1989-90 in an year of 365 days and from S. No. 222 to 495 it discloses that the petitioner has worked continuously from 10-9-1990 to 31-7-1991 for 273 days .

10.11 Thus in the year 1990-1991 the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days with the respondent . The respondent produced Ex-M1 and it is a Xerox copy of the letter address by Branch Manager, Tandur Branch to the Regional Manager Dena Bank . In this they have shown only 18 days as working days in the year 1989 and they have shown only November and December . Whereas Ex - W6 is disclosing that the petitioner worked from 3-10-1989 .

10.12 Further in Ex-M1 the respondent has shown 182 days in the year 1990 and 99 days in the year 1991 . Ifboth are tallied together, it is very clear that the petitioner has worked for more 240 days in the calendar year.

10.13 The crucial question is whether the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year prior to his termination i.e. , for the year 1994-1995 . It is not in dispute that the workman worked till February 1995. Whether he has put up 240 days from 1994 to 2/1995 is to be verified.

10.14 In order to establish this fact the petitioner has produce Ex - W13 . It is a savings bank pass book of the petitioner maintained by the respondent bank with Account No. 4287 .

10.15 I have minutely gone through the contents of the pass book . It was opened on 25-9-1992 and the notings are clearly establishing that from July 1993 the petitioner had continuously worked till January 1995 and he was terminated in February 1995. Monthly salary of Rs. 150 was deposited for every month from 7/1993 to 1/1995 . Entries of deposit of Rs . 150 per month is clearly establishing that the bank is depositing the salary to the petitioner regularly in the bank .

10.16 MW2 who is working as manager with the bank has clearly admitted in the cross - examination that the workman was engaged from 11/1989 to 7/1991 and again from 28-8-1992 he continuously worked up to 2/1995 even after Ex - W7 letter.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

10.17 Therefore the evidence of WW1 ; MW2 and the contents of Ex - W6 , W13 , M1 are clearly establishing that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the calendar year prior to his termination.

11.00 The Hon'ble High Court has given one more opportunity to the banker i.e. respondent herein to produce any document to prove that the petitioner has not worked for 240 days in the relevant period.

11.01 The Hon'ble High Court has clearly observed that banker has wantonly did not produce the records and the workman has discharge his initial burden by marking Ex- W13 but the Management did not produce any evidence for the relevant period of 1994. Therefore the burden shifts on the management to prove that the workman had not worked for 240 days and it is for the Management to produce the relevant document to show that the workman has not worked continuously for 240days and with the above observation the Hon'ble High Court has remitted back the matter to the Tribunal to give one more opportunity to banker to lead the evidence on the aspect that the workman had not worked 240 days continuously during one calendar year preceding the date of termination .

11.02 Accordingly the opportunity was given to the respondent management to produce the evidence . The respondent did not produce any evidence except filing the affidavit where in it is stated that the leave register maintained for the regular employees disclosing that the petitioner was appointed only during the leave of the sub - staff as such the leaves of the regular employees may be considered so that the employment of petitioner will be established . It is absurd . The engagement ofworkman for 240 days is not depending upon leaves of the regular employees . The said register is not disclosing the employment of workman .

11.03 When Ex-W13 is bank saving pass book maintained by the respondent is establishing that the respondent was depositing salary of Rs . 150 is for every month from 7/1993 till 1/1995 the burden lies on the management to produce the relevant registers . In Ex - M1 the bank has clearly stated that the workman has worked for specific number of days from 1989 to 1993 and statement was also given and the bank was able to given such a statement from 1989 to 1993. Then it is absurd to say that the records from 5/1993 till 2/1995 are not available . It is nothing but suppressing the records to mislead the Tribunal or to defeat the legal claims ofthe workman, hence an adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent in this regard .

2061 GI / 2005-30

8217

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

11.04 Despite giving an opportunity to the respondent they did not produce any evidence on the other the petitioner/workman had discharge initial burden through Ex-W13 .

11.05 In the above circumstances , I hold that the petitioner has worked with the respondent for more than 240 days in one calendar year prior to his termination and as such the bank has to follow the provisions of Section 25 (F) of ID Act before initiating any action against the workman.

11.06 Admittedly the bank has not followed Section 25 (F) ofthe ID Act and they have terminated the services ofthe workman without following the mandatory provisions of the Section 25 (F ) of the ID Act .

11.07 Therefore , I hold that the action of the Management is illegal and unjustified.

11.08 Since the workman has not worked with the respondent from the date of termination and he is not render any service and he must have been employed some where else during that period to ache his livelihood . I am of the opinion that the workman is not entitled for back wages as he is not discharge any services to the bank .

11.09 Further, the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service as he was terminated without following the provisions of Sec . 25 (F ) of ID Act and he is deemed to be in continuous service of the bank from the date of termination till the date ofhis reinstatement .

12.00 In the result, I hold that the action of the Management of Dena Bank Hyderabad in terminating the services of the workman Mr. Narsimloo w.e.f. 2-2-1995 without following Section 25F of the ID Act is illegal and unjustified. Accordingly the workman Narsimloo is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service from 2-2-1995 , however without back wages .

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of May, 2005 .

M.E.N. PATRUDU , Chairman APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

BEFORE REMAND

WITNESS EXAMINED FORPETITIONER

WW1 : K. N. NARSIMOOLU

WW2 : K. N. NARSIMHA REDDY

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR RESPONDENT MW1 : J. LAXMANACHARY

MW2: G. PRABHAKAR RAO 8218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER Ex-W1 : Xerox copy of letter given by WWI to the BranchManager Dena Bank on 18-2-1993 .

Ex-W2 : Xerox copy of Savings Pass Book of WW1 .

Ex-W3 : Xerox copy of letter dtd . 1-7-1994 given to WW1 to attend the office to give management witness in theft case .

Ex-W4 : Xerox copy of letter dated 20-7-1994 given to WW1 to attend the office to give management witness in theft case ..

Ex-W5 : Xerox copy of list of candidates sponsored by employment exchange dated 5-1-1990.

Ex-W6 Copy of statement showing the work done by WW1 on various dates .

Ex-W7 : Xerox copy of letter dated 24-6-1993 written by the Branch Manager to the Regional Office Bangalore.

Ex-W8 : Letter addressed to the regional Manager Dena Bank Bangalore by the Branch Manager dated 23-2-1993 .

Ex-W9 Xerox copy of the letter dated 17-6-1993 of the Regional Manager to the Branch Manager Dena Bank.

Ex-W10 Xerox copy of the letter of the Regional Manager dated 14-8-1993 addressed to the Branch Manager Tandoor Branch regarding the empanelment of temporary employees engaged on or after 1-1-1982 who have worked for 240 days .

Ex-W11 : Xerox copy of the letter addressed by the Branch Manager Tandoor Branch to the Regional Manager Regional Office Bangalore dated 20-8-1993 .

Ex-W12 : Xerox copy of Minutes of the meeting with All India Dena Bank employees co- ordination committee on 28-4-1995 and 29-4-1995 at Head Office.

Ex-W13 : Pass book issued to WWI by the Bank (original in place ofW2) .

Ex-W14: Copy of representation dated 24-3-1996 made by K. Narsimhulu peon for reinstatement of his services .

Ex-W15 : Xerox copy of letter dated 14-12-1993 to the Employment Exchange Office . Vikarabad .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT Ex-M1 : Xerox copy of letter dated 24-6-1993 of the Branch Manager, Dena Bank to Regional Manager Dena Bank , Bangalore enclosing the statement of days worked WW1 .

Ex-M2 : Bunch of voters containing 253 .

Ex-M3 : Letter dated 25-1-1995 from the Assistant General Manager to the Branch Manager Dena Bank.

AFTER REMAND

No. Oral evidence is adduced by either side .

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PETITIONER

NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE RESPONDENT (by consent)

Ex-M4 Salary Journal of the Dena Bank Tandoor Branch.

-M5 Leave Register for Internal use only in respect ofTandoor Branch .

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2005

का. आ. 2629.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/332/90- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th June , 2005

S. O. 2629.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2 Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 28-06-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/ 332/ 1990 - IR ( B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8219 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

Present : Sri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer. Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 28 of 1991

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank , Jharia Branch and their workman.

Appearances :

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. D. Mukherjee,

Advocate .

Onbehalf ofthe

: Mr. O. P. Verma,

Advocate.

employers

State: Jharkhand

Industry: Banking

Dated, the 13th June , 2005

AWARD

The Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 12012/ 332/90 - IR(B -2) dated, the 18th March, 1991.

was initiated in G.R. Case No. 1429/78 . As the concerned workmanpleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried while contents of charge framed was read over and explained to him. He submitted that after completion hearing of the said case he was acquitted from all the charges framed against him by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate first class in his judgement and order dt. 24-6-81 . Inspite of getting acquittal from the said criminal case management initiated domestic enquiry against him over the same charges and after completing that departmental enquiry proceeding the Disciplinary Authority , he submitted, dismissed him from his service by Orderdt . 13-3-81 without providing him reasonable opportunity to defend his case . Accordingly he submitted a memorandum of appeal for consideration in the matter of his dismissal from service and also submitted several representations but the management did not pay any importance to the same . He submitted that his order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority was not only illegal and arbitrary but also violated the principle of natural justice. He further submitted that against the said order of acquittal management preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court , Patna , Ranchi Bench which was registered as Criminal Revision No. 400/81 (R) but the said Revision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court . As the management did not consider his prayer for reinstatement in service inspite of dismissal of Revision Petition he raised anIndustrialDispute before the ALC( C) , Dhanbad which ultimately resulted reference to his Tribunal for adjudication . The concerned workman accordingly submitted his prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstatement him in service from the date ofdismissal with full back wages and other consequential relief after setting aside the said order of dismissal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , Jharia Branch , P.O. Jharia, Distt. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Mahendra Prasad Sharma , Daftry is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2. The case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by him is as follows :-

3.Management on the contrary after filing Written Statement-cum - rejoinder have denied all the claims and allegations which the concerned workman asserted in his Written Statement . They submitted that it is admitted position that the concerned workman was dismissed from his service by way of punishment in accordance with the provision of Bipartite Settlement vide Order dt. 13-3-81 passed by the Disciplinary Authority. They submitted further that the concerned workman while officiating as Daftry at Jharia Branch was served with the chargesheet cum- suspension letter dt . 9-5-78 whereby it was alleged that he not only had stolen one draft book from the Branch but also forged one Draft for Rs . 25,000 which ultimately presented in another branch of the Bank for encashment . The concerned workman submitted his reply to the chargesheet on 15-5-78. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter constituted departmental enquiry and further ordered de novo enquiry vide order dt. 14-6-79 and after enquiry was conducted in accordance with the provision ofthe Bipartite Settlement which is binding by the parties the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dt . 26-9-80 to the The concerned workman submitted that he got his appointment as Daftry in the year 1969 by the management on temporary basis and thereafter on confirmation in the said post he was posted at Jharia Branch in the year 1973 . On 9-5-78 management issued a chargesheet to him with the allegation of committing misconduct and also issued an order of suspension. Simultaneously management also lodged FIR against him at Jharia P.S. which was registered as Jharia P. S. Case No. 28 ( 5 )/ 78 dt . 13-5-78 . After investigation the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against him before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Dhanbad U/ S . 467 , 468 , 471 , 420 and 379 IPC after chargesheet trial of the accused person 8220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

from ourHeadOffice and used, forged and fabricated one leaf out ofthe said draft book and converted it as a draft for Rs . 25,000/-by forging the signatures. ofthe manager and accountant ofBisauli branch of thisbank and also manipulating the numbers and the rubber stamps and other writing etc. ofthe said branch and got it presented for encashment on 5-5-78 at our Bokaro Steel City branch through your said cousin Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma . " Disciplinary Authority holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . They submitted that during departmental enquiry all reasonable opportunities were afforded to the concerned workman to defend his case. After considering that report submitted by the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority issued a show -cause noticedt . 5-1-81 and proposed punishment and after hearing him the Disciplinary Authority vide orderdt. 13-3-81 issued order of dismissal as punishment under the provision of Bipartite Settlement . They submitted that departmental enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice because of the fact that full opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend his case . They submitted that the charges brought against the concerned workman were so serious that there was no way out to dismiss him from service . Accordingly they further submitted that they did not commit any illegality or took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice in dismissing him from service . In the result management submitted his prayer rejecting the claim of the concerned workman.

4. Points to be decided:

Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank . Jharia Branch , P.O. Jharia, Distt . Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Mahendra Prasad Sharma. Daftry is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled? "

5. Finding with reasons :

It transpires from the record that before taking up hearing of this case on merit it was taken into consideration whether domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice . The said issue on preliminary point was disposed of vide order No. 94 dt . 15-11-2002 wherein it was decided that the domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was not fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice and for which the said enquiry proceeding was vitiated. Accordingly opportunity was given to the management to adduce evidence on merit . In course of hearing the case on merit management examined two witnesses as MW- 1 and MW- 2 . The chargesheet during hearing was marked as Ext. -M-3 . The contents of the charges which were brought argainst the concerned workman are as follows :-

"( 1 ) You got a saving Bank Account No. 4547 with an initial deposit of Rs . 10/ - through your cousin Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma in the fictitious name of Shri Dilip Kumar Dutta ( DK Dutta) at Bokaro Steel City Branch of Punjab National Bank .

Itis the specific claim of the management that the concerned workman was involved in stealing a Bank draft Book containing Sl . No. 361326 to 361350 and thereafter he manipulated Draft No. 361326 as Draft No. 961036 for Rs . 25.000 and for encashment of the said draft he sent his own cousin Dilip Kumar Dutta to Bokaro Steel City Branch on 6-5-78 . As genuineness of the said draft was doubtful the Manager , Bokaro Steel City branch interrogated said Dilip Kumar Dutta account holder. During interrogation said Dilip Kumar Dutta admitted that the said draft was handed over to him by the concerned workman who happened to be his uncle . On getting such information from D.K. Dutta the Manager of Bokaro Steel City branch ofPunjab National Bank came to Jharia branch and during enquiry the concerned workman confessed that he handed over the said draft to Dilip Kumar Dutta account holder for its encashment . In this connection evidence of MW - 1 may be taken into consideration . MW - 1 during his evidence disclosed that that Bank draft book remains under the custody of the Manager and another officer of the Bank and the same is kept in the vault of the Bank under safe custody. He further disclosed that the Bank also maintains receipt record relating to the receipt of the Bank Draft from the Printing and Stationery Cell , New Delhi . Whenever any Bank draft is taken from the vault an entry to that effect is made in separate register. The concerned workman was a Daftry to the Bank. He was neither incharge of the Bank draft sent from Printing and Stationery Cell , New Delhi nor he was custodian of the vault . It is clear from the evidence of MW - 1 that whenever any draft is taken out from the vault it is recorded in the Receipt Register of the Bank. It is really curious to note that Manager and another Officer remains in custody of the Bank draft books and when the same are kept in the safe custody in vault of the Bank how it was taken out from the vault by the concerned workman particularlywhen keys of the vault remain with the Manager and another officer. Therefore , presumption is to be drawn to the effect that after taking out the relevant draft book from the vault it was stolen out by the concerned workman . From the evidence of MW - 1 it transpires that the moment the draft book is taken out from the vault it is recorded in the Reccipt Register . Obviously draft book containing Sl . Nos . 361326 to 36,1350 was taken out from the vault by the Branch Manager and another officer and thereafter it was duly noted in the Receipt Register and thereafter the same was stolen away or it was stolen away before the (2) You stole away one blank draft book containing blank draft forms serial No. 361326 to 361350 out of the parcel containing blank draft books received 8221 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

statement before the Manager . There is also no endorsement of the Branch Manager in the said statement . No witness also signed the statement to show that the same was given by the concerned workman to the Branch Manager.

same was registered in the receipt register . In course of hearing ofthis case on merit management did not consider necessary to produce the Receipt Register with a view to prove that the said draft book after taken out from the vault was duly registered in the Receipt Register or to show that itwas not at all registered. The Bank draft book remains under the custody of the Manager after the same is taken out from the vault . Therefore , Manager of the branch cannot exonerate his responsibility to explain how that draft book was a stolen away from his possession. No evidence is forthcoming on the part of the Branch Manager if he made any missing diary and made a note to the effect that the said draft book was found missing and from which date. It is also astonishing to note that before presentation of forgeddraft atBokaro Steel City Branch by one Dilip Kumar Dutta management was in the dark about missing of the draft book as mentioned above . This should expose clearly that the Manager cannot exonerate his responsibility to explain how the said draft book went out of his possession. Itis the contention of the management that the concerned workman had stolen away the said draft book and they have made such assertion on the basis of confessional statement made by the concerned workman . The confessional statement of the concerned workman as claimed by the management during evidence was marked as Ext . M - 1 on merit. MW- 1 during his evidence identified the letter marked as Ext. M- 1 written by the concerned workman though it is clear that at the time he was not posted at Jharia Branch and also had no business with the said branch . The incident in question took place in the year 1978 and at that relevant time he had no personal knowledge on the basis of which allegation a chargesheet was issued to the concerned workman because of the fact that he was not posted there . He only came to know about the incident when he joined the Branch afterwards . He further admitted that the concerned workman never worked under him . Further he disclosed that as he was union leader he used to meet him frequently. This witness disclosed that the concerned workman wrote letters marked as Ext. M- 1 and M - 2 on merit in his presence but does not explain what occasion arose in writing the said two letters by the concerned workman in his presence and on which date. The concerned workman categorically denied the fact aboutwriting of these two letters márked as Ext . M - 1 and M- 2 in presence of MW- 1 . From the enquiry report it transpires clearly that the Enquiry Officer found the concerned workman guilty to the charge just on the basis ofconfessional statement made by the concerned workman marked as Ext . M- 1 on merit. I have considered the so- called confessional statement of the concerned workman marked as Ext . M - 1 on merit . From this statement there is no scope to arrive into any conclusion in whose presence the same was recorded. It is a mere letter written by the concerned workman as alleged , addressed to the Branch Manager . Therefore , there is no scope to draw any conclusion that the concerned workman made confessional

It is seen from the record that the management sent this letter and also some other documents to the Officer of the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Document, Central Forensic Institute. The Govt . Examiner of Questioned Document subsequently submitted his report but it transpires from the record that in spite of giving ample opportunities to the management they did not consider necessary to examine the Govt . Examiner of Questioned Document as witness to prove the document in support of the report . The report of the Handwriting Expert as cannot be considered as public document there is no scope to take cognizance of the report considering the same as material exhibit until and unless the said Exprt is examined by the management and opportunity is give to the sponsoring union to cross - examine him . It should be considered as serious lapses on the part of the management thatthey failed to examine the Examiner of the Questioned document and for which they have failed to give any satisfactory explanation . Accordingly there is no scope to arrive into conclusion that the letter marked as Ext. M - 1 on merit was actually written by the concerned workman. It should be borne into mind that there is no scope to arrive into conclusion and to find the person guilty just on the basis of any statement made by a person who has been chargesheeted. Initial onus absolutely rests on the prosecution/management to establish the charge brought against the person concerned . Any confessional statement if given cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence and for which based on such statement only there is no scope at all to arrive into any such finding that the person is guilty to the charge brought against him. It is the contention ofthe management that the concerned workman after stealing that draft book manipulated one draft as mentioned above and converted that draft for an amount ofRs. 25,000/- and handed over to one Dilip Kumar Dutta for its presentation at Bokaro Steel City branch of the management for its encashment . In view of my discussion made above I find no hesitation to say that the management have failed to establish the charge of theft against the concerned workman . On the contrary after careful consideration of all relevant papers there is sufficient reason to believe that the Branch Manager and another Officer who were incharge of the vault cannot exonerate their responsibility to account for how the said draft book was lost from their possession . Specially the Manager cannot exonerate his responsibility to account for why he remained silent about missing of the said draft book as mentioned above till presentation of one draft for encashment at Bokaro Steel City branch by one Dilip Kumar Dutta . Onus absolutely rests on the management to 8222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

concerned workman . It is clear from the record that in course ofhearing on preliminary point full opportunity was given to the management to establish if domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair . proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Order No. 94dt . 15-11-2002 has clearly exposed that the management have failed to establish the fairness of the enquiry and for which opportunity was given to them to establish charge brought against the concerned workman on merit.

establish what role the concerned workman had in dealing with the draft book after taking out the same from the vault . There is no dispute at all that one draft Book bearing No. 361326 to 361350 was found missing but for that reason there is no scope to arrive into that conclusion that it was stolen by the concerned workman untill and unless the said allegation is substantiated beyond all reasonable proof. In course of evidence management did not consider necessary to examine the Branch Manager of Bokaro Steel CityBranch as well as Account Holder Dilip Kumar Dutta who presented the draft amounting to Rs. 25,000/- there for encashment who during interrogation by the Branch Manager of Bokaro Steel City Branch admitted that the said draft was handed over to him for encashment by his uncle i.e. the concerned workman . Onus is on the management to establish that said Dilip Kumar Dutta was the cousin of the concerned workman but I find no hesitation to say they have lamentably failed to establish this fact . They also have failed to explain why they did not consider necessary to exmaine those two vital witnesses with a view to establish the charge brought against him. Management also did not consider necessary to produce the said manipulated draft which was presented at Bokaro Steel City branch of the management for encashment and to that effect no satisfaction , no satisfactory explanation isforthcoming. It is seen that the instant case is pending since 1991. Record shows that ample opportunities were given to the management to establish the charges brought against the concerned workman but they instead ofdoing so dealt with their case very casually . I do not find any reason why they made such abnormal delay . Was if with a view to shield any person ?

As regards to Charge No. 1 on merit management have failed to adduce any evidence to show that under direct intervention of the concerned workman a Savings Bank Account No. 4547 with initial deposit of Rs . 10/-was opened at Bokaro Steel City Branch of Punjab National Bank in the name of Dilip Kumar Dutta concealing his name asDilip Kumar Sharma . Management cannot exonerate their responsibilities to establish this allegation as per Charge No. 1 against the concerned workman . There is no reason to consider that as Charge No. 1 has been brought against the concerned workman the same should be considered as sacrosanct for his acceptance to find the concerned workman guilty . As regard charge No. 2 I have already discussed above that the management have failed to establish the allegation of theft of Bank draft against the concerned workman lamentably . Now the question is whether the management have been able to establish that the concerned workman was involved in forging and fabricating one leaf of the draft book for converting it for Rs. 25,000/ - forging the signature of the Manager and Accountant of Bisauli branch or not . It has also to be looked into whether in doing so he manipulated the number of the said draft and also used forged rubber stamp of the Bank and other writing etc. to make the draft genuine for its presentation at Bokaro Steel City branch on 5-5-78 through his cousin Dilip Kumar Sharma . In relation to this charge . I have made a detailed discussion already accepting the alleged confessional statement of the concerned workman . Management have failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that not only the concerned workman was involved in forging and fabricating one of the leaf of the said draft book and converted the same to a value of Rs . 25,000 /-. They have also failed to establish that the concerned workman also forged the signature of the Manager and the Accountant and also used forged Rubber Stamp of the Bank in the said draft to make it a genuine . They have also failed to establish that after making draft apparently genuine he handed over the same to his cousin Dilip Kumar Sharma who at his intervention opened an account at Bokaro Steel City Branch in the name of Dilip Kumar Dutta and thereafter said Dilip Kumar Dutta alias Dilip Kumar Sharma presented that draft for its encashment .

Therefore , it is clear that management finished their duties framing charges and holding domestic enquiry against the concerned workman . They had totally forgotten that when they failed to establish the fairness of the said It is seen that immediatley after detection of the offence management lodged FIR at local P.S. and considering the gravity of the charge investigation started . It is further seen that after completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the concerned workman . It is further seen that in spite of getting ample opportunity the prosecution failed to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman and as a result of which Ld. Judicial Magistrate , Dhanbad passed judgement and order in G.R. Case No. 1429/78 and acquitted the accused person i.e. the concerned workman . Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal management preferred a Revision before the Hon'ble High Court . Patna , Ranchi Bench which was registered as Criminal Revision of 400/81 (R ) . The said Revision Application also was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court against the management . There is no impediment on the part of the management to proceed with domestic enquiry against the concerned workman even if a criminal case fails . I do not want to raise any dispute on this issue but it should be looked into with all care and caution to see how far the management in course of domestic enquiry was able to establish the charge brought against the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

domestic enquiry burden shifted on their shoulder to establish the charge on merit . The allegations no doubt appears to be very serious but way the management dealt with this case on merit speaks clearly that they were very much casual to establish the charges brought against the concerned workman. I find no hesitation to say considering all materials on record and in view of my discussion above that management have failed to establish the charges brought against the concerned workman lamentably . The concerned workman deserves benefit of doubt. Accordingly when the charge fails the order of dismissal issued against the concerned workman is liable to be set aside . In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

"The action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Jharia Branch, P.O. Jharia Dt. Dhanbad in dismissing Shri Mahendra Prasad Sharma, Daftry is not justified . Consequently, he is entitled to be reinstated to his original post w.e.f. the date of his dismissal . He is also entitled to get 25 % back wages and other consequential benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of reinstatement . " Management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India in the light of the observations made above.

B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2630.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार, इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 411/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011/227/2003 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 29th June , 2005

S.O. 2630. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 411/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 28-06-2005 .

[No. L - 12011/227/2003 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT , CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 8th December, 2004 Present : K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

8223

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 411/2004 (Inthematter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section (1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their workmen)

BETWEEN

I Party/Claimant

TheGeneral Secretary, IndianBank Employees Association, Chennai .

AND

: IInd Party/Management TheCircleHead, Indian Bank , Circle Office Cuddalore .

APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant : M/s . D. Hariparanthaman, Advocates

For theManagement : M/s. King & Partridge, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide order No. L- 12011 /227/2003 - IR (B - II) dated 26-08-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is- "Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank , Circle Office , Lawrance Road , Cuddalore in proposing reduction of increment during the period under suspension to Shri A. Krishnan , Clerk/ Shroff islegal andjustified? If not, what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 411/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates .

3. When the matter was posted for filing Claim Statement of the I Party, the General Secretary of the I Party/Union has filed a memo requesting this Tribunal to permit them to withdraw this dispute . The other side has no objection .

4. Memo is recorded. In view of the memo filed by the I Party, this industrial dispute is dismissed as withdrawn but without any costs .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 8th December, 2004) .

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer 8224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 30 जून, 2005

का. आ. 2631.-औद्योगिक विवांद अधिनियम 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं . I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/151/92- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 30th June , 2005

S.O. 2631. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , No. I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CPWD and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-2005 .

[No. L -42012/ 151 / 92 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

SHRI S. S. BAL: Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 56/93

Inthe matter of dispute between:

....Workman

Shri Prem Sagar, S/ o Shri Deep Chand, House No. 793 , Type - I , NH -4, Faridabad (Haryana)

Versus

The Executive Engineer, Karnal Central Division , C.P.W.D. , Kothi No. 448 , Thandi Sarak , Subhash Colony , Karnal (Haryana)

...Management

APPEARANCES :

Shri B. K. Prasad with the Workman Shri Sanjay Aggarwal for the Management .

AWARD

The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 42012/ 151 / 92 - IR (DU) dated 16-8-93 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

2. Briefly stated facts of this case as culled from record are that the claimant workman Shri Prem Sagar claimed in his claim statement that he was engaged as Motor Lorry Driver (herein after referred to as MLD) on 1-4-91 and called as hand receipt workman by the management . He worked upto 20-3-92 continuously and was driving Jeep No. DHD - 5287 and the detailed particulars of which month- wise are mentioned in para No. 4 of the claim statement wherein he claims to have worked for 275 days in total during the year 1991 w.e.f. the month ofApril till December and for 80 days during the year 1992 from the month of January till 20th March, 1992 and thus he claims to have worked for 355 days in all i.e. 275 days during the year 1991 and 80 days during the subsequent year 1992. He further claims that his services were terminated illegally and arbitrarily by the management on 18th July , 91 in violation ofthe provisions contained in the 1.D. Act in pursuance of some illegal instructions of Director General Works CPWD No. 5 /3 /91 -Ex -X dated 18-7-91 He was not given one month notice nor one month notice pay and even compensation, gratuity etc. were not paid to him . It is also averred that manyjuniors persons were retained by the management in service. It is further claimed/ stated that the management arbitrarily changed the designation of the workman from the month of July, 1991 by treating him as contractor for driving a Jeep which is not permissible under any Labour Law and is contradictory to Section 9 -A of the I.D. Act, 1947 and he has been paid wages in the minimum of time scale of Rs. 950-1500 with allowances as his counter parts had been getting in the regular/permanent Estt . of the management as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 17-1-86 in the matter of Surinder Singh and othersVs. Engineer- in-Chief, CPWD case . It is also stated that on 5-3-92 office of Executive Engineer of the management has taken his signatures of the workman on document written in English on the plea that the services of the workman would be regularised on the basis of documents but some body after signing the document told him that he hand singed on the quotation to drive the Jeep as a contractor on less payment as he had been receiving inthe pay scale ofRs . 950-1500 with all allowances increased from time to time. The workman after knowing the facts of the documents withdraw his signatures vide its letter dated 6-3-92. The workman is entitled to regularisation in services after completion of six months as the management in violation of the Supreme Court judgment aforesaid terminated the services of the workman instead of regularising him therein . The management tried to change the service conditions of the workman without following the procedure prescribed in Section 9 -A of the I.D. Act which is unfair labour practice under Schedule V of the I.D. Act, he claims that the action of the management in terminating his services is ifiegal and unjustified and he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages w.e.f. 1992 in the scale of Rs. 750-1500 with consequential relief he be reinstated with full back wages .

"Whether the action of the management of C.P. W.D. , Central Division, Karnal in terminating the services ofShri Prem Sagar, Driver w.e.f. 21-3-92 is justified. If not, what reliefhe is entitled to ? " [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3. Management contested the claim by filing written statement raising preliminary objections inter -alia that reference is bad in law as the same has been made mechanicallywithout application of mind and liable to be rejected; that the respondent is not an ' Industry ' as defined in I.D. Act, 1947 and reference deserves to be rejected; that the petitioner has suppressed material particulars from the Tribunal and he has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands in as much as he has not disclosed that work assigned to him was on the basis of work order /contract after filing quotation through other persons also petitioner accepted the work with the respondent on contract basis . Further the workman was relieved on 20-3-92 of his free will as he expressed his inability to continue with the respondent. There is neither termination nor discharge or removal from service . As such reference under section 2 - A of the I.D. Actis bad in law. There exists no relationship of employer and employee between the parties and as such reference is liable to be rejected .

4. On merits , it is stated that making of reference to thisTribunal is not denied. However , it is stated that during the proceedings before conciliation officer respondent made an offer to the petitioner to work with him on work order/ contract basis which he refused to accept . It is not denied that the workman was engaged as and when he was called as on hand receipt by the management . However , it is submitted that he was engaged as Driver on hand receipt basis having no lien or right to the post . It is denied that petitioner continuously worked upto 20-3-92 . It is stated that in the month of July, 1991 he was engaged on work order/contract basis to run Jeep after filing up required quotations. Number of days worked by the workman are matter of record and subject to verification . It is pertinent tomention that from 5-2-1992 to 30-4-1992 he was engaged on work order basis after calling the quotations from the eligible persons . However , on 20-3-92 he was relieved of his own will to perform duties . It is denied that the respondent terminated the services by following instructions from Director General Works . It is submitted that the order dated 18-7-91 stated that after instructions from Department dated 19-5-89 some department have been engaging persons on daily rated basis inspite of the absolute ban and it was further stated that to terminate the services of all such workmen engaged on hand receipt basis who have not completed 240 days service in two consecutive years. Even otherwise the said order is not applicable in the present case as the ( workman ) himself left/ abandoned the work assigned to him of his own will . It is further stated that respondent has neither terminated nor removed the petitioner from service. It is also denied the persons junior to petitioner have been retained or engaged by the respondent . The petitioner is still at liberty to come to the respondent for work on work order basis after filing quotations . It is denied that the respondent changed the designation of the petitioner . Petitioner was engaged on work order basis in the month of July , 1991 061 /2005-31

8225

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

after filing up quotations including the other persons . The petitioner was paid Rs . 950 plus allowances for the period he worked on hand receipt basis and for rest of the period he was paid the rates quoted by him . The judgment quoted is not applicable in the instant case . It is also denied that the respondent obtained signatusres of the petitioner on some other pretext and petitioner concocted story in order to wriggle out of his own wrongs . It is denied that the respondent tried to change service conditions of the petitioner or indulge in unfair labour practice as alleged but respondent has not terminated the services of the petitioner . On the contrary he himself was relieved of his own free will . The other contents of the claim are misconceived. Petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. In reply to prayer it is submitted petitioner is not entitled to any relief, much less the relief of re - instatement with full back wages since there is no termination on the part of the respondent, the petitioner is still at liberty to work with the respondent on work order basis after filling the quotations as he was engaged on that very basis .

5. Written statement was as followed by rejoinder wherein the contents of the claim statement were reiterated and controverted parts / contents of the written statement weredenied.

6. Both the parties adduced evidence to support their respective case .

7. Workman examined himself as WW1 while to the management examined Shri M.K. Aggarwal as MW1 ..

8. After closure of evidence the A/Rs . of both the parties addressed arguments . Mr. Prasad made the following submissions that the workman had worked as daily rated workerby working as Driver on the Jeep of the respondent for more than 240 days in a year preceeding his termination and his services has been illegally terminated in violation ofthe provisions contained in section 25 - F of the I.D. Act and workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages as he is still unemployed . He was not gainfully employed after is services were dispensed with and that the claim of the management that the workman worked as contractor on the basis of work order is wrong and the work order allegedly relied by the management is sham and illegal and not tenable and is non - est in the eye of law and thatthe plea ofthe abandonment of work by the workman- claimant is false and is not proved and the same has been taken to thwart and withhold genuine claim of the workman. In support his contentions he has referred to the decision reported in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Case Vs. Rajappa and others etc. etc. 1978 ( 1 ) LLJ 349 and High Court decison reported in Civil Writ Petition No. 823/2003 captioned as the Director of Horticulture Development Division - II PWD Vs. Shri Ram Sham and another . On the contrary Shri Sanjay Aggarwal refuted the above contentions put forward by the Ld. A/R for the manage- ment/workman contending that workman was not engaged as daily rated worker as claimed. Rather he was engaged 8226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927 .

onthe basis of work order as he worked as a contractor on the basis of work order and hand receipt . He was given the contract to drive the Jeep and he himself has left his services, his services were not terminated as claimed and thus there is no question of terminating his services . Moreover , he further contended that the workman abandoned the job himself as is evident from the log book remarks made on 25-3-2002 and that workman is not entitled to the relief claimed.

9. I have given my anxious thought to the contentions raised on both sides .

10. The following questions need determination in this case in order to answer the reference :

1. Whether the claimant - workman was independent contractor to drive Jeep as claimed by the respondent.

2. Whether the claimant was a daily rated worker as claimed.

3. Whether the claimant abandoned the job as claimed by the respondent .

4. Whether this court has jurisdiction to try reference .

5. Whether the reference is bad in law and liable to be quashed ?

6. Relief.

I shall take up first question No. 1 and 2 together for determination as they are interconnected .

11. The respondent has claimed that the claimant was the contractor and he was given assignment of driving Jeep of Assistant Engineer , Karnal, Central Sub Division on contract basis for a year after calling the quotations from other persons including the claimant and he was not a daily rated worker as claimed. Claimant claimed that he was engaged on hand receipt on daily rated basis w.e.f. 1-4-91 as M.L.D. (Motor Lorry Driver ) of the Jeep and he worked continuously upto 30-4-92 while the respondent disputed that he (claimant ) was engaged on daily rated basis as claimed. According to the respondent he was appointed/ engaged on work order as driver on 1-4-91 on hand receipt basis having no lien or right on the post . However , it is denied that he worked continuously upto 20-3-92 and in the month of July , 1991 he was engaged on work order/ contract basis to run the jeep after filing up the required quotation. It is again stated that from 5-2-92 to 30-4-92 , the claimant was engaged on work order basis after calling quotations from eligible persons and he was relieved of his own will to perform duties on 20-3-92 . Respondent has not denied that the claim of the petitioner specifically to the effect that he worked on hand receipt basis from 1-4-91 till June , 91 and thereafter w.e.f. August, 91 till 4th February, 92. The management has placed or record the application of workman Prem Sagar which appears to have been moved or given by the workman in response. to the quotation addressed to the Assistant Engineer Karnal Sub Division CPWD wherein it is mentioned that he

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (claimant) was willing to work as Driver on monthly salary of Rs . 1555 and his application was recommended to be accepted by executive engineer vide order dated 25 May , 1991 and a work order was issued for one year w.e.f. 17-6-91 to 16-6-92 on the basic pay of Rs . 950 plus D.A. , H.R.A. as is payable to the permanent employee therefore it is evident that the claimant was engaged/ appointed for one year w.e.f. 1-7-91 to 30-6-92 on the work order dated 26- 6-91 initially . Thus it appears that the respondent issued another work order dated 5-2-92 for execution another work order issued by the respondent. Work order was issued indicating that the workman was given contract to execute the work w.e.f. 5-2-92 to 30th of April, 92. There is also document placed on record by the respondent purporting tobe an agreement between the workman claimant and the respondent to execute and complete the work within period w.e.f. 5-2-92 to 30-4-92 but this agreement has not been signed by the workman and infact it cannot be termed as an agreement . However, according to the management respondent workman has worked upto 20-3-92 when the claimant abandoned work on his own . Thus it is apparent that the workman has worked with the management as Driver ofthe Jeep w.e.f. 1-4-91 to 20-3-92 . He claims to have worked for about 275 day's more than 240 days during the year 91 and 80 days during the year 1992 and for 335 days in all continuously w.e.f. 1-4-91 till 20-3-92 . However , management claims that he has worked on work order basis while worker claims that he worked as a daily rated worker. This fact has not been denied by the management that the claimant has worked as driver for the period as claimed by the workman i.e. for 335 days as claimed by him. It is also proved from the affidavit of the workman and from the extracts of the attendance register placed on record indicate the attendance of the workman w.e.f. 1-4-91 till 21-1-92 . which go to show that work man has infact worked with the management.

12. There is no evidence on record to show that the claimant entered into any contract with the management to run/ply Jeep on contract basis or he agreed to work as contractor. The plea of the management is devoid of any merit. Hence the management has failed to prove this issue .

13. Management claims that the workman abandoned the job of his own will on 20-3-92 and to support it claim management has examined Shri N. K. Aggarwal , Executive Engineer, MWI who filed affidavit in evidence and produced log book wherein it is written in English that "Prem Sagar Driver on work order basis relieved on his own will Vehicle with key of log book received and self of vehicle is out of order " . Signatures of by Prem Sagar in Hindi appears under this entry . Which according to MW1 is signed by one Mr. Mathur but he was unable to say in whose hand writing it is i.c. this writing is . He was unable to say as to who has written the above remarks . Mr. Mathur, who has signed this remark or entry has not been produced or examined by the respondent management to prove the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

8227 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2005

entry to the effect that the workman himself abandoned the job. The log book containing the above remark has been produced with a view to prove that workman himself abandoned the job but respondent management has failed to prove the entry as mentioned above .

का. आ. 2632.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ईस्को के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/142/96- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] 14. The workman has worked with the management for more than 240 days and he was under the control and supervision of the respondent . There existed relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and respondent .

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st July , 2005

S.O. 2632. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Dhanbad - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IISCO and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .

[No. L-20012/142/ 96- IR (C-I) S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer Inthematterof an Industrial Dispute under Sec. 10 (1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 Reference No. 6 of 2002

PARTIES:

15. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the claimant worked for 355 days continuously as a driverof the Jeep of the management which is more than 240 days , even if he was engaged on work order basis . Thus he has continuously worked as driver for more then 240days in a calendar year and that he has not abandoned the work of his own as claimed by the respondent , the consequence of which is that he was not allowed to work and his services were dispensed with on 20-3-92 as claimed by the workman . He was not issued any notice and paid notice pay or compensation as required under the provisions of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act . Hence the action ofmanagement in allowing the workman to work as driver amounts to retrenchment. As such he (workman) is entitled tobe reinstated in his job . He has claiming full back waged as he has not been gainfully employed. The management has also failed to prove or to place on record any material showing that the workman was employed gainfully during period ofunemployment . However a long period ofabout 13 years has lapsed since his retrenchment . It will serve the ends ofjustice if he is given 50% of back wages . The claimant Prem Sagar is not the contractor as claimed but he was the driver and plied the jeep of the Executive Engineer Karnal and as such he is the workman and there exist a dispute between the workman/driver and the management . Thus this Tribunal has the jurisdiction to try and determine the dispute and the reference between the workman and the management under law .

Employers in relation to the management of Chasnalla Colliery ofM/s. IISCO and their workman

APPEARANCES :

:None

Onbehalf of the workman

Onbehalf ofthe employers

16. No material has been placed on record to show that the reference is bad in law or suffers from any legal infirmity, and is liable to be quashed nor this issue has been pressed.

:Mr.D.K. Verma, Advocate

State : Jharkhand Industry: Coal Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th June, 2005 AWARD

17. In view of the above discussion I am of the opinion that the action of the respondent management CPWD Central Sub Division Karnal in terminating the services of Shri Prem Sagar workman driver w.e.f. 21-3-92 is not justified and he is entitled to be reinstated with 50% ofback wages . It is ordered accordingly. Award is passed. Filebe consigned to record room.

S.S. BAL , Presiding Officer

The Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the followeing dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L -20012/ 142/96 - IR (C - I) , dated, the 7th February, 2002.

Dated : 27-6-2005 8228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

SCHEDULE

" KYA BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION KI IISCO CHASNALA COLLIERY PRAVANDH- TANTRA SEY MANG KI SANU DESWALI EVAM SUCHI MEY DIYA GAYA 84 ANYA SLURRY CLEANING MAZDOOR KO NIYAMITA KIYA JAYE UCHIT EVAM NAYASANGAT HAI/ YADI HA , TO UKT KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY PATRA HAI TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ? "

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] the management of BCCL and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 29-06-2005 .

[No. L -20012/ 336/ 93 -IR (C -I) ]

S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD . PRESENT

SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer .

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec . 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act . , 1947,

REFERENCE NO . 17 OF 2003

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

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workmen

2. In this case neither the concerned workmen nor their respresentative appeared . Management , however, made appearance through their authorised representative. It transpires from the record that the instant reference is pending since early part of 2002. It further transpires from the record that consecutive notices and show cause notice were issued to the workmen/sponsoring union. As per Rule 10(B) of the I.D. (Central) Rules , 1957 it is mandatory on the part of the concerned workmen/ sponsoring union to file Written Statement , list of reliances , documents and list of witnesses etc. before the Tribunal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of Reference . The concerned workmen/ sponsoring union not only violated the above rules but also did not consider necessary to respond to the notices issued by this Tribunal . Gesture of the workmen/ sponsoring union if is taken into consideration will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed with the hearing ofthe case. Under the circumstances, this Tribunal also finds no ground to adjourn the case suo moto for causing appearance of the workmen/ sponsoring union. Hence, the case is closed and accordingly a ' No dispute' Award is passed in this reference presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

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

का. आ. 2633.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा.को. को.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय धनबाद- II , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-20012/336/93- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st July , 2005 S.O. 2633. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court . Dhanbad II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industiral Dispute between the employers in relation to

: None

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th June, 2005 .

AWARD

TheGovt . of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 336/93 - IR ( C - I ) , dated, the 24th January , 2003 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Rashtriya Mazdoor Sangh from the management of BCCL , Sijua Area that the date of birth of Sh . Kirtan Swai , workman , maybe corrected as 07-08-1945 in his service records, is justified ? If yes , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. Neither the concerned workmen nor his respresentative appeared before this Tribunal . Management , however, made appearance through their authorised representative . It transpires from the record thatthe instant reference case is pending since early part of2003. It further reveals from the record that consecutive notices and show cause notice were issued to the workmen/ sponsoring union . As per Rule 10 (B ) of the I.D. (Central ) Rules , 1957 it is mandatory on the part of the concerned workmen /sponsoring union to file Written Statement , list of reliances , documents and list of witnesses before the Tribunal within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of Reference . The concerned workmen/sponsoring union not only violated the above rules but also did not consider necessary to respond to the notices issued by this Tribunal . Gesture of the workmen/sponsoring union if is taken into consideration will expose clearly that they are not interested to proceed 8229 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

AWARD

TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012/ 210/98 - IR (C - I) , dated, the 29th January, 1999.

with the hearing of the case . Under the circumstances , this Tribunal also finds no ground to adjourn the case suo moto for causing appearance of the workmen/ sponsoring union. Hence , the case is closed and accordingly a ' No dispute ' Award is passed in this reference presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

SCHEDULE

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई, 2005

"Whether the action of the management of Kathara Colliery, M/ s . CCL, PO - Kathara , Distt : Bokaro in not making payment of I.O.D. allowances to Shri Mahabir Mahto , Fitter , Gr. II is justified ? If not , what relief is the concerned workman is entitled to ? "

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

का. आ. 2634.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , धनबाद- II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/210/98- आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस.एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2634. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112/99) 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 29-06-2005 ,

[No. L - 20012/ 210/98 - IR (C -I)]

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was Fitter Grade II at Kathara Colliery. They disclosed that on 7-8-94 this workman while was on duty at Kathara Excavation workship received an injury in his left leg ( ankle). After that accident he was placed under the treatment of Colliery Doctor and other specialised Doctor and for which he could not perform his duty from 7-8-94 to 6-4-95 . Accordingly , he is entitled for payment of I.O.D. allowance for the period from 7-8-94 to 6-4-95 . They submitted that over this claim not only the concerned workman but also the union submitted representation to the management but the management did not consider necessary to give any importance to the same and for which an Industrial Dispute was raised for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication.

S.S. GUPTA, Under Secy..

ANNEXURE

Accordingly they submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to pay I.O.D. allowance to the concerned workman for the period in question .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO . 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

SHRI B. BISWAS, Presiding Officer

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

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Sec . 10( 1 )(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947,

REFERENCE NO . 112 OF 1999

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of Kathara Colliery of M/ s . CCL and their workman.

Appearances :

Onbehalf of the workmen :Mr. D. Mukherjee , Ld . Advocate

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma,

Ld . Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad , the 14th June , 2005 .

They submitted that as per clause 9 : 2 : 0 to 9 : 2 : 7 of N.C.W.A. - V a workman is entitled to get full wages consisting of basic and dearness allowance from the date of accident till he is declared medically fit by the Company's Medical Officer if he is disabled due to accident arising out of and during the course of his employment . He should remain under treatment of Company'sMedical Officer or in a Hospital approved by theCompany for entitlement of the aforesaid benefit. They submitted that concerned workman was suffering from "Calfatoalpilatually " and remained under treatment as outdoor patient at Kathara Colliery Hospital and thereafter was referred to Kargali Hospital on 11-8-94 and remained under treatment upto 22-8-94 . He was also examined by 8230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Dr. B. Mukhopadhayay , F.R.C.S. at Patna for his check- up. They submitted that concerned workman did not report to the management that he received injury as a result of any accident on 7-8-94 . However , he submitted a reportdt . 12-10-94 describing the same as IOD reportto the Project Officer , Kathara Colliery in the said letter he mentioned that while he was on general shift duty on 7-8-94 at base workshop . Kathara Colliery he got an injury at his left hill at about 11 a.m. and was admitted in the hospital on that date and from that date till the date of application . he was remaining absent from duty due to the said accident and demanded payment of wages as I.O.D. case .

Considering evidence of W.W. I it reveals that on 7-8-94 while he was on general shift duty at Kathara Colliery workshop he met an accident and as a result he sustained fracture injury in his left leg and vein also was ruptured .He disclosed that immediately after the said accident he was admitted at Colliery hospital at Kathara for his treatment . He disclosed that for his treatment he had to stay in the said hospital for two months as indoor patient and thereafter the said hospital authority referred him to Gandhi Nagar hospital of C.C.L. at Ranchi for his further treatment . There he remained under treatment as indoor patient till-5-4-95. On6-4-95 he was discharged from the said hospital with fit certificate and on the basis of fit certificate he was allowed to resume his duty . He further disclosed that after the said accident his section-in-charge reported that accident to higher authority . It is the contention of the concerned workman that after resuming his duty he submitted representation tothe management for granting I.O.D. during the period of his absence in connection with treatment for the injury sustained by him as a result of the said accident .

Management admitting the fact of claiming I.O.D. as per clause laid down in 9 :2 : 0 to 9 : 2: 7 of NCWA-V submitted that a workman is entitled to get full wages consisting ofbasic and dearness allowances from the date of accident till he declared fitby the Company's Medical Officer ifhe is incapable to work due to accident arising out of and during the course ofhis duty . Moreover, he should remain under treatment of the Company's Medical Officer or in a hospital apoprovedby the Company for his entitlement of the said benefit.

They submitted that as per the provisions of Mines Act. it is necessary to bring to the notice of the manager every accident occurring in the colliery arising out of and in course of employment . They alleged that the concerned workman did not inform the manager about his accident immediately thereafter . Accordingly, the letterdt . 12-10-94 which was given by the concerned workman could notbe accepted by the management and the matter was referred to the Safety Officer for investigation. They submitted that the concerned workman did not turn up for any investigation and he reported to the Medical Superintendent of Kathara Colliery on 18-1-95 who examined the medical treatment papers and the investigation report ofDr. B. Mukhopadhayay, F.R.C.S. and gave his opinion that the concerned workman was suffering from "calfatoalpilatually" . He also mentioned that the concerned workman informed him about receipt of an injury while he was on duty. However, the concerned workman was declared medically fit and he resumed his duty w.e.f. 7-4-95.

They submitted that the claim of the concerned workman for payment of wages from 7-8-94 to 6-4-95 was not accepted as he failed to give any evidence that he received injury while on duty on 7-8-94. He also failed to give any satisfactory explanation for not reporting this factimmediately to the manager after his acciedent . The concerned workman taking false pretext as claimed I.O.D. for the period in question and for which he is not entitled to get any relief.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management of Kathara Colliery , M/ s CCL , PP -Kathara Distt : Bokaro in not making payment of I.O.D. allowances to Shri Mahabir Mahto , Fitter, Gr . II is justified. Ifnot, what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ?

5. Finding with reasons

The main allegation of the management is that the concerned workman did not give any information to the management about his alleged accident took place on 7-8-94 immediately after its occurrence . On the contrary he reported to the management on 12-10-94 about that accident and claimed I.O.D. They disclosed that actually he was suffering from " calfaopalpilatually" and remained under tratment as outdoor patient in the hospital of Kathara Colliery and thereafter he was referred to Kargali Hospital on 11-8-94 where he remained under treatment . They further disclosed that as per provision of Mines Act, it is necessary to bring to the notice of the Manager , every accident occurring in the colliery arising out of and in course of duty of any workman . The specific allegation of the management is that before 12-10-94 the news relating to the accident of the concerned workman was not communicated to them which the concerned workman denied. It is his contention that Section - in- charge of the workshop has duly intimated that accident to the higher authority not only but also he was removed to Kathara hospital ofthe colliery immediately after that accident . He disclosed that as a result of the said accident he sustained fracture injury to his left leg . As indoor patient he was under treatment there for two months and thereafter for his furthertreatment he was removed to Gandhinagar hospital at Ranchi as indoor patient for his further treatment .

Ittranspires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substranstiate their claim examined the concerned workman as W.W.I. Management also in support oftheir claim examined one witness as M. W.I.

8231 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

In spite of claiming so M.W.I. during his evidence disclosed that there is no report in the custody of the management to the effect that on 7-8-94 the concerned workman sustained injury to his person while he was on duty. The witness further disclosed that even subsequently he also did not consider necessary to give any intimation to the management about injury sustained by him as a result of an accident while he was on duty on 7-8-94 .

It is the claim of the management that the concerned workman was suffering from " calfatoal pilatually " and remained under treatment as outdoor patient at Kargali hospital up to 22-3-95 . In support of this claim management have failed to produce a single scrap of medical paper . On the contrary concerned workman in support of his claim has produced a bunch of medical papers including medical papers marked as Exht. W- 7/4 and W- 7 /7 which will expose clearly the seriousness of injury sustained by him as a result of the accident . It has been further exposed that his treatment was done being an indoor patient not outdoor patient. Therefore, the claim made by the management relating to treatment of the concerned workman as outdoor patient appears to be baseless and it has so been made to exonerate their liability to pay allowances of IOD as provided in clause 9 :2: 0 to 9 : 2 : 7 of NCWA-V.

Ithas been admitted by the management in para 9 of their written statement the concerned workman resumed his duty with effect from 7-4-95 after he was declared medically fit . Considering my discussion above is clear that the concerned workman was under treatment from 7-8-94 to 7-4-95 for the injury sustained by him as a result ofan accident while he was in general shift duty.

Inview of my discussion above I find no dispute to hold that after his said accident Sectional Head prepared injury report sustained by the concerned workman and forwarded the same to the competent authority (Exht . W/2) . The Project Officer also made inquiry over the accident in question and injury sustained by the concerned workman and to that effect he also submitted his report to theDy. CME Exht. -W/3 . It further transpires that claiming IOD the concerned workman also submitted representation addressed to the Chief General Manager (KTA) but neither they considered the facts nor they informed him the ground for non -payment of I.O.D. as per provision of NCWA.

Considering all aspects carefully I find sufficient reason to hold that the concerned workman by adducing cogent evidence has substantiated his claim properly but due to arbitrary action taken by the management he was deprived of getting his relief which I consider was not just and proper in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

Inthe result the following award is rendered:

That the action of the management of Kathara Colliery, M/ s CCL , PO- Kathara, Distt : Bokaro in not making payment of I.O.D. allowances to Shri Mahabir Mahto , Fitter Gr. II is notjustified.

Management accordingly is directed to pay I.O.D. allowances to Mahabir Mahto for the period from 7-8-94 to 6-4-95.within three months from the date ofpublication of the award in the Gazette of India.

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer The concerned workman in support of his claim relied on the injury report of the concerned workman prepared by the Sectional Head of Kathara Colliery which was marked as Ext. W- 2 in course of hearing . This injury has exposed clearly on which date and how the said accident took place . It has been further exposed that copy of the said injury report was forwarded to the Supdt . of MinesMedical Officer, Kathara Colliery and Safety Officer Kathara Colliery. This injury raport was prepared by an official of the management . Therefore , onus is on the management to establish that said report is fake one and manufactured . In spite of getting ample opportunity management have failed to establish that this injury report prepared under signature of the Sectional Head is a manufactured one. On the contrary medical paper dt . 11-8-94 marked as Ext . W - 7/6 speaks clearly that the concerned workman was under treatment at Kathara Hospital for sustaining injury to his person. The medical paper marked as Ext. W - 7/4 shows clearly that the concerned workman was referred to Gandhinagar hospital at Ranchi for his further treatment and as indoor patient he was there from 9-12-94 to 6-2-95 . If this discharge certificate is taken into consideration it will expose clearly that for his sustaining injury in his left leg he had to remain under treatment being indoor patient for a long period not only but also it has been exposed that after his discharge from the hospital clear direction was given not to allot any duty till 15-3-95 and also advised physiothe- rapy . Concerned workman in course of hearing produced a bunch of medical papers marked as Exht. W - 7 series which will expose clearly that for sustaining left leg injury as a result of accident he had to remain on treatment for a prolong period and was incapable to perform his duty . The injury report prepared by Sectional Head (Exht . W - 2 ) the copies of which were forwarded to different authority will clearly support the claim of the concerned workman. From the letterdt . 29/30-11-94 issued by Project Officer, Kathara Colliery Exht . W - 3 addressed to the Dy . СМЕ , Kathara Colliery it has been exposed very clearly that the concerned workman while on duty engaged in checking engine of D/ 2260 a rubber mount rolled from somewhere hit his left leg (ankle) . The Project Officer opined that since the injury report is genuine request was made on his part to do the needful action in that regard . No evidence is forthcoming to show that this report of the Project Officer is false and manufactured for the alleged fake claim of the concerned workman .

8232

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

2.The case of the concerned workman according to Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on their behalf in brief is as follows :-

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई, 2005 का. आ. 2635.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद- II , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 140/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/260/ 2000- आई. आर. ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2635. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 140/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Dhanbad - II now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of CCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2005 .

[No. L-20012/260/2000-IR (C -I) ]

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmen were employed as piece rated workers by the management at Open Cast Mine, Giridih under CCL . They submitted that thereafter management converted their status as time rated workers in place of piece rated workers and in the capacity of T.R. workers they were regularised in Cat . I vide Office Order No. D.C.M. E/ G/ 84/ 7919 dt.10-11-1984 . It has been disclosed by them that on conversion the concerned workmen did not claim for fixation of their wages as they were in the impression that rule of pay protection shall prevail and they will not be paid less than what they were being paid before conversion. They alleged that after drawing their first wages as T.R. workers they realised that their wages were not fixed according to norms of pay protection . Accordingly, they sumbitted representation to the management with prayer forfixation oftheir wages as Time rated workers after giving due pay protection but the management did not care to give any importance to that claim and for which thery were compelled to raise Industrial Dispute before ALC (C ) for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication .

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

Accordingly the sponsoring Union submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to issue order of payprotection in favour of the concerned workmen from the date of their conversion as Time rated workers along with other consequential relieves .

Shri B. Biswas , Presiding Officer

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

REFERENCE No. 140 of 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofM/ s . C.C.L. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf of the workman : None

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

Dhanbad , the 14th June , 2005

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 20012 / 260 / 2000 - IR ( C - I ) , dated the 25th October , 2000 :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Giridih Colliery of M/ s . CCL in denying pay protection and arrears on that account to Shri Dewan Hansda, Tuplal Das and Prabhu Kumar consequent upon their regularisation in time rate is justified ? If not, to what relief are the concerned workman entitled ? ""

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 Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workmen . They disclosed that the concerned workmen were initially appointed as piece rated workers . They disclosed thatas per classification of job a piece rated worker comes under Group - I while time rated workers comes under Category - I and they are paid wages according to nature of job performed by them . They submitted that wages of piece rated workers are not fixed, rather it depends on the quantum and nature of work done by them . Moreover, there is no promotional avenue for the piece rated worker and for which most of the piece rated workers prefers to opt the job of time rated workers . They submitted that the concerned workmen requested the management to convert them as time rated workers and accordingly exercised options to that effect . They disclosed that in view of options exercised bythe concerned workmen they were engaged in time rated job and also paid wages as per the category in which they were deployed and subsequently they were regularised. They submitted that the concerned workmen èxercised option to work as time rated workers without claiming any pay protection and also they made no protest against their regularisation and never raised any grievances thereafter . In view of the facts and circumstances stated above management submitted that the claim of the sponsoring union finds no basis and for which they are not entitled to get any relief in view of their prayer.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

It transpires from the record that the instant case was fixed for exparte hearing as the sponsoring union in spite of getting sufficient opportunity failed to take further steps . Practically they have finished their job just after filing Written Statement . During exparte . hearing the management examined one witness as MW- 1 with a view to substantiate their claim .

Considering the facts disclosed in the pleadings of both sides , evidence of MW - 1 and also considering material documents there is no dispute to hold that initially the concerned workmen were employed by the management as piece rated workers . There is also no dispute to hold that subsequently they were converted to time rated workers . It is the contention of the sponsoring union as perfacts ventilated in their Written Statement that these workmen were converted to time rated workers for the need of the management . It is their further allegation that management refused to give pay protection when these workmen were converted to time rated workers . They disclosed that like that of the self same issue over claim of pay protection of some other workmen they raised an Industrial Dispute before ALC ( C) and during pendency of hearing of the conciliation proceeding a Tripartite settlement was entered into wherein the management agreed to give pay protection to those workers. They submitted that management in due course implemented that settlement . It is the contention of the sponsoring union as per facts disclosed in the Written Statement that as the claim of the concerned workmen stands on the same footing they are also entitled to get pay protection but management arbitrarily and illegally denied to accept that claim.

On the contrary it has been submitted by the management that piece rated workers are placed in Group I or so and the primary condition of their work is that they will get wages as per quantum of work to be done by them. On the contrary the wages of time rated workers are fixed as per Category I or so and the wages in Cat. I is fixed . They further submitted that there is no promotional avenue for the piece rated workers while the same is prevailing in case of time rated workers . They disclosed that considering such situation the concernedworkmen exercised option for their conversion to time rated worker in place of piece rated workers and in exercising such option they did not demand for pay protection. Accordingly , their options were considered and they were converted to time rated workers and subsequently they were regularised in their respective category.

MW- 1 during his evidence further disclosed that there was no fixed wages for the piece rated workers . However , they draw minimum rate as per wages of Cat. I. 2061 Gl /2005-32

8233

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

This witness also mentioned that minimum quantity ofwork hasbeen fixed which a piece rated worker is liable to perform for getting that wages . If any piece rated worker works 50% of the required work to be done by him in that case he will be entitled to get wages on pro rata basis . This witness categorically disclosed that on the basis of option given by the concerned workmen they were converted to time rated workers wages had been fixed as per Cat. I. In support of this claim management relied on office orders marked as Ext . M- 1 to M - 1 /2. It is further contention of the management that after conversion of time rated workers as the promotional channel opened the concerned workmen subsequently have got their promotion in Cat . II and onwards and they are drawing wages more than the wages which they used to draw as piece rated workers . In support ofthis claim they relied on the office orders marked as Ext . M-2 to M-2/2 . Considering these office orders , I find support in the claim of the management . It has been further submitted by the management that as a result of their conversion as time rated workers the concerned workmen did not face any loss of their wages .

Question ofpay protection comes in if it is seen that they sustained loss in wages in the new category after their conversion from old category . It is specific contention of the management that there was no difference of wages ofGroup I workers and Cat . I workers at their initial stage and for which question of giving pay protection after conversion of time rated workers never arose . Moreover , they were converted to time rated workers in Cat . I only after options given by them . Therefore , in view of submission made by the management the sponsoring Union cannot avoid their responsibility to show that the concerned workmen were converted as time rated workers against their will and without taking any option from them. They also are liable to show that as a result of such conversion the minimum wages fixed as per Cat . I was less than the minimum wages fixed in Group - I. There was no obligation on the part of the concerned workman to work as time rated worker . They had the scope to be reverted back to piece rated workers but they did not do so . On the contrary it transpires that after conversion the avenue of promotion was opened and time to time they have get their promotion to higher grade.

Itis to be taken into consideration that facts disclosed in the Written Statement cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence until and unless the same is substantiated by cogent evidence . It is specific allegation of the sponsoring Union that management illegally and arbitrarily refused to give pay protection to the wages of the concerned workmen when they were converted to time rated workers. Therefore , onus absolutely rest on them to substantiate such claim . I find no hesitation to say that in spite of getting ample opportunity the sponsoring union didnot care tojustify their claim . In the circumstances just relying on the facts disclosed in the Written Statement there is little scope to uphold their contention and for which there is no scope to say that their claim stands on cogent footing.

8234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

In the result , the following Award is rendered :-

"That the action of the management of Giridih Colliery ofM/s . CCL in denying pay protection and arrears on that account to Shri Dewan Hansda, Tuplal Das and Prabhu Kumar consequent upon their regularisation in time rate is justified ? Consequently, the concerned workman are not entitled to get any relief ? "

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

का. आ. 2636.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भा. को. को. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, धनबाद II के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/12/2003 - आई आर ( सी- I ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2636. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2003 ) 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 29-6-2005.

[No. L- 20012/ 12/2003 - IR ( C - I) ] S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. 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. 58 of 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofJoyrampur Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman .

Appearances:

Onbehalf of the workman : Mr. Ram Ratan Ram , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma. Advocate .

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad , the 15th June , 2005

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

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 this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L-20012/ 12/2003 - IR( C-I) , dated the 3rd July, 2003 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Joyrampur Colliery of M/s . BCCL in dismissing Sri Sheo Charan Bhuiya from service w.e.f. 25-12-2000 is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? " 2. Case of the concerned workman according to WrittenStatement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-

The sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workmenwas a permanent workman at Joyrampur Colliery under Lodna Area of the management . They submitted that due to serious illness the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty w.e.f. 29-12-98. They disclosed that as the concerned workman was an illiterate person and as he was not aware of the norms of the company he could not inform the ground of his absence to the management in writing. However, after recovery from his illness the said workman came to his place of work with a view to resume his duties but instead of allowing him to resume duty management served him a chargesheet No. BCCL/ A/ 504/08/98/736 dt . 16-4-99 . They alleged that thereafter management dismissed the concerned workmen from service vide letter dt . 25-12-2000 without assigning cogent reason. They alleged that the management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice dismissed him from service and for which he raised an Industrial dispute through his sponsoring union for conciliation which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . The sponsoring union accordingly submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman to his service from the date of his dismissal with full back wages and other consequential relief.

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 Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman.

They submitted that the concerned workman was a badli Miner /Loader at Joyrampur Colliery. They alleged that the said workman was a habitual absentee and from the past record it is evident that in the years 1997 , 1998 and 1999 he worked for 118 days , 114 days and 80 days respectively . They disclosed that in the year 2000 the concerned workman started himself absenting from duty w.e.f. 30-5-2000 without information and permission from the management . Accordingly management issued a chargesheet bearing No. 722 dt. 7-8-2000 to the concerned workman for committing misconduct on the ground of absentism . Since the concerned workman did not submit any reply to the chargesheet , management started domestic enquiry against him through Mr. A.K. Jain , Sr. Personnel 8235 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Distrbu:-

1. Att. Clerk/Bill Clerk

PM/ Concerned pit -ACM/File. "

Officer of Joyrampur Colliery as Enquiry Officer . They submitted that after taking charge of domestic enquiry the Enquiry Officer issued several notices to the concerned workman and sent the same at his home address by Regd . Post. But the same were returned back with the comment of the Postal Peon "Not found " . Accordingly the said Enquiry Officer started domestic enquiry against the concerned workman ex parte and after completion of the enquiry proceedings submitted his report holding him guilty to the charges brought against him . On the basis of that report and also considering his past record the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned workman from his services . They submitted that the Disciplinary Authority did not commit any illegality in dismissing the concerned workman from his service , and for which he is not entitled to get any relief in view of his prayer.

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

It transpires from the record that before taking up of hearing on merit it was taken into consideration if the domestic enquiry held against the concerned workman was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of natural justice. Said issue on preliminary point was disposed of in favour of the management vide Order No. 7 dt . 19-1-2005.

Now the point for consideration is whether the management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman , if so , whether concernedworkman is entitled to get any relief reviewing his order of punishment under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ?

In course of hearing the chargesheet which was issued to the concerned workman was marked as Ext . M - 1/ 1. The chargesheet speaks as follows :-

"It appears from the record that you are absenting from your duty since 30-5-2000 to till date without information/permission to the competent authority .

The above act of yours amount to misconduct in terms of the following clauses of certified standing order of BCCL applicable to the establishment of Joyrampur colliery and by which your services are also governed as under :-

Clause 26.1.1:-habitual late attendance. sufficient cause . without

You are required to submit your written explanation to the undersigned within 48 hours of the receipt of this memo of chargesheet as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you .

Sd/ -Illegible

Manager/Agent .

Itisadmitted that the concerned workman received the chargesheet issued to him. It is also clear that in spite of receiving the said chargesheet the concerned workman did not submit any reply to the same and for which the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and accordingly appointed Mr.A. K. Jain , Senior Personnel Officer as Enquiry Officer to conduct domestic enquiry against him . In course of domestic enquiry the concerned workman did not turn up and for which the hearing was taken up ex parte. After completion ofthe said enquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority holding the concerned workman guilty to the charge. It has been admitted by the sponsoring union that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty w.e.f. 25-5-2000 . It has been further admitted by the sponsoring union in their Written Statement that as the concerned workman was in illiterate person and as he was not well aware about norms of the company he could not inform the management in writing about the reasons of his absence. They disclosed that actually the concerned workman fell ill seriously and for which he remained under treatment of a Vaidya for a long period. During hearing the representative of the concerned workman has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that the concerned workman was lying seriously ill and remained under treatment of a Vaidya . Until and unless this fact is established there is no scope to accept such plea taken by the sponsoring union . On the contrary specific allegation of the management is that the concernedworkman started remaining himself absent from duty w.e.f. 25-5-2000 without giving any information or having any prior permission from the management . Ashis such unauthorised absence amounted to misconduct as perclause 26-1-1 of the Certified Standing Order they issued chargesheet to the concerned workman on 7-8-2000 . It is clear that upto 7-8-2000 the concerned workman remained himself absent without taking permission or without giving information to the management . The concerned workman received the said chargesheet but did not consider necessary to submit his reply. Even he did not consider necessary to defend his case while domestic enquiry was started against him by order of the Disciplinary Authority . As per clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order Habitual late attendance or wilful or habitual absence from duty without sufficient cause amounts to misconduct . In course of hearing onus was on the sponsoring union to establish. that his absence from duty without taking permission or giving information to the management was not wilful on his part. I find no hesitation to say that inspite of getting opportunity the sponsoring union did not consider necessary to establish such fact . Accordingly on careful consideration of the materials on record I hold that the conduct of the concerned workman amounts to misconduct and that comes within the ambit of clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order , I , therefore , hold that the management has been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman .

Joyrampur Colliery . "

8236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] It is seen that considering the report of the enquiry officer and considering all other material aspects the Disciplinary Authority decided to dismiss the concerned workman from his service and accordingly issued order of dismissaldt. 25-12-2000. Now the point for consideration is whether the concerned workman is entitled to get any relief U/ s . 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947. Section 11A of the I.D. Acts speaks as follows:-

"Where an industrial dispute relating to the discharge ofdismissal of a workman has been referred to a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal for adjudication and, in the course of the adjudication proceedings , the Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be , is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified , it may, by its award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any , as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require . "

submit his reply as in the eye of the management misconduct committed by the concerned workman deserved minor penalty . Clause 29.1 of the Certified Standing Order has clearly pointed out that as minor penalty the management is at liberty to Censure the services of the concerned workman or impose find in accordance with P.W. Act, 1936 and or they can issue suspension order without wages as substantive punishment for not more than ten days at a time. Therefore, within the periphery of the minor penalty there is no scope to issue order of dismissal. Order of dismissal can be passed complying the provision as laid down under clause 29 ( 1 ) ( ii ) of the Certified Standing Order if it is proved that the misconduct committed by the concerned workman was so serious that he deserved major penalties . Therefore , onus rests on the management to establish what occasion arose to dismiss the concerned workman from service particularly when opportunity was given to the concerned workman to submit his reply to the chargesheet within 48 hours as per provision laid down under clause 27.1 of the Certified Standing Order . No doubt, management considered the past conduct of the concerned workman in dismissing him from service . Consideration of such fact I say was illegal , arbitrary and also it violated the principle of naturaljustice particularly when such fact was not referred to in the chargesheet . It was the responsibility of the enquiry officer proceed with the hearing of the enquiry proceeding as per contents of the chargesheet . Instead of doing so the enquiry officer exceeded his limit and also considered the past conduct ofthe concerned workman relating to his absence from duty during the period 1997 , 1998 and 1999. The Disciplinary Authority also relying on the observation of the enquiry Officer in that regard decided to dismiss the concerned workman from his service without considering all aspects . It is well exposed that the Disciplinary Authority did not apply their mind properly in arriving to the decision why the concerned workman should be dismissed from service . I consider that if the workman is dismissed from service only for his absence fromduty for a period of 3 months or so it will be amounted to gross miscarriage ofjustice . I, therefore , hold that the order of dismissal issued to the concerned workman was neither justified nor proportionate to the misconduct committed by him . Accordingly the order of punishmerit passed against the concerned workman is reviewed under Section 11A ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 and I hold that the said order of dismissal is liable to be set aside. In the result , the following award is rendered :-

"The action of management of Joyrampur Colliery ofM/ s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Sheo Charan Bhuiya from service w.e.f. 25-12-2000 is not justified . Consequently, the concerned workman is entitled to get his reinstatement in service without any back wages. "

The management is directed to implement the Awardwithin three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India in the light of the observation made above .

B. BISWAS , PresidingOfficer Therefore , according to this provision it has to be looked into if the order of dismissal passed against the concerned workman was justified and also proportionate to the misconduct committed by the concerned workman. It is seen that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty with effect from 30-5-2000 without giving any information or taking permission from the management . The chargesheet was issued on 7-8-2000 . During hearing the representative of the management submitted that the concerned workman was habitual absentee and in support ofthe claim he relied on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer . From the enquiry report it transpires that during the years 1997 , 1998 and 1999 the concerned workman worked for 118 days , 114 days and 80 days respectively . Disclosing this fact the representative of the management submitted that it will expose clearly that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee and for which there was no scope to review the order of dismissal passed against him by the Disciplinary Authority U /S. 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947. Before taking into consideration of this fact disclosed in the chargesheet , the same is required to be looked into . In the chargesheet it was not mentioned that the concerned workman was an habitual absentee . No evidence is forthcoming on the part of the management what steps they took against the concerned workman for his habitual absence from duty during the years 1997 , 1998 and 1999. Accordingly as the chargesheet is silent on this point the management is debarred from taking such plea that the concerned workman was a habitual absentee from his duty without giving information and also taking prior permission from the management . We have to confine ourselves within the periphery of the chargesheet. Accordingly we have to look into the facts if the misconduct committed by the concerned workman for his remaining absent from duty with effect from 30-5-2000 attracts major penalty or not . It is seen from the chargesheet that 48 hours time was given to the concerned workmanto submit his reply . It is clear that complying the provision as laid down in clause 27.1 of the certified Standing Order 48 hours time was given to the concerned workman to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2005

का. आ. 2637.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एच.डी.एफ.सी. बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई.डी. 208/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/6/2005- आई आर ( बी-I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2637. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (I.D. No. 208/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-2005.

[No. L- 12014/6/2001 - IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

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

Present:

Shri E. ISMAIL , B.Sc. LL.B. , Presiding Officer Dated the 18th day of September, 2003 Industrial Dispute No. L. C.I.D. 208/2002 Between:

SriB. Raju,

..... Petitioner S/o B. Narsimha, R/o 3-91 , Hydersha Khote (Vill), Post: Golonda, R.R. District .

AND

1. Mr. K.S.R. Upadhya, President H.D.F. C. Bank Ltd. , 751, Anna Salai , Mariam Centre , II floor, Chennai-600002. 2.Mr. C. S. Gopinath, Vice President, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. , Ground floor, 6-1-73 ,

Saeed Plaza, Lakdikapool , Hyderabad.

8237

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

3.Mr. Kalpeshnagar,

AssistantManager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. ,

Ground floor, 6-1-73 ,

Saeed Plaza , Lakdikapool,

TBG, Assistant Manager ,

Hyderabad. 4, Mr. Raghuram, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. , Ground floor, 6-1-73 , Saeed Plaza, Lakdikapool , Hyderabad Appearances: ....Respondents ForthePetitioner : M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy , Advocates

Forthe Respondent: M/ s . V. S. Raju, Advocates

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D.Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others and numbered in this Court as L. C.I.D. No. 208/2002 and notices were issued to theparties.

2. The Petitioner filed this case stating that he has joined the Respondent bank as office boy in the year 1998 . Later, he was terminated from services from 1-8-2002. Respondents also filed counter denying the same stating that he was given short spells of work only. This case was referred to Lok Adalath on 26-6-2003 . As the parties were not ready, the case was posted on 20-8-2003 . On 8-9-2003 a jointMemorandum of Settlement was filed . Today , i.e. , on 18-9-2003 a cheque for Rs . 35,000/ - was paid to the Petitioner before me . Terms of settlement were recorded. Hence, a 'Nil ' Award is passed, Transmit .

Dictated to Kum. K. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 18th day of September , 2003.

E. ISMAIL, PresidingOfficer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

forthe Respondent NIL Witnesses examined NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 8238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2005

का.आ. 2638.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-06-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/320, 387 , 321 , 323 to 329, 397/2000- आईआर

(बी- I) एल-12012/326, 327, 330/2001-आईआर( बी- I) एल-12012/446,448 to 450, 251 , 381 , 252, 382 , 253 , 383 , 385, 255, 386, 256, 389, 257, 258, 259, 455 ,261,260, 262, 263 ,

269, 516 to 519/2000-आईआर( बी-1 )

एल-12012/520/2000-आईआर(बी-1) ; एल-12012/335, 334/2001-आईआर( बी- I) ;

एल -12012/521, 45, 522 to 531 , 60, 59, 380, 388 , 445, 451 , 51 , 453,454, 466,474, 69, 71, 67, 72, 52, 53, 73 , 350 to 359, 44, 65, 390, 66, 391, 392, 61 , 68, 394,395, 48,396, 74, 398, 49, 399, 50, 400, 62/2000-आईआर( बी- I);

एल -12012/ 11 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 40, 72 to 74,76 to 81, 63 , 64, 33, 35 to39 , 367, 71 , 82, 83 , 84, 368, 126, 127, 151 , 159 to 165 , 176/2001 -आईआर( बी-I) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1st July, 2005

S.O. 2638.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-2005 .

[No. L - 12012/320 , 387 , 321 , 323 to 329 , 397/2000 -IR(B.1) , L-12012/326 , 327, 330/2001 - IR(B.1) ;

L - 12012/446 , 448, to 450, 251 , 381 , 252 , 382, 253 , 383 , 385 , 255,386, 256, 389 , 257, 258, 259 , 455, 261,260, 262 , 263 , 269, 516 to 519 /2000 -IR (B. I) ;

L-12012/520/2000 - IR(B.I) ;

L-12012/335 , 334/2001 - IR (B. I) ;

L- 12012/521 , 45 , 522 to 531 , 60 , 59, 380, 388 , 445 , 451 , 51 , 453,454,466, 474, 69, 71 , 67, 72, 52, 53, 73 , 350 to 359, 44, 65, 390, 66, 391 , 392, 61 , 68 , 394, 395, 48,396, 74,398, 49, 399 , 50, 400, 62/2000 - IR (B.I) ;

L- 12012/ 11 to 14, 16, 17, 19, 20 , 40 , 72 to 74, 76 to 81 , 63 , 64, 33, 35 to 39, 367, 71 , 82, 83 , 84, 368 , 126, 127 , 151 , 159 to 165 , 176/2001 -IR (B. I) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Shri E. Ismail , B.Sc. , LL.B , Presiding Officer Dated the 17th May, 2005

ID No. 17 of 2001

Between:

Shri D. Purnachander ...Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ...Respondent/Management Reference No .: L- 12012/320/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 17 of 2002

Between:

Shri R. Sunil Kumar ... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad.

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 387/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 18 of 2001

Between :

..Petitioner/Workman Shri S. Chandrakala

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office ,

Bank Street ,. Koti ,

Hyderabad Respondent/ Management Reference No. L- 12012/321 /2000 - IR(B.I) ID No. 20 of 2001

Between :

Shri T. Shanthi Kumar ... Petitioner/Workman .

And [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The Asst. General Manager , (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 323 /2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 21 of 2001

Between :

Shri B. Dastaiah

Petitioner/Workman And

State Bank of India,

The Asst . General Manager , (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

.......Respondent/Management ReferenceNo. L - 12012/324/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 22 of 2001

Between :

Shri K. Devender

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager ,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office ,

Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/325 /2000- IR(B.1) ID No. 23 of 2001

Between :

..Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Rajaiah

And

The Asst . General Manager , (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, LocalHeadOffice, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/326/2000- IR(B.1) ID No. 24 of 2001

Between:

Shri T. Balaram

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager , (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ........ Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/327/2000- IR(B.I)

8239

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 25 of 2001

Between:

Shri M. Ramulu

...Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager ,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

...... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/328/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 26 of 2001

Between:

Shri M. Madhukar Rao .... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager , (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/329/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 27 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri C. Yadagiri

And

The Asst. General Manager, (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/397 /2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 29 of 2001

Between:

Shri Ch . Narsimhulu ...

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager ,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad .....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/326/2001 - IR(B.I) 8240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 30 of 2002

Between:

....Petitioner/Workman Shri Narasinga Rao

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/327/2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 33 of 2002

Between:

Shri K. Illaiah

....Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/330/2001 - IR( B.I) ID No. 43 of 2001

Between:

... Petitioner/Workman Shri N. Madhusudhan

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

..Respondent/ Management Reference No. L - 12012/446/2000 - IR(B.I ) ID No. 45 of 2001

Between:

Shri P. Sriramulu

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad ....... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/448/2000 - IR(B.I )

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ID No. 46 of 2001

Between:

Shri T. Venkataratnara .... Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office ,

Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/449/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 47 of 2001

Between:

Shri S. Renukadevi

..... Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

...Respondent/Management Reference No : L - 12012 /450/2000 - IR (B : 1 ) ID No. 47 of 2001

Between:

Shri G. Anil Kumar

.... Petitioner/ Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel& HRD Deptt .)

Local Head Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

State Bank of India, Hyderabad

....... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 251 /2000 - IR(B.I ) ID No. 48 of 2001

Between:

Shri Md. Abdul Sattar .... Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad .... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 381/2000 - IR(B.I ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ID No. 48 of 2002

Between:

Shri N. Shankara Rao .... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/252/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 49 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner /Workman Shri V. Venugopal

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. )

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management ReferenceNo. L - 12012/382/2000 -IR(B.I) ID No. 49 of 2002

Between:

Shri V. Omerao

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office,

.....Respondent/Management Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/253/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 50 of 2001

Between:

Shri M. Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , .....Respondent/Management Hyderabad.

Reference No. L- 12012/383/2000 - IR(B.I) 2061 GI / 2005-33

8241

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 51 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri Y. Rajender

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel& HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/385/2000 - IR(B.I) ID No. 51 of 2002

Between:

Shri CV Venkateswarlu

Petitioner /Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

..Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/255/ 2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 52 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Ramesh

And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad.

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 386/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 52 of 2002

Between:

Shri K. Srinivas

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad. ..Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/256/2000- IR(B.I) 8242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 53 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Surender

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office ,

..Respondent/Management Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/389/2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 53 of 2002

Between:

..Petitioner /Workman Shri G. Veerachary

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt .)

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/257/2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 54 of 2001

Between:

Shri S. Padma

...... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad ...... Respondent/Management

Reference No.

ID No. 54 of 2002

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri G.P. Narsing Rao

And

..Respondent/Management The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/258 /2000 - IR(B. -I)

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ID No. 55 of 2002

Between:

Shri B. Shakunthala

Petitioner /Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

......Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/259/2000-IR(B. -I) ID No. 56 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri PV. Rajeev

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .)

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office. Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad .... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/455 /2000 - IR(B. - 1 ) ID No. 56 of 2002

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri C. Kishore Kumar

And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

.....Respondent/Management State Bank of India , LocalHead Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L - 12012/261 /2000 - IR(B. -I) ID No. 57 of 2002

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Nanda Babu

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

...... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/260 /2000 - IR(B. - I) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 58 of 2002

Between:

Shri A. Renuka

.... Petitioner /Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad .....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012 /262/2000 -IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 59 of 2002

Between:

Shri P. Ravi Kanth

... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. )

State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/263 /2000 -IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 61 of 2002

Between:

Shri D. Srihari

Petitioner /Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/269/2000 - IR(B - 1) ID No. 72 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Satyanarayana

And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) State Bank of India . Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , ..Respondent/Management Hyderabad

Reference No. L - 12012/516/2000 - IR(B.1 )

8243 ID No. 73 of 2001

Between:

........ Petitioner/Workman Shri G. Dhanraj

And

The Asst . General Manager

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti ,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt .) ......Respondent/Management Hyderabad

ReferenceNo. L - 12012/517/2000- IR(B- 1) ID No. 74 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri P. Seshagiri rao

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/518/2000 - IR(B -1) ID No. 75 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri R. Satyanarayana

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ...... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/519/2000- IR(B-I) ID No. 75 of 2002

Between:

Shri K. Srinivas

.... Petitioner /Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/335/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) 8244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 76 of 2001

Between:

Shri R.S. Srinivas

..Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] ID No. 78 of 2001

Between:

Shri A.N. Sai Kumar ..... Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt .) ,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office, Bank Street . Koti ,

Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No: L- 12012/ 520/2000 - IR(B.I) ID No. 76 of 2002

Between:

Shri K.B. Narasimha Raju .... Petitioner /Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ), State Bank of India , Local Head Office . Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No : L- 12012/334/2001 - IR (B.I ) ID No. 77 of 2001

Between:

Shri Y.V. Ramana

.... Petitioner/ Workman And

The Asstt. General Manager

....Respondent/Management Reference No : L- 12012/522/2000 - IR(B.I ) ID No. 79 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri S. Narasaiah

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No : L - 12012/ 523 /2000 - IR(B.I ) ID No. 80 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri S. Ramachandran

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.... Respondent/Management Reference No : L - 12012/521 /2000 - IR (B.I) ID No. 77 of 2002

Between:

Shri V. Maddileti

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No : L - 12012/ 45 /2000 - IR(B.I )

.... Respondent/Management Reference No: L - 12012/524/2000 - IR (B.I) ID No. 81 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Yadagiri

And

..... Respondent/Management The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No : L - 12012/525 /2000 - IR(B.I) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

8245

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 82 of 2001

Between :

Shri G. Sathish Kumar ... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

Local Head Office,

State Bank of India , Bank Street , Koti, Hyderabad ...... Respondent/Management Reference No : L- 12012/526/2000- IR(B - 1) ID No. 83 of 2001

Between:

Shri N.M. Manohar

... Petitioner/ Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/527 /2000 - IR(B - 1) ID No. 84 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Sakkubai

..Petitioner /Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 528/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 85 of 2001

Between :

Petitioner/Workman Shri P. Vinod

And

..... Respondent/Management The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No : L- 12012/529/ 2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 86 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Yadaiah

Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel& HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No: L - 12012/530/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 87 of 2001

Between:

Shri C. Krishna

..... Petitioner /Workman

And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. )

State Bank of India , LocalHead Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 531/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 88 of 2002

Between :

Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Gangadhar

And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office. Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 60/ 2000- IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 90 of 2002

Between:

Petitioner /Workman Shri G. Satyanarayana

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/59/2000- IR(B - 1 ) 8246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 94 of 2001

Between :

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri C. Megharaj

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/380/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 95 of 2001

Between:

Shri Md . Ghouse

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

......Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/388/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 96 of 2001

Between:

Shri B.R. Saibaba

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/445 /2000 /IR(B.I) ID No. 97 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri G. Yadaiah

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/451 /2000 /IR(B.I)

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii) ] ID No. 97 of 2002

Between :

Shri M. Mallikarjuna rao ..... Petitioner /Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) .

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/ Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 51 / 2000/IR(B.I ) ID No. 98 of 2001

Between :

..Petitioner/Workman Shri P. Subbaraju

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....... Respondent/Management

Reference No .:

ID No. 99 of 2001

Between:

Shri KRR Pillai

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) . State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012 /453 /2000/IR(B - I) ID No. 100 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri MJ Janardhan

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) . State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/454 /2000 - IR(B -I) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ID No. 109 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri G. Raju

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management ReferenceNo. L - 12012/466/2000/IR(B - 1) ID No. 110 of 2001

Between :

Shri K. Prakash

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India, LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

...... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 474/2000 /IR(B -I) ID No. 110 of 2002

Between :

Shri G. Komaraiah

...... Petitioner/Workman And

......Respondent/Management The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L - 12012 /69/ 2000 - IR(B-I) ID No. 111 of 2002

Between :

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri G. Kanakaiah

And

.....Respondent/Management The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L - 12012/71 /2000/ IR(B -I)

8247

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 112 of 2002

Between:

Shri D. Pulia

...... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

........ Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/67/2000-/IR(B -I) ID No. 113 of 2002

Between:

Shri SP Varun Babu

.... Petitioner /Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

...... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/72 /2000 /IR(B -I) ID No. 114 of 2002

Between:

Shri E. Srisailam

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , LocalHeadOffice, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/52/2000 /IR (B -I) ID No. 115 of 2002

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Swamy

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad ....... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012 /53 /2000 /IR(B -I) 8248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 118 of 2002

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri D. Gangaram

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ),

State Bank of India ,

Local HeadOffice, Bank Street, Koti,

Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/73 /2000/IR(B -I) ID No. 125 of 2001

Between:

Shri J. Aialaiah

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/350/2000/IR(B - I) ID No. 126 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Anjaiah

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/351 /2000/IR (B - I) ID No. 127 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri E. Balaswamy

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad .... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/352/2000/ IR (B - I )

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] ID No. 128 of 2001

Between:

Shri P. Shankaraiah

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

....Respondent/Management Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/353 /2000 /IR(B -I) ID No. 129 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri V. Yadagiri

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/354/2000/IR(B -I) ID No. 130 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Narsimhulu

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel.& HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/355/2000/IR(B - I) ID No. 131 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri Pochaiah

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ), State Bank of India, LocalHead Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/356/2000/IR (B - I ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ID No. 132 of 2001

Between:

... Petitioner/Workman Shri G. Ramaswamy

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad .....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/357/2000/IR(B -I) ID No. 133 of 2001

Between:

....Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Ganga Ram

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

LocalHead Office,

....... Respondent/Management State Bank of India, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/358/2000/IR(B-I) ID No. 134 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri K. Yadagiri

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt .) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad .....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/359 /2000- IR(B-I) ID No. 140 of 2002

Between:

Shri S. Venkateswarlu .... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India, LocalHead Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/44/2000-IR(B -I) 2061 GI / 2005-34

8249

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 141 of 2002

Between:

Shri S. Muthaiah

.....Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 65/2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 142 of 2001

Between:

Shri I. Suvarna

.....Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

Respondent/Management LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/390 /2000- IR (B -I) ID No. 142 of 2002

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri D. Redya

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ...... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 66/2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 143 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri Y.S. Rajkumar

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad .....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/391 /2000- IR(B -I) 8250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 144 of 2001

Between:

Shri M. Sobharani

..Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti ,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/392/2000- IR(B - 1) ID No. 144 of 2002

Between:

Shri B. Shankaraiah

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

LocalHead Office ,

State Bank of India, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

...Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/61/ 2000- IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 145 of 2002

Between:

Shri M. Narsubai

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , ..... Respondent/Management Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/68/2000 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 146 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri D. Laxminarayana

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ...Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/394/2000- IR(B - 1 )

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] ID No. 147 of 2001

Between:

Shri M. Narasimhulu

....Petitioner/Workman And

TheAsst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/395 /2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 147 of 2002

Between:

Shri N. Yerranna

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/48/ 2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 148 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri R. Premraj

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/396/2000 - IR(B - I) ID No. 148 of 2002

Between:

Shri M. Muthaiah

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti, Hyderabad ...Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/74/ 2000- IR(B - I) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ID No. 149 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Tulasi Das

Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office,

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/398/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 149 of 2002

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Narayana

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

...Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012 /49/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 150 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri K. Ramanjaneyulu

And

The Asst . General Manager (Persorinel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 399 /2000- IR (B.I) ID No. 150 of 2002

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Suraiah

And

Respondent/Management The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad .....

Reference No. L- 12012/50/2000- IR(B.I)

8251

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 151 of 2001

Between:

Shri C. Kishor Kumar

..Petitioner/ Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt .) ,

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

.....Respondent/Management Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/400/2000- IR(B.I) ID No. 151 of 2002

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri Y. Mallesh

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management ReferenceNo. L - 12012/ 62/2000 - IR(B.I) ID No. 161 of 2001

Between:

... Petitioner /Workman Shri D. Narasimha Swamy

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 11/ 2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 162 of 2001

Between:

...Petitioner /Workman Shri Madipally Levi

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 12/ 2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 163 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri.K. Karunakar

And 8252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

AND

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 13 /2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 164 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Laxmi

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 14/ 2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 166 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri G. Lingaiah

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel& HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

.....Respondent/Management LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

Reference No. L- 12012/ 16/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 167 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Srinivas

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 17/2001 - IR(B - 1) ID No. 169 of 2001

Between:

....Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Chandru

And

The Asstt. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad ..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/19/ 2001 - IR(B -1 )

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ID No. 170 of 2001

Between:

Shri Tupakula Bala Nagulu .... Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

..... Respondent/Management Hyderabad :

Reference No. L- 12012/20/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 178 of 2001

Between:

Shri J. Arun Kumar

...Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

......Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/40/2001 - IR(B.1 ) ID No. 182 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri K. Ramulu

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/72/ 2001 - IR(B.1) ID No. 183 of 2001

Between:

Shri Gundla Sayanna .... Petitioner/Workman

And

Respondent/Management The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad .....

Reference No. L- 12012/73/2001 - IR (B - 1 ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ID No. 184 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri P. Kumaraswamy

And

The Asstt. General,Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/74/2001 - IR(B-1 ) ID No. 186 of 2001

Between:

.....Petitioner/Workman Shri P. Yadagiri

And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012 /76/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 187 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner /Workman Shri K. Jayender

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local HeadOffice,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012 /77/ 2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 188 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri R. Anasuya

And

The Asstt . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) ,

State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012 /78/2001 - IR(B - 1 )

8253

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 189 of 2001

Between:

.....Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Shyam Rao

And

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local HeadOffice,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/79/2001 - IR(B - 1) ID No. 190 of 2001

Between:

Shri Md . Murtuza

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) ,

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/80/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 191 of 2001

Between:

Petitioner/Workman Shri N. Srinivasa rao

And

The Asstt . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/81/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ID No. 196 of 2002

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri B. Shyam Sundar

And

Respondent/Management The Asstt. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local HeadOffice, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad .....

Reference No. L - 12012/63/2000- IR(B - 1 ) 8254

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 197 of 2002

Between:

Shri B. Lachaiah

.... Petitioner/Workman And

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

The Asstt. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ),

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/64/2000-IR(B - 1) ID No. 198 of 2001

Between:

..Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Jaganmohan

And

...Respondent/Management

Reference No. L - 12012/36/2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 201 of 2001

Between:

.....Petitioner /Workman Shri N. Pushpa

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management ReferenceNo. L - 12012/33/ 2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 198 of 2002

Between:

Shri V. Seenaiah

..... Petitioner/Workman And

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 37/ 2001 -IR(B -I) ID No. 202 of 2001

Between:

... Petitioner/Workman Shri T. Parishuddaharao

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/46/2000- IR(B -I) ID No. 199 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Das

..... Petitioner/Workman ..... Respondent/Management

Reference No. L - 12012/38/2001 - IR(B - I) ID No. 203 of 2001

Between:

Shri O.P. Thakur

.....Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ), State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti ,

Hyderabad

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012 /35/ 2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 200 of 2001

Between:

Shri E. Yellaiah

..... Petitioner/Workman And

....Respondent/Management

Reference No. L - 12012/39/2001 - IR(B - I) ID No. 208 of 2002

Between:

Shri A. Shankar Rao

Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager. (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti ,

Respondent/Management Hyderabad

Reference No. L - 12012/367 /2001 - IR(B -I) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ID No. 209 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri A. Agaiah

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt .)

LocalHeadOffice, Bank Street, Koti ,

State Bank of India , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/71/2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 210 of 2001

Between:

..... Petitioner/ Shri B. Anantha Reddy

Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/82/ 2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 211 of 2001

Between:

Shri K. Ashok

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/83/2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 212 of 2001

Between:

....Petitioner /Workman Shri G. Anjaiah

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/84/2001 - IR(B -I)

8255

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID No. 219 of 2002

Between:

..... Petitioner/Workman Shri L. Sanjeeva

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India, LocalHead Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad ....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/368/2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 222 of 2001

Between:

Shri P. Anil Kumar

....Petitioner/Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management ReferenceNo. L- 12012/ 126/2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 223 of 2001

Between:

Shri B. Sulochana

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel& HRD Deptt. )

State Bank of India , LocalHead Office, Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad ....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 127/2001 - IR(B -I) ID No. 236 of 2001

Between:

.....Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Lingam

And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) State Bank of India, LocalHead Office,. Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 151 /2001 - IR(B-I) 8256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ID No. 237 of 2001

Between:

Shri D. Prasad Rao

..... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 159/2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 238 of 2001

Between:

Shri B.R. Prabhakar

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt. ) , State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 160/2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 239 of 2001

Between:

... Petitioner/Workman Shri E. Nagaraju

And

Local Head Office,

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) State Bank of India , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

..... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 161/2001 - IR(B.I ) ID No. 240 of 2001

Between:

Shri P. Bharathi

.... Petitioner/Workman And

The Asst . General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt .) State Bank of India , Local HeadOffice, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad

.....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 162/2001 - IR(B.I)

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] ID- No . 241 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/ Workman Shri Y. Nageswarao

And

The Asst. General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 163/ 2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 242 of 2001

Between:

.... Petitioner/Workman Shri A. Gopal Yadav

And

The Asst. General Manager (Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad

....Respondent/Management Reference No. L- 12012/ 164/2001 - IR(B.I) ID No. 244 of 2001

Between:

..Petitioner/Workman Shri M. Saroopa

And

The Asst . General Manager

(Personnel & HRD Deptt . )

State Bank of India ,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

Hyderabad

.... Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 165/2001 - IR(B.I ) ID No. 246 of 2001

Between:

Shri C. Anil Kumar

Petitioner /Workman

And

The Asst . General Manager Hyderabad (Personnel & HRD Deptt . ) State Bank of India , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti ,

...Respondent/Management Reference No. L - 12012/ 176/2001 - IR(B.I)

Appearances :

For the Petitioner : S/ Shri Prabhakar, Vikas , S. Prasad Rao , Advocates

Forthe Respondent : M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates .

8257 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of labour by its order No. L - 12012 /126/2001 - IR (B. I) dated 18-9-2001 referred the following dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the management of State Bank of India and their workman. The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of StateBank ofIndia, Local Head Offiee , Hyderabad in terminating the services ofSri P. Anil Kumar, Temporary/Non- Messenger, State Bank of India w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not? If not, what relief the applicant is entitled?"

5. The Petitioner Mr. P. Anil Kumar in ID No. 222/2001 has filedthe following claim statement. That the workmanjoined in the services of the Management institution namely State Bank of India as messenger in 1988 and rendered unblemished service spreading over a period of about 10 years upto 31-3-1997 when his services were terminatedby oral order w.e.f. 1-4-1997 . The workman submits that he is erstwhile employee who has worked in various branches of StateBank of India . He belongs to Scheduled Caste, he passed IX class . The qualification is VIII standard which is prescribed for the post of messenger . The Management of Bank has decided to give a chance to temporarily employed personnel found suitable for permanent appointment by waitlisting them by offering permanent appointment or waitlisting them till such opportunity arises .

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D. No. 222/2001 and notices were issued to the parties. The Government of India has referred about 500 such references and it will not be possible or practicable to answer every reference separately. As the main issues involved are one and the same, I am of the opinion that all of them can be decided in groups by giving common awards , this group which I am now dealing pertains to Hyderabad Zone and this reference and 149 other references a common award ispassed.

6. That on 17-11-1987 a settlement was reached between All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and the Management of State Bank of India settlement one , under this settlement three categories of employees were listed . That is, ( A) those who have completed 240 days inv 12 months or less after 1-7-1975 , (B) those who have completed 270 days in any continuous block of 36 calendar months after 1-7-1975 . (C) (i ) those who have completed minimum of 30 days aggregate temporary service in any calendar year after 1-7-1975 or ( ii ) 70 days aggregate temporary service in continuous block of 36 months after 1-7-1975.

4. To begin with I am quite perturbed due to the chequered history of these cases and also due to the fact that seeds of this litigation was sworn in 1975. I have not only to consider merely the technical aspects , powers of the Industrial Tribunal in simply answering the reference but I willalso haveto see viewing it as a humari problem . These cases remind me of apoem by the famous Poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and I find no better way than to start my award by quoting the entire poem of Faiz ,

"Humility I've learnt, sympathy for the poor, learnt the meaning of despair, suffering and pain; learnt to comprehend the miseries of the oppressed, the meaning of cold sighs , ofpallid facrs .

Whenever those hapless creatures sit together to cry,

Inwhose eyes tears, bitterly shed, fall asleep, Andthose destitute upon whose morsels swoop down,

the vultures hovering above , poised on their wings,

Whenever is traded in the market place the flesh of the labourer, and on the highways flows the blood ofthe poor, a sort of fire upsurges in my bosom, andI lose all hold overy my heart . "

7. The person who satisfied in all the above 4 categories were to be interviewed by a selection committee the said selection committee would determine the suitability ofthe said candidate for permanent appointment . Therefore , the bank first day opportunity to notice and observe the work ofthe workman then prescribed certain the qualifications and from among the candidates satisfying the qualifications the suitable candidates were enlisted by a selection committee . Clause 7 of the said agreement provided with the selected candidate would be wait listed in order of their respective categorization and the selected panel by valid upto December, 1991. Clause 10 of the settlement is specifically provided that henceforth, " there will be temporary appointments in the subordinate cadre " , except on a restrictive basis in the specified category, " from amongst empanelled candidates as per existing guidelines ofthe bank" . The workman further submits that consequent upon the said agreement and the draft, a notification was issued in the newspapers . The last date for responding to the advertisement was 30-8-1988 . A written examination followed by viva -voce in May , 1989 was held. A selected panelwas prepared , as per clause 7 of the agreement , i.e. settlement No. 1, the selected panel was to be valid upto As I stated supra, these cases have got a chequred history and instead of myself narrating the same , I think it would be better to write down what he stated in his claim statement of this particular case which practically is the same pleading for all the claim statement in all the cases filedby the Petitioners.

December, 1991. The workman submits that circular was issued on 26-4-91 by the said letter it is mentioned that the terms of the agreement dated 17-11-87 was modified vide second agreement dated 16-7-88 was entered into between theparties . In terms of the said agreement a chance was to begiven, " to all eligible temporary employees for permanent 2061 GI/2005-35 8258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

appointments. The appointments were against the vacanies likely to arise during the years 1995-96 , circular made it clearthat inview of the enormity ofthe problem an extension ofthe currency of the panel , eligible temporary employees who have been empanelled could not appear in the earlier interviews and have been pursuing their cases thereafter , "will be given another chance to appear for interview" .

8. In fact , there is some confusion in the claim statement , but actually another panel was prepared . There were total five settlements , settlement dated 17-11-87 is the 1stsettlement ( Ex . M1 ) , settlement dated 16-7-88 is 2nd settlement (Ex . M2 ) , settlement dated 27-10-88 is the 3rd settlement (Ex. M3 ) , then settlement dated 9-1-91 is 4th settlement and settlement dated 30-7-96 is 5th settlement (Ex . M6) . In between there is minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-95 marked as Ex . M5. That due to all these settlements which were extended by further settlements thereby creating reasonable expectations in the list of the selected candidates arose with its a question oftime before appointments or services are regularized in the services of the bank , the workman was working with the bank on temporary basis was under the bonafide hope that sooner his services will be regularised with the bank. He is thereby closed all his options elsewhere. It is needless to point out that employing person to whom hope of employ ment in substantial ternus was made is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

9. The Government of India issued circular No. F/3/3/ 104/87 - IR , dated 16-8-1990 . Under the said circular the Chief Executives of all public sector banks including the Management herein were specifically instructed that until the problem of existing temporary employee is fully resolved, no bank is permitted to make any permanent appointments . That some of the perosns similarly situated like this Petitioner aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Management of the bank in not regularizing their services from out of the selected panel and not clearly focusing the vacancy position, filed W.P. No. 4194/97 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. It is specifically averred in the said Writ Petition that the Management of the bank had failed to implement the settlement and that it violates the various fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India . The Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. by an order dated 5-3-97 directed the bank & implement the settlement as amended from time to time. It also directed the bank to carryout the terms of the settlement before the expiry of March , 1997. The High Court also recorded a finding that the Bank cannot escape its liability of enforcement of the settlement . I view of the directions granted by the High Court in W.P. No. 4194/97 all candidates whose names appeared in the select panels prepared on the basis of the agreement entered into on 17-11-87 under which the panel was valid upto December, 1991. and on the basis of a settlement dated 27-10-1988 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 under which the plane was valid upto December. 1999. The other

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] agreement dated 16-7-1988 under which the panel was vlaid upto 1992 and on the basis of the settlement dated 27-10- 1998 whereby the panels were made alive upto 31-3-1997 wereunder the bona fide impression that their cases will be considered for regularization and were living on the basis of the said reasonable expectation. Unfortunately , contrary to the directions given by the High Court on, 5-3-1997 in W.P. No. 4194/97 and contrary to the settlements entered into between the parties, the bank issued proceedings dated 25-3-1997 , dated 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 instructing the various authorities of the Management not to continue the temporary employees those who are in services of the bank from 1-4-97. The said order was followed by the Management . Aggrieved by the said action the workman herein and similarly situated candidates have filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9206/97 seeking a declaration that the proceedings issued by the DeputyGeneral Manager and the Assistant General Manager (Respondents 3 , 4 and 5 therein) on 25-3-97, 27-3-1997 and 31-3-97 as illegal and also non - continuance of the Petitioners therein in service by absorbing them in the services ofthe bank as violative of Section 2(p) and 18( 1 ) read with Rule 58 of Central Rules and sought for specific direcition to the bank to absorb them in service .

10. He further submits that in the counter affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 9206/97, the bank submitted that it has about 805 branches in Andhra Pradesh alone . It has stated that due to exigencies of circumstances and on account of the urgent need in its banks , it employed teinporary employees in subordinate cadre . It is pertinent to mention that it does not state the urgent needs or the nature of temporary employees that it had engaged . Enquiry into the same would reveal that the stand taken by the bank either on the ground of urgent need or of temporary employees is a facade to perpetuate unfair labour practice. It is designed to, on the one hand, keep the employed in the erroneous zone ofhope and on the other to ensure that benefits that a model employer will extend under various statutes to its employees is not required to be borne out by the bank. A reading of the counter affidavit would show that the bank would opines that being just fair and reasonable are which obviously is reprehensible and is a facet of unfair labour practice .

11. He submits that the bank refers in its counter affidavit to three settlements dated 17-11-87 , 16-7-88 and 27-10-88 . The bank in the guise of extending the benefits of the circular of Government dated 16-8-90 stated in its counter affidavit as follows : " Government of India , vide its letter dated 16-8-1990 , issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks. The said guidelincs were issued to implement on the lines of the approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regad . The Government of India [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper.

"The approach paper specified that the cases of temporary employees who had put in not less than 240 days oftemporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitledtobenefit of Section 25-F maybe decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union . In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less , a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired, they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union . In para 6(h ), it is mentioned thatonly those temporary employee who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days after 1-1-1982 would be eligible for considering under the scheme. Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of e. ployees who had put in temporary service of 90 or more days, the bankby way offurther concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days . As such, it could be seen that the settlements are more beneficial to the temporary employees concerned . The approach paper also specify at para 6(c) that the banks would provide one time opportunity to all the temporary employees and for that purpose temporary employees worked in the bank on or after 1-1-1982 could be considered for re- employment in terms of the scheme . The Respondents have gone further wherein even persons working after 1975 were also considered.

As could be seen from the above, there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide permanent employment for as many as possible subject to availability of the vacancies.

It is further submitted that at para 6 (k) of the approach paper, it was made clear that this would be one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the aims and disputes for the past period in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . This would mean that the Government of india guidelines would cover only those persons who were temporarily employed for the period specified therein and not otherwise . As such , it is submitted that the Respondents have not only followed the Government of India guidelines but in fact covered cases of the employees who had worked for less than 90 days . As such, question ofviolation does not arise and in any case those were only broad guidelines and not directives. "

12. The workman submits that the bank also referred a further settlement dated 9-1-1991 wherein there is a clause to the effect that the panel of temporary employees and the panel of daily wage employees will be operated to a particular period . Therefore their cases will not be considered. The Management herein relying upon the settlement in their impugned acton . It is submitted that even the settlement dated 9-1-1991 will not empower the management to terminate the services of the temporary employees who are working in the bank services like the

8259

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

workman herein as it does not specify the termination of theemployees. In fact there are so many vacancies wherein the Management has engaged several new persons as temporarymessengers/attenders/ sweepers etc. , even after the judgement of Hon'ble High Court without considering the cases of the similarly situated candidates like the workmanherein. It is submitted inspite of engaging fresh candidates as is now being done by the Management they would have continued the similarly situated candidates like the workman herein in the services of the bank and consider their cases for absorption in view of the circulars issuedby Central Government as well as the directions of this Hon'ble Court in Wfit Petition No. 4194/97 , dated 5-3-97. In view of the circulars issued by the Central Government, the Management should not have relied upon the settlement dated 9-1-1991 . Hence, the impugned action of the Management is illegal , unjust, violative of fundamental rights such as Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India .

13. The workman submits that the Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 9206/97 and batch by anorder datred 1-1-1998 . It is pertinent to mention that as a matter of fact of the Hon'ble High Court on a detailed enquiry recorded the following findings of fact :

"(1 ) That the candidtes had appeared for written examination and a Viva Voce Test . They, therefore, satisfied a procedure of objective criteria înthe process of selection.

(2) The life ofthe panels were admittedly extended by the bank beyond its initial life - span.

(3) Inspite of creation of the panels and non- regularisation of the services of the employees whowere continued to be in the panel , the above workmen were continued to be engaged till the Circulars were issued on 25-3-1997 ;. 27-3-1997 and 31-3-1997 .

(4) The workmen were given the definite impression that the panels will be kept alive till allthe empanelled candidates were absorbed .

(5) No fresh recruitment would be taken up by the bank till the said empanelled employees are absorbed and regularized in the services of thebank .

(6) The Petitioners had a legitimate expectation of being regularized in the services of the bank .

(7) Orders of oral termination effected the continuance of the candidates in the services ofthebank, thereby the settlements cannot be pressed into service not to regularize the services of the workmen but to terminate their services even if they were otherwise eligible forregularization .

(8) The action of the Authorities could also be contraryto the ratio laid down by the Supreme 8260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] Court in State Bank of India Vs. V. Sundara Mani reported in AIR 1976 SC 1111 .

(9) The status of the workmen vis -a-vis the bank needed no probe .

practice and terminated the services of candidates from 1-4-97 which is arbitrary, discriminatory, contrary to their own guidelines and violative of the Constitutional provisions which are guaranteed in Chapter III in the Constitution of India .

(10) That the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 dealing with the question of temporary workmen pointed out that there should be no temporary appointment exceeding the period of 3 months and the fact that the employees have been working for the lengths of time mentioned in Annexure shows that there is no only violation of Bipartite Agreement of the Desai Award that after the said period, the status of the employees is that of regular employees .

( 11) Mr. S. Ramachandra Rao , the Learned Counsel forthe Petitioners , is totally right in contending that there is nothing left to be settled between the parties as to their respective rights and liabilities or duties as the case may be except toknow whether they have been implemented or enforced . Therefore , it has become a question of fact whether the settlement has been implemented or flouted by the Respondent bank in its true and real implications."

14. The workman submits that in W.P. No. 4194/97 filed by the union of temporary employees wherein they have complained about the non - implementaton of the settlements arrived between the parties and sought for absorption . Such employees in the bank services on permanent basis before the date fixed for carrying out the terms of settlements , the Court held that the members of the union had been empanelled in the list, they were not regularized and the time was going to run out to the near future and the Respondent bank and its officers cannot escape from the liability of enforcing the settlement which has been reached and therefore directed that the bank and the officers shall implement the settlement dated 17-11-1987 as amended from time to time before the expiry of31-3-97.

16. It is strange as to how the panels were allowed to lapse by a so -called Memorandum of Understanding dated 25-2-1997 , that the action of terminating such employees like the workman by virtue of an impugned oral proceedings without implementing the settlement would be illegal and unfair labour practice which can notbe allowed tobe perpetuated. That the discontinuance of the workman after31-3-97 but served in the bank in any capacity amounts to retrenchment. It could not have been done wihtout any notice and it violates Sec . 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the said action is violative of principles of natural justice guaranteed under Chapter III of the Constitution of india. This amounts to retrenchment without one month's notice and taken in view of such notice. Thus, the main proceedings are issued in cleanable exercise of power, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and therefore liable to be quashed . That the alleged Memorandum of Understanding dated 27-2-97, Ex. M5 does not appoint the workman and it's own legal entity , the said Memorandum ofUnderstanding is not published anywhere to brought to the notice of the workman whose rights are being affected. Submitted that the Management did not adhere to the procedure envisaged by the Cerntral Government in its' instructions dated 16-8-90 in the year 1995. The same was not followed in the year 1997 despite there being vacancies. The Management has followed the procedure of calling candidates through employment exchange instead of giving chance to the empanelled candidates like the workman here . It is not pertinent to note/ mention here that theRespondent Management sent all letters to the similarly situated candidates like the workman in the month of June , 1997, subsequent to the passing of impugned termination orders . After knowing the facts that the candidates are litigating, the Management refused to engage these candidates. It is once again reiterated that the panels are meant for absorption but not for termination. It was the duty of the Management to engage the empanelled candidates like the workman even in temporary vacancies till they are absorbed permanently in regular vacancies . Hence , the action of the Respondent Management terminating the services of the workman by oral order dated 31-3-97 is unjust, illegal , violative ofprinciples of natural justice andhence, the Management is directed to reinstate and absorb the workman and grant all incidental and consequential benefits .

17. A counter was filed with the following averments .. That the reference is tenable and contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is respectfully submitted that to tide over severe sub -ordinate staff constraints which arose out of leave vacancies , exigencies , etc. , and also owning to the restrictions imposed 15. Further, judgements were cited with the claim statement which need not be mentioned here as any way they will be referred to while referring the arguments. It is further averred that it is a human right and it is not necessary that the right should be stated as fundamental right in Chapter III and new rights can be read into and inferred from the rights stated in the Chapter III of the Constitution of India . He submitted that in the clause 10 of the statement itis specifically mentioned that the workman to be absorbed or appointed in the bank prohibiting temporary appointments subsequent to the date of settlements . Even the authorities want to make temporary appointments that should be made only from among the empanelled candidates. The Management has indulged in unfair labour practices. The Management has committed unfair labour [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

8261

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

by theGovernment of India/Reserve Bank of India on intake of staff, the Respondent bank used to engage sub -ordinate staff like messengers, sweepers , sweeper- cum -waterboys , etc. , depending on the availability of work on purely temporary basis for the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the branches . It is submitted that the All India State Bank of India Staff Federationwhich represents majority of the employees in the State Bank of India comprising about 98 % of the work force as its ' members espoused the cause of temporary employees who have putin less than240 days of temporary service in 12 calendar months in the bank and who were ineligible for any protection under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to give a chance for being considered for absorption and permanent appointments.

for considering under the scheme . Although the Government guidelines envisaged for a settlement in respect of employees who had put in temporary service of 90 days or more days, the bank by way of a further concession entered into settlements even in respect of those who had put in less than 90 days and also the bank went a step further and said those persons who are working after 1975 were also considered. Hence , there was a genuine effort on the part of the Respondent bank to provide as many as possible jobs subject to the availability of the vacancies . However, para 6 (k) of the approach paper made it clear that it is a one time exercise in full and final settlement of all the claims and disputes for the past period , in respect of temporary workmen covered by the settlement . Another settlement was entered on 9-1-91 hereinafter referred as 4th settlement. And the time limit was extended upto 1994 and separate panel was prepared for temporary employees, casual/daily wagers . It was agreed that while vacancies arising between 1988 to 1994 in respect of temporary employees and in respect of casual/daily wagers , they can be considered for the vacancies arisihng between 1995-96 only.

19. It is submitted that the administrative set up of theHyderabad Local Head Office comprises of four Zonal Offices(Zones) at Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi covering all the Districts of Andhra Pradesh. Interms of the settlement the Management after following the procedure laid down therein prepared the panels of qualified candidates of temporary employees denoted as 1989 panel and also panel of casual/daily wagers denoted as 1992 panel for giving a chance for being considered for permanent absorption. These panels were prepared zone- wise separately for messengers and non-messengers in the descending order of temporary service put in by the candidates during the stipulated period i.e. , 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988. That the Federation approached the Regional Labour Commissioner (C) for implementation ofbi -partite settlement in respect of absorption of temporary employees . The Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) conducted conciliationproceedings and an agreement was arrived between the Federation and the bank . It was agreed that it would be kept alive upto March, 1997. A copy of the conciliation proceedings dated 9-2-1995 signed by the partiesis filed as material paper . A settlement was arrived atand an agreement was signed between the Federation and theManagement bank on 30-7-1996 under Sec . 2(p) read with Sec. 18 (1 ) of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 , which is hereinafter called as 5th settlement. That on 27-2-1997 a Memorandum of understanding was also signed by the Federatoin's affiliate and the bank Management recording the fact that the exercise of identifying the messengerial vacancies as on 31-12-1994 has since been completed by Central Office and thereby 403 messengerial vacancies were sanctioned . It was agreed that these vacancies may be filled from 1989 panel of temporary employees after effecting conversion from full 18. Discussions were held and on 17-11-1987 an agreement was signed between the federation and the Management bank under Sec. 2(p) read with sec. 18(1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 read with Rule 58 of Industrial Disputes ( Central) Rules , 1957. A copy of the said settlement dated 17-11-87 which may be hereinafter referred as first settlement is filed and 4 categories were made as it has already been mentioned in the claim statement above , it need not be repeated here. In the first settlement, it was agreed that the temporary employees as categorised would be given a chance for being considered for permanent appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies which are likely to arise during the period 1987 to 1991. On 16-7-88 second settlement was arrivedbetween the Federation and the bank whereby it was agreed to substitute the period of consideration of vacancies as 1987 to 1992 in place of 1987 to 1991 as contemplated under the first settlement dated 17-11-1987. This is the second settlement . A 3rd settlement was entered into on 27-10-88 and it was agreed that the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise from 1988 to 1992 was to be considered.Government of India vide its letter dated 16-8-90 issued guidelines to all the public sector banks with regard to recruitment and absorption of temporary employees in public sector banks . The said guidelines were issued to implement on the lines of approach paper on the issue provided by a committee constituted in this regard. Government of India guidelines made it clear that all the public sector banks may follow the provisions laid down in the approach paper . The approach paper specified that the cases oftemporary service in 12 consecutive months and who are entitled to benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be decided by entering into a settlement with the representative union. In respect of temporary employees who had put in less than 240 days of service in 12 consecutive months or less, a settlement could be avoided and however if the Management so desired they could enter into a conciliation settlement with the representative union. In para 6(h) it is mentioned that only those temporary employees who had put in temporary service of 90days or more days after 1-1-82 wouldbe eligible 8262

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

claim put forth by the Petitioner in the present petition is therefore , misconceived and not tenable . However , it is open to the Petitioner to claim any right which flows from the settlement between the union and the bank Management . As already pointed out that it is not the grievance ofthe Petitioner that some right which has flown from the settlement in favour of the Petitioner has been deniedby the bank Management. Therefore , I do not find any ground, let alone substantial ground, to grant the kind ofrelief sought for by the Petitioner . Writ Petition fails and isaccordingly dismissed. No costs."

20. If the panels were not lapsed at the end of designated period and allowed to be continued it would result in making the contracts of temporary employment indirectly permanent through back door entry , which would not only be contrary to the settlements but also to Articles 14and 16 ofConstitution of India and deprive the chances of original claimants who would come through proper recruitment procedure . As their rights have been crystallized by operation of the settlements . Hence , there is no question of any legitimate expectation being violated.

21. Similarly placed ex- employes filed WOP No. 9206/1995 and the batch before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. and the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petitions . Agrrieved by the same WA No. 86/98 and the batch was filed and the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge. Thereafter the ex -temporary employees filed Special Leave Petition No. 11886-11888 of 1998 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dismissed the SLP . Therefore reference to the Judgement of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 9206/97 is of no consequences as the same has already been set aside. The observatrions made in the Judgements cannot be relied upon for any purpose whatsoever . The question of operation of Sec . 25F would not come into play . Further the issue is covered by various Judgements ofHon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts. Hence , the reference may be ordered that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

22. The Petitioner examined himself as WWI and deposed to the facts as stated in the petition. He further deposed that he worked for 93 days but he was given certificate only for 55 days before interview . That he worked between 1988-97 for 843 days . That as per the norms he also fits in category B and he speaks about the settlements and he further deposed that on 18-11-93 , 800 contract labourers were made permanent by the bank . By then , their existing panels were still not completed. That till date the bank is still continuing with some persons who are from the panel by making pick and choose method and it is also claimed by Assistant Labour Commissioner (C ) that some ofthese employees are still working. In Ex. W 10 itself it was mentioned that still temporary employees were continuing against permanent vacancies and sweepers were not being appointed on regular basis, canteen employees time non-messengerial staff in the usual manner and the agreement was reached accordingly . It was agreed between the Federation's affiliate and the Management bank that in terms ofthe settlement dated 30-7-1996 both the panels of temporary employees and daily wagers/ casual employees would lapse on 31-3-1997. That as agreed upon vacancies were filled from the panels . The Petitioner who has put in an agreegate temporary service of less than 240 days in a continuous block of 12 months period during 1-7-1975 to 31-7-1988 has no right to seek a direction to consider his candidature for absorption in the Management bank under any rule/ law except under the settlement entered into thereon. In fact, the case ofthe Petitioner can be considered under all the five settlements having got his case considered under provisions of these settlements . All the other provisions and terms of the settlements are also binding on him/her . The Management bank has not violated any of the provisions of the terms of the said settlements . That the very preparation and maintenance of panel is non- compliance ofthe terms agreed under these settlements . These settlements were time bound and they ceased to exist on 31-3-1997 . That the bank has never promised that all the candidates in the panel will be absorbed. In the advertisement itself it was made clear that candidates will be considered for absorption in the vacancies that may arise upto 1992. Keeping alive the panels after 31-3-1997 is contrary to the settlements arrived between the State Bank ofIndia Staff Federation and the Management bank . That the settlements are binding on the parties. The Petitioner is also bound under the terms of the said settlement . The settlement do not suffer from any ambiguity as their language is very clear. The right under the settlements is to give them a chance to be considered for future appointment in the bank's service against the vacancies likely to arise . The settlements were effected to balance the expectations ofthe temporary employees to be absorbed in permanent service as against the constitutional rights of all eligible perons to be considered for employment every time a vacancy arises . That the alleged dispute including the demand for reinstatement has to be decided in this context . It is submitted that the period expired on 31-3-97 and it is an integral term of the settlement and cannot be modified in any proceedings under the law . These temporary employees who unfortunately could not be accommodated for want of vacancies have no further rights to be considered for regularization . That the Hon'ble High Court in WP No. 12964/94, held as follows, " It is needless to state that the settlement arrived at between the All India State Bank of India Staff Federation which is the majority union and the bank Management is binding on the Petitioners also . It is not at all the case of the Petitioner that any of the terms of settlement has been violated by the bank's Management . If the Petitioner had worked in the bank on part-time basis before 31-5-94, that itself would not vest in him a right to claim that his services should be regularized on permanent basis against a full time cadre post. The 8263 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

were being used for messengerial work, ex- temporary workers are still being used for performing messengerial work.

23. In the cross examination he deposed that the BranchManager, Local Head Office branch, StateBank of India, was known to his father who was a Mali in the Bank. After introducing him to the Branch Manager he requested him for providing work to the Petitioner as a temporary messenger . Accordingly , he was given appointment as messenger on temporary basis in 1988 for 55 days and later he had worked as messenger on temporary basis now and then. He was not sponsored by any employment exchange. Thathe used to work depending on the availability ofwork in the branch. That he applied for appointment as messenger in response to the advertisement issued by the bank in the year 1991. He was called for interview and his name was included in the panel of temporary messengers in the year 1992. Some of the temporary employees whose names were included in the panel were given regular appointment in the bank in order of their seniority in the panel . That he is not having any documents to show that any person who worked for less number of days was given appointment in the bank . He did not work for 240 days in any year in his entire service. That he appeared for interview as per the scttlements and the settlements expired on 31-3-97.

24. The Chief Manager (Per & HRD), Sri A. Rama Rao deposed to the facts as stated in the counter, as MW1 and also he speaks about the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Judgement , the appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP. In the cross - examination he deposed that the settlements and empanelments were for absorption and added that those who could not be absorbed were terminated . He denied that all should have been adsorbed. He agreed that no notice or pay in lieu there off was given. Thatall these Petitioners were asked not to come . He denied that there are still number of vacancies . He does not know whetherMr. M. Lingam, claimant in ID No. 236/2001 working inBarkatpura branch and Mr. Ravi Kanth in ID No. 59/2001 working in Parishram Bhavan branch .

Respondent that it has 805 branches all over the State whereas theRespondent has 827 branches . That it consists offourmodules . Hyderbad. Vijayawada, Visakhapatnam and Tirupathi . That the counsel is appearing for 100 clamiants for Hyderabad module . Like wise they are appearing for several other candidates in other modules also for which he is appearing. All these clamiants were taken into service in view of the need in the respective branches prior to 1988 as per the instructions of the Central OfficeandLocal Head Office . In order to settle the issue of temporary employees and to streamline the same these settlements were entered into in pursuance of the decision taken by the Respondent to give a chance for aborption . There are five settlements , one Memorandum of Understanding, one conciliation procedings and the impugned proceedings of oral termination . One example may be taken of a Petitioner in ID 58/2000 which was renumbered as ID 77/2002 filed by Mr. V. Maddileti who worked both in messenger cadre and non- messenger cadre from 1987 to 1997 for 1370 days. The break- up figures are certified by the bank that he worked for 78 days before 1988 , which is evident from the certificate issued by the bank. He belongs to SC community . He has passed 9th class, through the qualification for the post of messenger is 8th class . That the Petitioner was selected and empanelled by the Respondent in pursuance of the settlements they were made to work with artificial breaks . Though they were empanelled and given a hope that their caseswill be considered for absorption . The same was not considered. On the other hand their services were orally terminated on 31-3-1997 asking them not to attend duties from 1-4-97 . Then he mentioned about the 5 settlements entered into between the bank and in the last settlement it isspecifically mentioned that the non - messengerial posts shall be filled inbefore 31-3-1997 before the empanelled list isallowed to lapse . The Government of India had issued a circulardated 16-8-90 wherein it is specfically stated that the concerned authorities have to follow the procedure in the approach paper for regularization who are on the rolls of the bank . Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved, no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments. Inspite of the clear cut instructions the authorities did not settle the issue of temporary employees before passing impugned oral orders on the hand, they are engaging third parties and some of the claimants are list working on temporary basis . In fact he has given the list of atleast 46 candidates who are before this Court still working in Hyderabad module , Vijayawada module there are as many as 26 candidates working , in Triupathi module 43 are working , even in Visakhapatnam module four are working . Before the 5th settlement take place there was a conciliation proceeding wherein it was specifically agreed, " as regards for filling of messengers posts as already been ordered, the remainder number will

be filled before 31-3-1996 and 31-3-1997 on the basis of an 25. , Various Advocates have argued in various batches for Petitioners , Mr. Prasada Rao , Mr. Prabhakar, Mr. Vikass etc. It is argued by Mr. Prabhakar on behalf of Sri S. Ramachandra Rao , Advocate that these Petitioners worked for several years with artificial periodical breaks and they were given hope saying that their cases will be considered for absorption in the services of the Respondent by way of settlements . Instead they were removed from service by oral orders w.e.f. 31-3-1997 on the ground that there were no vacancies to accommodate the claimants , while engaging third parties on temporary basis , apart from re- engaging some of the claimants on temporary basis as messengers/non- messengers . The said action of the Respondent is high - handed , unilateral , arbitrary and colourable exercise of power apart from being amounts to unfair labour practice . It is an admitted case of the 8264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are interests ofnot only employers and employees qua each other but also interests are to wedded that they cannot be separated in all contests and situations the emphasis that labour is not a commodity but a conscious living individual with aspirations to survive in this world. As observed by Justice Issac in Federated School Teachers Association of Australia Vs. State of Australia which was also quoted in the State ofBombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case " in dealing with industrial disputes industrial adjudication must be conversant with the current knowledge on the subject they should not ignore the constant currents of life around them for otherwise it would introduce a serious infirmity in.

understanding that may be reached after ascertaining correctprocedure with regard to the number of messenger posts to be cerated in items of settlement . Another joint committeewillbe constituted to review existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-1997. " And having agreed that coolly dispensed them by oral order on 31-3-1997. The question that there are no vacancies is false. In fact, there are number of vacancies in all , the branches numbering to 827. Accordingly, new persons were engaged by the Respondent apart from engagiang some of claimants in the batch of cases on temporary basis after 1-4-1997. In order to show that there are vacancies circular dated 22-11-2002 is filed which says that there are 241 anticipatory vacancies which also says that new candidates were engaged on temporary basis. Sample copies of procedings of the bank which show that some of the claimants were re - engaged after 1-4-97 is also submitted with a separate statement who were engaged aftertheir oral termination and who are continuingtill today. In fact , instead of entering into a fresh agreement as settled before the conciliation officer they have simply dismissed which is against all cannons of justice . The above arguments were made by Sri S. Rama Chandra Rao , Sr. Advocate and further more arguments have been advanced byhim and several Judgements were cited which will be dealt in due course .

27. He also argued that the Constitution of India wisely engrafted the fundamental rights and Directive Principles for democratic way of life for everyone in Bharat Republic. Thepoor workmen and common men can secure and realize economic and social freedom only through right to work and right to adequate means of livehood injust andhumane conditions of work , to living wage , a decent standard of life , education and leisure . Article 43 (A) 43 Constitution Amendment Act , 1976 enjoins upon the State to secure by suitable legislation or in any other way the participation of workers in the Management of undertakings , establishments or other organizations engaged in any industry . He further argues that the judicial function of a court therefore , in interpreting the constitutions and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 requires to build up continuity of socio , economic empowerment to the poor to sustain equality of opportunity and status and the Law should constantly meet the needs and aspirations of the society in establishing the egalitarian social order. Therefore, the concepts engrafted in the Statute require interpretation from that perspectives , without doing violance to the language . Then he further argues and reiterates the facts of the settlements which need not be repeated here . He further argues that the Memorandum of Understanding is not correct , because the last settlement does not provide for lapsing of the empanelled candidates, the bank is obliged for implementation of the empanelled candidates and not for lapsing the panels . That in the case ofall the applicants with respect to whom that the principles of fair play , equity and consciousness and justice is required. The workers have fundamental right to live under Article 14 , 15 and 16 which can neither waived not taken away. Since many of the applicants are jobless and have worked for longer periods , upto 18 years , they cannot be deprived of their livelihood and their family lives cannot be shattered. That the State bank of India is not exempted from the Act i.e. , A.P. Shows & Establsihments Act . Sec . 2A(2) is therefore applicable to these Petitioners . These arguments need not be repeated here in view of the Judgement of U. Chinnappa Vs. Steel Authority of India ir ........... He submits that it was legitimate expectation o 26. Sri S. Prasada Rao , Advocate argued that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a boon to the industrial development which aims at (a) Investigation and settlement of Industrial Dsiputes, (b ) to keep social justice as a main criteria, ( c) Progress of Industry and ( d) Harmony and cordial relations. He submits that in the case of management ofHotel Imperial , New Delhi and others Vs. Hotel Workers Union, Air 1959 Supreme Court page 1342, it was heldthat, "Industrial Tribunal would havejurisdiction to grant interim reliefalso . " The applicants are employees of the State Bank of India and they have worked for a period which is noted in the list of cases which are pending before this Court . Thatthe ultimate object of Industrial Adjudication has been received by all as one of revolutionary import which admits its task not no purely theoretical , abstract , academic grounds adhearing to any dogmas , or applying asbtract principles mechanically or under any sub - consciousness pressures preconecived notions , theories or isms' but since to evolve working principles for resolving industrial conflict adjusting rival claims of employers and employees in a fair and just manner . The interest of proper judicial enquiry including the collection, collation and analysis of relevant facts. Therefore, it becomes highly significant in industrial matters . The Supreme Court right from Bharath banks case 1950 Supreme Court page 188 down to the latest AirportsAuthority case or to that matter Steel Authority of India case 2001 have laid down the importance of the ignorance of the working class and important of their rights restating principles of social justice . The present trend of 8265 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

these employees . No doubt, one may not have a right but Courts have recognized that in such cases like thesecases a legitimate expectation was created by the bankby taking services of some of the candidates right from 1975 andwe are now in 2005. Is it not correct that to presume that by entering into several settlements and agreeing before the conciliationofficer that a further settlement may be entered into after 31-3-97 all of a sudden a Memorandum of Understanding is entered into and thousands of pepole are given a good -bye. All their hopes and legitimate expectations were shattered. That about 35000 candidates were interviewed and only 3500 were selected. It is also estimated that vacancies from 1989 till today there willbe more than 4000 vacancies in all the 4 modules and even though all these applicants are considered, they will fall short of total vacancies .

28. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners Mr. Vikaas , Advocate submits and practically repeats the arguments advanced by the other advocates . He further submits that in short, State bank of India has committed the following illegalities : 1. unfair labour practice, vitiated by clourable exercise ofpower, 2. impugned oral orders of termination without authority on 31-3-97 , 3. the exercise of the said power is violative of article 14 and Sec . 19(2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , 4. the purpose of entering into settlement was for absorption and it is not as if it is a back door entry, it was through advertisements and after interviewed more than 30000 candidates they have selected 3500 candidates and by entering into various settlements theyhave created legitimate expectations of absorption to these poor workmen who have been running around since 1975. the order not to engage is a non -speaking order. Further several of these persons although were terminated are still working, if there is no work how these persons are working ? The argument that due to computerization lesser staff is required does not hold good because the work of attenders could only be done by reobots which have not yet come in India, hence , waterboys , sweepers for odd work, still the services of the attenders are required. Those who were made to understand from years together that they will be absorbed cannot be just thrown out and after allthe so called memorandum of Understanding is to defeat the purpose of settlements wherein the effected parties are not even consulted and hence oppose to the public policy and hit by Sec . 23 of the ContractAct.

corporation to terminate services of its permanant employeesby giving notice or pay in lieu ofnotice period opposed topublic policy and violative ofArticle 14, 39(α) and41. He also relies on AIR 1992 Supreme Court page 248, their Lordships held, that an agreement can be challenged that it is a nullity being opposed to public policy and it can be raised even by a person who had earlier consented to the agreement. Theyfurther held that the illegal contract, cannot constitute and effect and accord satisfaction . He also relied on AIR 1980 Supreme Court page 2181 wherein his Lordships held that, "We have, no doubt that the precedents on the point, the principles of industrial law, the constitutional sympathy ofPart IV and the sound rules ofstatutory construction converge to the same point that when a notice intimating termination of an award or settlement is issued the legal import is merely that the stage is setforfresh negotiations or industrial adjudication and until either effort ripens into afresh set ofconditions of service the previous award or settlement does regulate the relations between the employer and the employees . " He also relied on 1999(5) ALD 1992 (D.B). General Manager, State bank of Hyderabad and another vs. P. Ramulu , wherein their Lordships referred to the circular of the Government of India to all public sector banks which laid down in the approachpaper in the recruitment as well as in absorption oftemporary employees asfollows: "For the staffwhich is presently on the rolls of the Banks their services will be regularized in terms of the Approach papers . For the current requirement banks may utilize their existing panel oftemporary employees and in case these employees were not taken from the employment exchanges the banks . would be required to approach the DGE & T directly seeking exemption. Until the problem of existing temporary employees is fully resolved no bank will be permitted to make any temporary appointments. " In that case para 6, all employees who had put in 90 or more days after the cut offdate i.e. , 1-1-1982 will only be eligible for confsidering the scheme . The Respondent in the Writ Petition hasput in more than 90 days before th said cut offdate. The Lordiships held that as per the scheme one time opportunity each a person who had completed 90 days oftemporary service as on 1-1-1982 and also after 1-1-1982 shall be regularized by empanelling him for the post.He also referred to Supreme Court employees Welfare Association Vs. Union ofIndia wherein it was held, that it is well settled principle oflaw that when a special leave petition is summarily dismissed under article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law as envisaged by article 141 of the Constitution. He also relied on 1997 (6) Supreme Court ' cases page 564, which is to the same effect. he also relied on 2003(4) Supreme Court cases page 325 wherein their Lordships held, it well settled law that in case where SLP is dismissed without assigning any reason that order would not constitute a binding precedent. He also relied 29. I now refer to the case cited by various Advocates . The following citations are cited by Sri S. Ramachandra Rao . AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 wherein a full bench ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing about removal ofa permanent employee without assigning any reason, their Lordships held, is arbitrary, unfair, unjust and unreasonable and opposed to public policy. He also relied on AIR 1986 Supreme Court page 1571, this dealt with the rule empowering the Government

2061 GI/2005-36 8266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] on 2003 Supreme Court cases page 231 which reiterate the same . He also relied on AIR 2002 Supreme Court case 3088 wherein their Lordships held, " the High Court and allother courts in the country were no doubt ordained to follow and apply the law declared by this court, but that does not absolve them of the obligation and resonsibility tofind out the ratio of the decision and ascertain the law , if any, so declared from a careful reading of decision concerned and only thereafter proceed to apply appropriately." He also relied on 2003 (7) Supreme Court cases page 197 wherein it was held, " Therefore , while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with it should carefullyt try to ascertain the principle laiddown by the previous decision .A decision often takes its coloursfrom the question involved in the casein which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs ofa given situation . The only thing binding as an authority upon a subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided Statement which are not part ofthe ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative . The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into thefacts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as a measure ofsocial justice . Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expressions carry no weight at all nor every passing expression of a Judge, however eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority. " He also relies on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1993 Supplementary IV Supreme Court cases 46 Naseem Bano Vs. state ofU.P. and Others, wherein their Lordships held. "Since no dispute was raised on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 in their reply to averments made by the appellant in the Writ Petition that 40 per cent of the total number of posts had not been filled by promotion, in as much as the said averments had not been controverted, the High Court should have proceeded on the basis that the ' said averments had been admitted by respondents . " He therefore , submits that the Petitoners have alleged in the petition that there were about 1500 vacancies and it has not been controverted , hence , this Court should presume that the said averments about vacancies has been admitied by the bank.

Labour Court and stated that as long as the ingredients of Sec. 2(s) are present it is immaterial whether the employee has been appointed as a regular , permanent/ temporary or daily wages , casual or part -time . " He also relied on LLJ 1995 ( 1 ) LLJ page 323 wherein the High Court upheld the findings of the Labour Court that the bus driver on an average worked for 20 days in a month but was paid wages for one month. Average working hours 10 to 12 hours and no overtime wages paid . Finding of the Industrial Tribunal that workman has worked 240 days in a calendar year is legal and proper . " He also relied on 1995 Supplementary (4). Supreme Court cases page 11 where their Lordship directed regularization of services of the Petitioners who had worked for three years including the break till today, shall not be terminated and shall be absorbed in regular vacancies as andwhen they arise. He also relied on 1991 supplementary (2) SCC page 363 wherein it was held, the change of service rules cannot be made in the prejudice of an employee who was in service prior to the change. He also relied on 1986 Supreme Court page 954 wherein it was held . " such a settlement arrived at by agreement between the employer and workmen otherwise then in the course of conciliation proceedings is binding only on the parties to the agreement as provided in Sec . 18 ( 1 ) " of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Such a settlement is not binding on the other workmen any who are not parties in the settlement . " He also relied on 1993 ( 1) SCC page 71 wherein their Lordships considered about legitimate expectations and held as follows : " In contractual sphere as in all other State actions , the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non - arbitrariness is a significant fact . There is no unfettered discretion in public law : A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is ' fairplay in action ' . Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element forming a necessary component of the decision - making process in all State actions . To satisfy this requirement of non- arbitrariness in a State action, it is, therefore , necessary to consider and give due weight to the reasonable or legitimate expectations of the persons likely to be affected by the decision or else that unfairness in the exercise of the power may amount to an abuse or excess of power apart from affecting the bonafides of the decision in a given case . The decision so made would be exposed to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness . Rule of law does not completely eliminate discretion in the exercise of power , as it is unrealistic , but provides for control of its exercise by judicial review. [ Para 8 page 91 ] "

30. He also relies on LLJ 2004 February page 227 , wherein it was held, " the Respondent was working as a part time sweeper in the organization of the Petitioner . After fifteen years of service , the Respondent was terminated from service without any notice or pay in lieu thereof. The Labour Court held that a part -time employee also falls within the definition of workman under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Therefore , awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . The High Court also retreated the findings of the

He also relied on the full bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1992 ( 4) Supreme Court cases page 118 , wherein their Lordships held if for any reason, an 8267 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

enforced as a substantive right . The doctrine of legitimate expectation can be invoked if the decision which is challenged in the court has some person aggrived either (a) by altering rights or obligations of that person which are enforceable by or against him in private law; or (b ) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either ( i) he had in the past been permitted by the decision - maker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to be permitted to continue to do until there has been communicated to him some rational grounds for withdrawing it on which he has been given an opportunity to comment ; or (ii) he has received assurance from the decision -maker that it will not be withdrawn without giving him first an opportunity of advancing reasons for contending that it should not be withdrawn . Indian scenario in the field of legitimate expectation is not different . The question whether the expectation and the claim is reasonable or legitimate , is a question of fact in each case . This question had to be determined not according to the claimants ' perception but in larger public interest. " He also relied on 1997 7 SCC 592 where in it was held that the selected industries (Respondents) with which the agreements were entered into by the State Government legitimately expect that the renewal clause should be given effect to in usual manner and according to past practice unless there is any special reason not to adhere to such practice . The doctrine of "legitimate expectation" has been judicially recognizedby the Supreme Court . The doctrine of " legitimate expectation" operates in the domain of public law and in an appropriate case, constitutes a substantive and enforceable right . He also relied on 1993 3 SCC 259 where in it is held that-the law must therefore be now taken to be well - settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of article 14 and the procedure prescribed by a stature or statutory rule or rules ororders affecting the civil rights or results or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. So it must be right , just and fair not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive . There can be no distinction between a quasi -judicial functin and an administrative function for the purpose ofprinciples of natural justice is calculated to securejustice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarriage ofjustice, it is difficult to see why it should be applicable only to quasi -judicial inquiry and not to administrative inquiry. It must logically apply to both . Therefore , fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must bejust , fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice . Article 21 clubes life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content ofdignity of person would be reduced to animal existence . When it is interpreted that the colour and content of procedure established by law must be in conformity with the minimum fairness and processual justice , it would relieve legislative adhoc or temporary employee is continued for a fairly long spell the authorities must consider his case for regularization provided he is eligible and qualified according to the rules and his service record is satisfactory and his appointment does not run counter to the reservation policy of the State. He also relied on 2001 ( 1 ) LLJ wherein their Lordships held that, " so far as the work -charged employees and casual labour are concerned , the effort must be to regularize them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications , if any, prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work. Ifa casual labourer is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is regular need for his services . In such a situation, it becomes obligatory for the concerned authority to examine the feasibility of his regularization. While doit so , the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach couplewith anempathy for the person . " He also relied on Judgment of the High Court of Patna reported in 2003 III LLJ page 904 wherein their Lordships observed , " All said, the claim of such persons who have remained in the employment of the State for long periods , those who have spent the golden period oftheir lives in the service of the State , those who with the passage of the time have become eligible for appointment elsewhere cannot be ignored altogether. " He also relied on 1995 (2) Supreme Court cases page 326 where the full bench of he Supreme Court held, " In situations where even though a person has no enforceable right yet he isaffected or likely to be affected the order passed by a public authority the courts have evolved the principle of legitimate expectation . The expression which is said to have originated from the Judgment of Lord Denning in Schmidt Vs. Secy. of State for Home Affairs is now well established in public law. In Attorney General of Hong Kong Vs. Ng Yuen Shiu Privy Council applied this principle where expectations were "based upon some statement or undertaking by or on behalf of, the public authority " and observed : "Accordingly legitimate expectations in this context are capable of including expectations which go beyond enforceable legal rights , provided they have some reasonable basis . A person may have a legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no legal right inprivate law to receive such treatment . " He also relied on 1998 ( 7) Supreme Court cases page 66 wherein their Lordships held, the doctrine of legitimate expectation has it genisis in the field of administrative law. The Government and its Departments , in administrating the affairs of the country, are expected to honour their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration without any iota of abuse of discretion . The policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively. Continuing their Lordships further held , though the doctrine of legitimate expectation is essentially procedural in character and assures fairplay in administrative action , it may, in a given situation , be 8268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

Rao , Advocate and Shri Prasad , advocate argued vehemently that these are the most fit cases wherein a direction should be given to absorb these Petitioners who have been unceremoniously dismissed on 1-4-1997 and some ofthem are still continuing and it is not only a question onindustrial law but also legitimate expectations created in these Petitioners who worked since more than two decades.

callousness despising opporunity of being heard and fair opportunities of defence . Article 14 has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality , equalitarian in itsshould and allergic to discriminatory dictates . Equality is the antithesis of arbitrariness . It is , thereby, conclusively held by this court that the principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just . fair and reasonable. He also relies on AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 101 where in it was observed "the right to life includes right to livelihood . Therefore cannothand on to the fancies ofthe individuals in authority. The employment is not a bounty from them nor can it servival be at their murcy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and when work is the sole source of income the right to work becomes as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill - afford to be consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain applications. Thatwill be mockery ofthem .

Mr. Vikas . appearing for various Petitioner cited various Judgements some of them are 1998 7 SCC page 804 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the contingent staff of income tax Department some of them working from 8 years , directions issued to pay such workmen at the rate equivalent to minimum pay in the pay scale of the regularly employed workers and to frame scheme on rational basis for their absorption . He also relied on AIR 1990 Supreme Court page 2228 where in it was held thatthe Kerala water supply and civil water authority shall immediately regularize the services of public health Department employees as per its resolution dated 30-1-1987 without waiting for the State Government approval .. They also directed those who have put in less than one year service age bar may be waved etc. Several more citations he filed about regularisation . He also relied on 1996 I Service Law Reporter Supreme Court of India page 56 where in it was held, workman in the employment in the State of Forest Department for 5 to 6 year and in each year they worked for a period ranging 100 to 330 days . workmen employed under the schemes at hand had been so done . To advance objects having permanent basis failure to regularize them amounts to unfair labour practice and various other judgments and further added to his arguments that by further arguing that these cases are the most fit for regularization as some of them are working from 1975.

Mr. Prasad also relied on 2005 1 LLJ page 89 SBI Vs TN Jaya Ram where in it was held in Writ Appeal held that the learned single judge held that the Petitioner had not worked continuously for a period 30 days . The learned single judge relied on category C of the settlement to arrive at the said conclusion . Their lordships allowed the Writ Appeal on the ground . in view of the fact " that the Petitioner falls short of the required 30 days by 4 days , the Petitioner cannot seek absorption in a permanent capacity in the employment of the bank" .

It isargued by the learned Counsel for Respondent Shri BG Ravinder Reddy, Advocate and Smt Lalita Kumari , Advocate that the Hon'ble CGIT-cum - Labour Court is fully empowered to decide the disputes which are pending before it in the LCIDs and ID . That the Petitioners are casual employees who worked at the branches for short periods atthe instance ofconcerned Branch Manager who had no jurisdiction to appoint them. They are not employees of the State Bank of India as their entry into the bank was not as per the selection procedure . The daily wagers/casual workers were not selected by a process through which regular employees were recruited. That the Petitioners were engaged by the concerned branch managers to meet the exigencies ofwork at intermittent intervals and they cannot be termed as employees of the bank on temporary basis in any identified post or vacancy. That the Petitioners have no statutory right to seek any relief under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . The Petitioners have not put in continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year as required under the Act . It is to be examined whether they stand a chance for absorption as per the settlements . That the Petitioners failed to implead the All India SBI Staff Federation as party to the dispute before this court to seek interpretation of the settlements . As such , the cases are bad for non -joinder of necessary party . That the empanelled candidates are in thousands and the vacancies are less than 100 each year . The SBI has absorbed messengers and Non-messengers totalling to more than 1000. That the Hon'ble Single Judge's Judgment that the settlement are repugnant to Sec . 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the Memorandum of Understanding and the Theory of Legitimate Expectations has no place in the settlements . That in terms of the 5 settlements , the 1989 and 1992 panels were kept alive upto 31st March , 1997 and thereafter they lapsed. Administrative instructions were issued to all branches directing not to engage temporary employees from 1-4-1997 as there were no vacancies . That the question ofregularization in any service including any Government service may arise in two contingencies viz . , if on any available clear vacancies which are of a long duration appointment are made on adhoc basis or daily wage basis by a competent authority and are continued from time to time and if their services are required by the Bank . In any case, backdoor entries for filling up such vacancies have got to be strictly avoided. There would never arise any occasion for regularizing the appointment of an employee whose initial entry itself is tainted and is in total breach of Therefore in conclusion Shri Vikas , Advocate , Shri Prabhakar Rao , advocate on behalf of Shri Ramachandra 8269

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

the requisite procedure of recruitment and especiallywhen there is no vacancy on which such an initial entry ofthe candidate could never be effected.

They also relied on several cases, in particular, AIR 1991 page 1612 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the mere inclusion of a candidates name in the merit list does not confer any right to be selected . Some vacancies remaining unfilled after process of selection finally clsoed- candidate not appointed- no discrimination. They also further held ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection, they do not acquire any right to the post. They also relied on 1997 6 SCC page 584 Syndicate Bank Vs. Sankarpal where in it was held that if a waiting list is for specificperiod the wait listed candidates do not have any right ones the list lapses . They also relied on 1997 4 SCC 283 Sanjay Vs. Union of India where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that wait listed candidates have no right for appointment where there are no vacancies. He also relied onAIR 1992 Supreme Court page 2070 where it was held- Stop gap appointees or Temporary appointees do not have any right for continuous or for regularization.

Smt. Lalitha Kumari , advocate for Respondent relied on 2004 Vol. IV SLT page 947 which was a Judgement from Madras High Court where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment held in violation of mandatory provisions of statues ignoring minimum education qualification, wholly illegal. Taking recoast to regularization cannot cure such illegality.

2005. To sum up the entire facts in a nut shell, the entry of these persons was as casual employees . Seeing the enormity ofthe situation the SBI and All India SBI staff federation entered into various agreements . The candidates were called for interview and were empanelled. The last agreement was dated 30-7-1996 (Ex. M6) which was to lapse on 31-3-1997 . Then there was a Memorandum of under- standing dt . 27-2-1997 that the panel of temporary employees, daily wagers and casual employees will lapse on 31-3-1997 . There was an conciliation dated 9-6-1995 vide Ex.M5 wherein before the conciliation officer it was agreed that another joint committee willbe constituted to review the existing norms and reach fresh settlement which will come into effect from 1-4-97. No such joint committee was constituted nor any fresh settlement came into effect from 1-4-1997. Carrot was dingled before the workers for number ofyears creating reasonable expectations but instead the bank has in order to avoid future complications gave a good-bye to all the employees on 31-3-1997. Their hopes were further raised by the Judgement of the High Court which held " the Petitioners/employees who were onduty as on 31-3-1997 shall be deem to be on duty and shall be entitled toall the benefits of such a post and they shall be immediately appointed if any posts are available or creating some supernumery posts within 3 months from today failing which the bank shall pay them all the benefits to which they were entitled as on that date , till they are absorbed" . Infact the Hon'ble Single Judge stated in the Judgement which I quote " Mr. S Ramachandra Rao, Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners have never controverted such a factual and legal position. Such a dispute in any form existing and even apprehended definitely could be a subject of reference to the board of settlement, to a court for enquiry, to a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. ." It is also his apprehension genuinely expressed that driving the Petitioners to such forums for such disputes could be nothing less then pushing the hapless and helpless prey into the greedy and hungry mount ofthe wild life" .

Butboth of them mainly relied on the Judgement of Hon'bleHigh Court ofOrissa in OJC 9093 of 1997 in which itwas held that only those casual workers who were in the waiting list of the bank (panels ) were eligible to be regularized against the vacancies ofthe bank. As the select listcametoan end on 31-3-1997 are not entitled to get any relief. The Judgement of the Orissa High Court dated 18-9-1998 was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 17-6-1999 in the above case in SLP (CC) 3082/99.

Be that may be so . The above Judgement was set aside by writ appeals by division bench holding that the matter has tobe dealt with and settled by the parties under theprovisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and not by resorting to the writ jurisdiction of this court . Against which a Special Leave Petitions were filed which were dismissed.

He further argued that even those who have completed240days also cannot claim regularization as the veryentrywas irregular and they got any right it is through theagreements only and 1992 2 LLJ page 52 Supreme Court held that any person who have completed 240 days cannot claim regularization only such grounds. Such regularization isjeopardizes the larger public interests. So they argue even those candidates 240 days also do not stand any chance. And as the Orissa High Court has dealt with these agreement which is an All India agreement and the Hon'ble SC has dismissed the SLP on merits , hence the Petitioners are not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, the Petitions may be dismissed.

The position now is that under the Industrial DisputesAct, 1947 those who have completed 240 days in a year has some right as notice or notice pay and retrenchment compensation. But all of them entered into settlements , no doubt, these persons are not members of theAll India State Bank of India Staff Federation . But those whohaveworked even for 30 days in a calendar year or 70 daysin36 calendar months and various other categories could not have got any rights but for the settlements As stated in the beginning , these cases have got a chequered history starting from 1975 and now we are in 8270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ]

prompted me to issue the above directions , which I hope and trust will be honoured by the Respondent bank . While so considering , the age restriction as also sponsoring through Employment Exchange may have to be relaxed on equitable grounds as the above category employees have spent long time with the Respondent with a fond hope of regularization of their services .

As I have to follow the settled law & the position in which I found myself while delivering this award it prompted meto describe the condition of these petitioners as depicted inthe poem ofFaiz Ahmed Faiz quoted at the beginning of the Award.

Typed by LDC to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of May 2005 .

E. ISMAIL, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

Documents marked for Petitioners

entered into by All India State Bank of India Staff Federation and even those who have completed 240 days in a year their rights also got merged due to these settlements . But for the settlements except those who have completed 240 days in a year others do not have any right under the ID Act. And this is a All India problem and unfortunately for the Petitioners the same agreement dated 30-7-1996 marked as Ex . M 6 herein, was discussed by the Orissa High Court in OJC No. 9039 of 1997 ( WP) and batch , which was to lapse on 31-3-1997. Where in it was held "the currency of the arrangements made on the basis of the impugned decisions /settlements has come to an end on 31-3-1997 . It is pleaded by the Petitioner that the modalities may be followed in future though new norms have not been fixed. We do not think it necessary to go into this hypothetical " questions .. ". Against. which SLP was filed in the Hon'ble SC which dismissed saying the SLP is dismissed on merits. In fact , all these references or 2 (A) (2 ) are about their temrination. For example the reference is "Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hyderabad in terminating the services of Sri P. Anil Kumar. Temporary/Non -Messenger, STATE BANK OF INDIA w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified or not ? If not , what relief the applicant is entitled ? " . Actually if they had any grievance that the bank had agreed vide minutes of conciliation proceedings dated 9-6-1995, vide Ex . M5 , they should have approached conciliation officer raising a dispute that no joint committee was constituted to review the existing norms and reach a fresh settlement which will come intoeffect from 1-4-1997 . As the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa also stated in the end of the Judgement , it goes without saying if the Petitioners feel aggrieved about the norms when communicated, the same can be questioned before the appropriate forum/authority. The reference here iswhether termination is justified or not.

Ex W3 toW5 are Service Certificates

Ex W6 to W8 are Interview call letters

Ex W9 : is Service Certificate

Ex W10: is empanel list

Ex W11 to W15 are Service Certificates

ID 17 of 2001 Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri D. Purnachander Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : School Certificate Ex W2 : Caste Certificate ID 17 of 2002

I have given serious thoughts as it involves about 700 persons their families and also a human problem although one may feel much by the number of persons involved and the great expectations raised but justice has to be rendered as per law. Therefore in view of the Judgement of the High Court of the Orissa confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits when the SLP was dismissed on merits . I have no option but to hold the termination of services of Sri Anil Kumar and 149 others w.e.f. 31-3-1997 is justified and the Petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri R Sunil Kumar

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W1 : is Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification ofBank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4: Service Certificate

Before parting with the case . I feel it apt to direct the Respondent "which is State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India " to take into consideration the plight of the poor employees who are temporary daily wages / casual labourers and provide them suitable avenues depending upon the vacancy position without going into the technicalities of the expiry of the term of settlement as justice always be tempered with mercy. I was constrained to follow the settled law position. but my conscience [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ExW5: Appointment letter

8271

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Ex W 9 to W 18 arw Service Certificates

Ex W 19 : is FOC of ALCC( C )

Ex W 6 letter from DGM to Branch manager

Ex W7 : Another Appointment letter

Ex W8 : Another Appointment order

Ex W 9 : Service Certificate

ID 22 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri . K Devender Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : TC issued by school

Ex W 10 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Residential Certificate

Ex W 11 : Bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W3 : Caste Certificate

Ex W 12 : Bank audit report

ExW4 : Appointment letter issued to me

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ID 18 of 2001

Ex W 6 : Appointment letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri S Chandrakala Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

Ex W3: Empanel list

Ex W4 to W8 are Service Certificate

Ex W9 : is Minutes of the conciliation proceedings ID 20 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri T Shanthi Kumar Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI: Service Certificate

ExW2 : is TC

Ex W3 : Caste Certificate

Ex W4 : Residence proof

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W 7 to W 10 are appointment letters

Ex W 11 to 13 are Service Certificates :

Ex W 14 to W 18 are appointinent orders

Ex W19 to 21 are letters from bank for me

Ex W 22 & 23 are Service Certificates

ExW 24 is letter regarding panel workers

ExW 25 to 29 are appointment letters

ExW 30 to 32 are Service Certificates

Ex W 33 is bank circular to all branches

ID 23 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri M. Rajaiah Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 to W9 are School Certificates

Ex W10 : is Caste Certificate

Ex W 6 : Empanel list

Ex WII : is Employment card

Ex W 7 to W11 are Service Certificates

Ex W12 to W 18 are the receipts

Ex W19 : is resolution of the bank

ID 21 of 2001

Ex W 20: is Appointment order

Witness for Petitioner: WWI : S/ Shri B Dastaiah Ex W 21 is Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W 22 is letter of bank

Ex WI : TC

Ex W 23 is Service Certificatè

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W 6 : Interview call letter

Ex W 7 Order of empanelment

Ex W 24 is Interview call letter

Ex W 25 is letter asking me for original certificates Ex W 26 to 32 are Service Certificates

Ex W 33 & 34 are bank letters issued to all branches Ex W 35 is minutes of conciliation proceedings Ex W 36 is copy of the failure report

Ex W 8 : Empanel list 8272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23. 2005 /SRAVANA 1. 1927

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii) |

ExW2: TC

I.D. 24 of 2001

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri T. Balaram

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex WI : TC

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W6 & W7 are Service Certificates

Ex W3: Service Certificate

I.D. 29 of 2002

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri Ch Narsimhulu Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex WI : Service Certificate

Ex W2: Notification of bank

Ex W7: Ordersof empanelment

ExW8 : Empanel list

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W9 to W 18 are Service Certificates

Ex W4 : Empanel list

ExW19 is FOC of ALCC(C) .

Ex W5 to W 10 are Service Certificates

I.D. 25 of 2001

ExW11 isletter of bank to emp . exchange

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M. Ramulu

Wx W12 is circular issued to all branches

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

I.D. 30 of 2002

Ex WI : Caste certificate

Witness for Petitioner: WWI : S/ Shri Narasinga Rao Ex W2: Employment card

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW3 : Memorandum of marks

ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : School certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

ExW4: Empanel list

Ex W7: Empanel list

Ex W5 to W13 are Service Certificates

Ex W8 : Service Certificate

I.D. 33 of 2002

I.D. 26 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri K. Illaiah Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri M. Madhukar Rao

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W1 : Caste Certificate

Ex WI : Caste Certificate

Ex W2 : TC issued by school

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Appointment order

ExW4 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Extension order of my services

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Appointment order

ExW6 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 : Service Certificate

ExW7 : Service Certificate

Ex W7 : Extension order of my services

ExW8 : Service Certificate

Ex W8 : Extension order of my services

ExW9 Service Certificate

Ex W9 : Interview call letter

ExW10 : Service Certificate

Ex W10 to W13 are Service Certificates

Ex W11 : Service Certificate

Ex W14 is notice from ALC( C), Hyderabad

Ex W12: High Court order

Ex W15 to 17 are bank orders

I.D. 27 of 2001

ExW13 : Conciliation proceedings

I.D. 43 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri C. Yadagiri

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri N. Madhusudhan Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W1 : 7th class marks memo

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

A [ भाग il- खण्ड 3( ii ) 1

Ex WI : TE issued by School

8273

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ExWS : Empanel list

ExW2: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 to W7 are Service Certificates

Ex W6 : Order of selection in interview

Ex W7 : to W9 are Service Certificates

ExW10 : is copy of cheque

1.D. 45 of 2001

ExW11 is Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri P. Sriramulu Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri RamaRao Ex W1 : Service Certificate dated 1-12-1980

Ex W2 : TC issued by school

I.D. 47 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri G Anil Kumar Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : WIA & WIB are Service Certificates

Ex W2: Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Meihorandum of marks

ExW3 : Interview call letter

ExW4: Caste certificate

Ex W5 : Character certificate

ExW6 : Empanel list

ExW7: Service Certificate

Ex W4 to W22 are Service Certificates

Ex W5 : W23 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W6 : W24 is Bank audit report

ExW8 : Service Certificate

ExWY : Service Certificate

ExW10 : Service Certificate

1.D.48 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri Md Abdul Sattar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification

I.D.46 of 2001

ExW2: Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri T. Venkataratnam Ex W3: Interview call letter

Witnessfor Respondent : MW1: Aluri Rama Rao Ex W4 : Appointment letter

Ex W1 : Employment card

Ex W5 to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Transfer certificate

Ex W3 : Caste certificate

Ex W4 : Study certificate

ExW5: Service Certificate

Ex W6: News paper Notification

Ex W7 : Application to bank Notificatiofi

ExW10: is letter of bank to emp . exchange

Ex W11 : Bank's letter to its all branches

I.D. 48 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri N. Shankara rao Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Caste Certificate

Ex W8 : Introduction letter

Ex W9 : Service Certificate

Ex W2: is TC

Ex W3 : Employment exchange card

ExW 10 : Empanel list

ExW4: Interview call letter

Ex Wll to W 14 are Service Certificates

ExW5 : Service Certificate

Ex W15 is bank circular to all branches

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

ExW16 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W7 to W 10 are Service Certificates

Ex W 17 is reply to National Commission for

Ex W18 & 19 are respondent letters to branches I.D. 47 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri S. Renukadevi 1.D. 49 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S /Shri V. Venugopal Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : Notification of the bank

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

Ex W3: Service Certificate

Ex W2: Caste Certificate

Ex W4 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

2061 GI /2005-37 8274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

I.D. 52 of 2001

Ex W6: Notification ofbank to emp . Exchange dt . 8-4-99

ExW7: Circular of CGM to all branches of SBI dt 14-7-99 Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri B. Ramesh I.D. 49 of 2002

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri V. Omerao

Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW2 : Interview call letter

ExW1 : Notification ofbank

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW2: Service Certificate

ExW4 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Empanel list

ExW9 : Service Certificate

Ex W5 to W55 are Service Certificates

ExW10: Service Certificate

ExW56 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W11 : Service Certificate

Ex W57 is bank circular to all branches

Ex W12 : Circular ofbank to emp . exchange

I.D. 50 of 2001

Ex W13 : Circular ofCGM to all branches

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M. Ramesh Kumar

L.D. 52 of 2002

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri K. Srinivas ExW1 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W2 : Service Certificate

ExWI : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Call letter for interview

ExW2 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Appointment order

ExW3 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 to W19 are Service Certificates

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W11 is bank's letter to emp . exchange

ExW5 to W11 are Service Certificates

Ex W 12 is bank's letter to its all branches

ExW12 is bank letter to emp . exchange

I.D. 51 of 2001

ExW13 is bank audit report

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri Y. Rajender

I.D. 53 of 2001

Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri K. Surender Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Call letter for interview

ExW2: Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel list

ExW3: Empanel list

Ex W5 : to W8 and W8A are Service Certificates

Ex W4 to W8 are Service Certificates

Ex W9 is bank's letter to emp . exchange

Ex W9 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W10 is bank's circular to all branches

Ex W10 : is bank circular to all branches

I.D. 51 of 2002

I.D. 53 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri C.V. Venkateswarlu

Witness for Petitioner : WWI: S/Shri G. Veerachary Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W1 : is TC

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

Ex W2: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview letter

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 : Empanel letter

Ex W5 to W13 are Service Certificates

Ex W4 : Appointment letter

Ex W5 : to W8 are Service Certificate

Ex W14 is notification of bank to emp . exchange

Ex We to W 15 are memorandums issued to me Ex. W 15 is bank's audit report [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

I.D. 54 of 2001

8275

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Ex W7 : Orders of empanelment

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri S. Padma ExW8 : Empanel list

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4: Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W9 to W 18 are Service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC of ALCC( C) .

I.D. 56 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri C. Kishore Kumar Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Marks memo

Ex W2 : is TC

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W7 : Order of empanelment

Ex W8 : Empanel list

Ex W9 to W18 are service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC ofALCC( C) .

I.D. 54 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri GP Narsing Rao Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : & WIA are Service Certificates

ExW4 : Application for permanent absorption ExW5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 to W 19 are Service Certificates

I.D. 57 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M. Nanda Babu Witness for Respondent: MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 : to W11 are Service Certificates

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W12 is bank's letter to emp . exchange

Ex W13 is bank's audit report

I.D. 55 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri B Shakunthala Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2: Service Certificate

Ex W5 to W11 are Service Certificates

ExW12 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W13 is bank circular to all branches

I.D. 58 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri A. Renuka Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Birth certificate

Ex W3 : Service certificate

Ex W4 : Notification of bank

ExW2 : Service Certificate dated 19-9-1991

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 to W 13 are Service Certificates

Ex W14 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW 15 is audit report ofbank

ExW4 : Respondent letter to branch manager

Ex W5 to W7 are appointment memoranduıns

Ex W8 and W9 are Service Certificate

ExW 10 : is appointment order

I.D. 56 of 2001

Ex W11 & W12 are memorandums

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri PV Rajeev Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1: TC

Ex W2: Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex. W13 & W14 are Service Certificate

I.D. 59 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri P. Ravi Kanth Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : & WIA are Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

ExW3 : Call letter for interview

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel letter

8276

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1 , 1927

ExW1 : TC

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

ExW7: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

ExW8 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Interview call letter

Ex W9 : Service Certificate

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W10 : Bank's letter to Emp. exchange

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W11 : Bank's audit report

ExW7: Orders of empanelment

, I.D. 61 of 2002

ExW8 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri D. Srihari

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW19 is FOC ofALCC( C) .

Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

L.D. 75 of 2001

ExW2 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri R. Satyanarayana Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Witnessfor Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W4 : Call letter for recruitment

ExW1 : TC issued by School

ExW5 : Empanel list

ExW2 : Memorandum of marks

Ex W6 to W 18 are Service Certificates

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW19 is letter to Emp . exchange

ExW4 : Service Certificate

Ex W20 : Audit report

ExW5 : is application for employment

I.D. 72 of 2001

ExW6 : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri B. Satyanarayana

ExW7 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW8: Empanel list

Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W9 to W 14 are Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Notification

I.D. 75 of 2002

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K. Srinivas Ex W4 to W 10 are Service Certificates

Witness for Respondent : MW1: Aluri Rama Rao ExW11 is bank's letter to Emp . exchange

ExW1: Service Certificate

Ex W12 is circular of bank of all branches

ExW2: Notification of bank

I.D. 73 of 2001

ExW3 : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri G. Dhanraj

ExW4: Empanel list

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W5 to W 13 are Service Certificates

Ex W1 : is TC

Ex W 14 is bank's letter to Emp . exchange

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W15 is circular issued to all branches

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

I.D. 76 of 2001

Ex W4 : Resp letter for original certificates

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri R.S. Srinivas Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W6 : Service Certificate

Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W7 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

Ex W8 : Empanel list

Ex W9 to W 14 are Service Certificates

ExW3 : Appointment letter

Ex W4 to W9 are Service Certificates

I.D. 74 of 2001

Ex W10 is letter to Emp . exchange

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri P. Seshagiri Rao

Ex W11 is audit report ofbank

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

D. 76 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K.B. Narasimha raju Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2: Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Ex W4 to W15 are Service Certificates

8277

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W19 is FOC of ALCC(C) .

L.D. 79 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri S. Narasaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1: Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : TC

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W16 is bank's letter to Emp, exchange

Ex W17 is bank's circular to all its branches

ExW4: Interview call letter

I.D. 77 of 2001

ExWS : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1: S/Shri Y. V. Ramana Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W7 : Orders of empanelment

Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

Ex W8 : Empanel list

Ex W2: Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Selection letter dt 12-1-93

ExW4: Empanel list

Ex W5 to W9 are Service Certificates

ExW10 : is present casual workers engaged by bank L.D. 77 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri V. Maddileti Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W19 is FOC of ALCC(C).

L.D.80 of2001

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri S. Ramachandran Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : TE

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW3: Service Certificate

ExW1 : TC

ExW4: Interview call letter

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

ExW5 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W7: Orders of empanelment

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

ExW8 : Empanel list

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

ExW7 :Orders of empanelment

ExW8 : Empanel list

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W19 is FOC ofALCC( C) .

L.D. 78 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri A.N. Sai Kumar Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W19 is FOC of ALCC(C) .

LD.81 of2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S /Shri B. Yadagiri Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : TC

ExW2: Caste Certificate

Witness forRespondent : MW1: Aluri Rama Rao ExW3: Service Certificate

ExW1: TC

ExW4: Interview call letter

ExW2: Cast Certificate

ExW5 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex Wo : Interview call letter

ExW4: Interview call letter

Ex W7:Orders of empanelment

ExW5: Interview call letter

ExW8: Empanel list

ExW6 : Interview call letter

ExW7: Orders of empanelment

ExW8 : Empanel list

Ex We to W18 are Service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC of ALCC(C).

8278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

L.D. 82 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri G. Sathish Kumar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : TC

ExW2: Caste Certificate

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) | ID 85 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri P. Vinod Witness forRespondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : isMarks memo

ExW2 : isTC

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW3 : Caste Certificate

ExW4 : Interview call letter

ExW4: Employment card

ExW5: Interview call letter

ExW5 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Application forjob

ExW7: Orders of empanelment

Ex W7 : Interview call letter

ExW8: Service Certificate

ExW8 : Empanel list

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC of ALCC(C)

I.D. 83 of 2001

ID 86 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S / Shri K. Yadaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri N. M. Manohar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

ExW2 : Application for employment

ExW3 : Bank order

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W5 to W9 are Service Certificates

ExW10 : is bank letter

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W7 : Orders of empanelment

ExW8 : Empanel list

ID 87 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri C Krishna Witness for Respondent : MW1: Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : School certificate

ExW2 : Caste certificate

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC of ALCC( C )

ID 84 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri K. Sakkubai Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Caste certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

ExW4: Interview call letter

ExW5 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 : letter of the respondent bank

ExW7 : Empanel list

Ex W2 : Application for birth certificate by pet. Mother Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Letter from bank for my cast certificate Ex W5 : Application for permanent appointment Ex W6: Letter for original certificates

Ex W7 : Interview call letter

Ex W8 : Service Certificate

ExW8 : Service Certificate

ExW9 : Application for employment

Ex W10 to W 12 are Service Certificates

ID 88 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M. Gangadhar Witness for Respondent : MWI: Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W9 : Service Certificate

Ex W10 : Empanel list

Ex WII to W14 : Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W15 & 16 : Applications to bank

Ex W17 is Service Certificate

ExW5 : Circular of bank to all branches

Ex W6 : Circular ofbank to emp . exchange [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ID 90 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri G. Satyanarayana Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Empanel list

Ex W4 to W7 are Service Certificates

8279

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ExW4: TC

Ex W5 : to W10 are Service Certificates

ID 97 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri GYadaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : TC

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W8 is letter to emp . exchange

Ex W9 is circular ofbank to its branches

ExW4 : Interview call letter

I.D. 94 of 2001

ExW5 : Interview call letter

ExW6 : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/Shri C. Megharaj Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W7: Orders of empanelment

Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

ExW8 : Empanel list

ExW2 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC ofALCC( C ) .

ID 97 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M Mallikarjuna Rao Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W7: Service Certificate

ExW8 : Service Certificate

Ex W9 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification ofbank

ExW3 : Interview call letter

Ex W10 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W11 : Notification of bank to emp . exchange ID 95 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri Md. Ghouse Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

ExW5 : Letter ofbank to emp . exchange

Ex W6 : Circular of bank to all branches

ID 98 of2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri P. Subbaraju Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4: Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

ExW4: Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

ExW6 : Interview call letter

Ex W7: Orders of empanelment

ExW8: Empanel list

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

ExW8 : Empanel list

ExW19 is FOC of ALCC( C) .

ID 96 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri BR Saibaba Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Caste certificate

Ex W2 : Xth class Marks memo

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W 19 is FOC ofALCC( C ) .

ID 99 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S /Shri KRR Pillai Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Study certificate

Ex W2 : Employment card

ExW3 : Employment card 8280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

Ex W3 : to W5 are Service Certificates

Ex W6 is Notification of the bank in the news paper ExW7 is empanel list

Ex W8 to 10 are Service Certificates

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Ex WI : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel list

I.D. 100 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri MJ Janardhan Witness for Respondent: MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1: Employment card

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4: Letter of bank for original certificates ExW5: application to bank

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W7 : Empanel list

Ex W8 : letter of the bank

Ex W5 to W11 are Service Certificates

ExW12 is bank letter to emp. exchange

Ex W13 is bank circular to all branches

L.D. 111 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri G. Kanakaiah Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Empanel list

ExW9 : telegram from the bank to me

Ex W10 to W 14 are Service Certificates

I.D. 109 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri G. Raju Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of Bank

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview Call letter

Ex W4 : Appointment letter

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 to W9 are Service Certificates

ExW10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W11 is audit report of the bank

I.D. 112 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri D. Pulia Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of the bank

ExW2: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : absorption letter

Ex W6 : Service Certificate

Ex W7 : Service Certificate

Ex W8 : Service Certificate

Ex W9 : Service Certificate

ExW5 : appointment letter

Ex W6 to W8 are Service Certificates

Ex W9 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW10 is bank audit report

I.D. 113 of 2002

Ex W10 : Circular of bank to emp . exchange I.D. 110 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K. Prakash Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

ExW2 : Empanel list

Ex W3 : SSC Memo

Ex W4: Appointment letter

ExW5 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 : Caste Certificate

I.D. 110 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri S.P. Varun Babu Witness for Respondent : MWI: Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

ExW7: Orders of empanelment

ExW8 : empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri G. Komaraiah Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W19 is FOC of ALCC( C ) .

8281 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23, 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

L.D. 114 of 2002

ExW2: Service Certificate

ExW3: Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri E. Srisailam

Witness forRespondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW4: empanel list

ExW1 : Service Certificate

ExW5 to W8 are Service Certificates

ExW2 : Notification ofbank

ExW9 isbank's letter to emp . exchange

ExW10 is bank's letter to its all branches

ExW3 : Empanel list

Ex W4 : to W7 are Service Certificates

L.D. 127 of 2001

Ex W5 : W8 is bank letter to emp. exchange

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri E. Balaswamy Ex W6 to W9 is bank circular to all branches

Witnessfor Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao L.D. 115 of 2002

ExW1: School certificate

Ex W2 : Memorandum of marks

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri M. Swamy

ExW3 : Caste certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW1: Service Certificate

ExW4: employment card

ExW5 & W6are Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Notification ofbank

ExW7: Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W8 to W11 are Service Certificates

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 to W7 are Service Certificates

ExW12 is notice for conciliation by ALC(C)

ExW13 is minutes of conciliationproceedings Ex W8 is bank letter to emp. exchange

ExW9 is bank circular to all branches

ExW14 is failure report by ALC(C), Hyderabad L.D. 118 of 2002

L.D. 128 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri P. Shankaraiah Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri D. Gangaram

Witness forRespondcat : MWI: Aluri Rama Râu Witness for Respondent: MW1: Alumi Rama Rav

ExW1 : Notification

ExW1: Notification ofbank

ExW2: Service Certificate

ExW2: Interview call letter

ExW3 : Interview call letter

ExW3: Empanel list

Ex W4 to W8 are Service Certificates

ExW4 : Appointment letter

ExW5: Service Certificate

ExW9 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W10 is bank circular to all branches

ExW6 : Service Certificate

I.D. 125 of 2001

ExW7 : Service Certificate

ExW8: Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri J. Aialaiah

ExW9 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW10 : Service Certificate

ExW1: Notification ofbank

ExW11: Service Certificate

ExW2: Interview call letter

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW12: Service Certificate

L.D. 129 of 2001

ExW4: Service Certificate

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri V. Yadagiri Ex W6 : Notification ofbank to emp . exchange

Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W7 : Circular of CGM to all branches

ExW2 : Notification ofbank

L.D. 126 of 2001

ExW3: Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri B. Anjaiah

ExW4: empanel list

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W5 : to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

206191105-38 8282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

ExW10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

ExW11 is circular ofbank

L.D. 130 of 2001

ExW3 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K Narsimhulu ExW4 : Service Certificate

ExW5 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW6 : Service Certificate

ExW1 : Notification

ExW2 : Interview call letter

Ex W7 : Bank notification to emp . exchange

ExW8 : Circular ofbank

ExW3 : empanel list

Ex W4: to W7 are Service Certificates

Ex W8 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W9 is bank circular to all branches

L.D. 140 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri S. Venkateswarlu Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Notification ofbank

L.D. 131 of 2001

ExW2: Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri Pochaiah ExW3 : Absorption letter

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Notification ofbank

ExW2: Interview call letter

Ex W4 : to W10 are Service Certificates

ExW11 is bank letter to emp. exchange

ExW12 is bank audit report

ExW3 : Appointment letter

Ex W4 to W9 are Service Certificates

ExW10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW11 is bank circular to all branches

L.D. 132 of 2001

I.D. 141 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri S Muthaiah Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

ExW2 : Notification ofbank

Witness for Petitioner: WWI : S/ Shri G Ramaswamy ExW3 : Interview call letter

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW4: Empanel list

ExW1 : Notification

ExW2 : Interview call letter

ExW3: appointment letter

Ex W4 to W10 are Service Certificates

I.D. 133 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M Ganga Ram Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : to W5 are school certificates

Ex W2 : W6 is caste certificate

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate

ExW7 : Letter to emp . exchange by bank

Ex W8 : Circular ofbank to all branches

L.D. 142 of 2001

Witness forPetitioner : WW1 : S / Shri I Suvarna Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Notification of bank

ExW2: Interview call letter

Ex W3 : W7 to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W10 & W11 are Interview call letters

Ex W12 is Service Certificate

ExW13 is empanel- list

Ex W14 & 15 are letter of the bank

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Service Certificate

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate

ExW7 : Service Certificate

Ex W16 to 26 are Service Certificates

ExW8 : Service Certificate

ExW9 : Service Certificate

ExW27 is Failure report of ALC( C)

I.D. 134 of 2001

ExW10 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K Yadagiri Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W11 : Notification of bank to emp . exchange Ex W12: Circular ofbank to all branches [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

I.D. 142 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri D. Redya Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 Service Certificate

8283

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23, 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

L.D. 146 of 2001

Witness forPetitioner : WW1 : S/Shri D. Laxminarayana Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification ofbank

Ex W2 to W5 are appointment orders

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 to W10 are Service Certificates

Ex W4 to W6 are Service Certificates

Ex W7 is bank letter to emp . exchange

-Ex W8 is bank circular to all branches

I.D. 143 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri YS Rajkumar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao L.D. 147 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri M Narasimhulu Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : TC

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W4: Interview call letter

Ex W2 : Notification ofbank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 : Empanel list

ExW6 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 to W7 are Service Certificates

ExW7: Ordersof empanelment

Ex W8 : is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW8 : empanel list

Ex W9 is bank audit report

Ex W9 : to W18 are Service Certificates

I.D. 144 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M Sobharani Witness Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate dated 29-8-91

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

ExW19: is FOC of ALCC( C) .

I.D. 147 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri NYerranna Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 to W6 are Service Certificates

Ex W7 is the copy of minutes of conciliation ExW2 : Notification

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

1.D. 144 of 2002

ExW4 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri B Shankaraiah Ex W5 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

ExW6: Service Certificate

Ex W2: Interview call letter

P Ex W7 : Bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Ex W8 : bank circular to all branches

Ex W4 : W12 are Service Certificates

ExW13 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W14 is bank circular to all branches

I.D. 145 of 2002

I.D. 148 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri R Premraj Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M Narsubai Ex W2: Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

ExW4: Empanel list

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 to W 18 are Service Certificates

Ex W3 : to W6 are Service Certificates

ExW19 : is School Certificate

Ex W7 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W8 is bank circular

2061 GI/2005-39

ExW20 is Caste Cerificate 8284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005 /SRAVANA 1. 1927

I.D. 148 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri M Muthaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 : Empanel list

ExW1: Notification ofbank

ExW2: Empanel list

Ex W3 to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W5 to W8 are Service Certificates

Ex W9 is bank's letter to emp . exchange

Ex W10 is bank's circular

Ex W10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

I.D. 151 of 2001

Ex W11 is bank circular to all branches

I.D. 149 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri K Tulasi Das Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S /Shri C Kishor Kumar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Date of birth certificate

Ex W2 : Caste certificate

Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W2: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 : Bank notification to emp . exchange

Ex W7 : Audit report of bank

Ex W3 : NCC certificate

ExW4: Marks memo

Ex W5 : Hall ticket for Xth class exams

Ex W6 & W7 are Interview call letters

Ex W8 to W 12 are Service Certificates

Ex W13 to W20 are Bankers cheques & cr . vouchers Ex W21 is failure report

I.D. 149 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M Narayana Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

Ex W2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

ExW22 is conciliation notice

Ex W23 is minutes of conciliation

Ex W24 is reference

Ex W25 is notice from IT - I . Hyderabad

Ex W26 is another reference

I.D. 151 of 2002

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W7 : Orders of empanelment

ExW8: Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri Y. Mallesh Witness for Respondent: MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1: Notification of bank

Ex W2: Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

Ex W19 is FOC of ALCC( C ).

I.D. 150 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K Ramanjaneyulu Ex W4 to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W11 is bank circular to all branches

I.D. 161 of 2001

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI: Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4: Service Certificate

I.D. 150 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M Suraiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri D Narasimha Swamy Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : VII class pass certificate

Ex W2 : TC issued by school

ExW3 : Residential certificate

Ex W4 to W6 are Service Certificates

Ex W7 & W8 are Interview call letters

Ex W9 to W19 are Service Certificates [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

I.D. 162 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri MP Levi Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

8285

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 23 , 2005 / श्रावण 1 , 1927

I.D. 167 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner: WW1 : S/Shri B. Srinivas Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1: Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Selection& empanel list

ExW4 : Service Certificate

Ex.W4: Empanel list

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

ExW5 : Service Certificate

Ex W6 : Bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W6 to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W7 : Bank circular to all branches

ExW10 is bank letter to emp. exchange

I.D. 163 of 2001

ExW11 is bank audit report

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri K Karunakar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : Caste certificate

Ex W2 : Residential certificate

I.D. 169 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri B. Chandru Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Birth certificate

ExW2 : Notification ofbank

Ex W4 : Xth class marks memo

ExW3 : Empanel list

Ex W5 : Employment card

Ex W6 : Service Certificate dated 24-3-1997 1.D. 164 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K. Laxmi ExW4: Service Certificate

Ex W5 : Notification of bank to emp . exchange Wx. W6 : Audit report ofBank

Witness for Respondent: MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : TC

ExW2 : Caste Certificate

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 : Interview call letter

I.D. 170 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri Bala Nagulu Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

ExW2: Interview call letter

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Appointment letter

Ex W6 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 to W9 are Service Certificates

Ex W7: Orders of empanelment

Ex W10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW8 : Empanel list

Ex W11 is bank circular to all branches

Ex W9 to W18 are Service Certificates

ExW19 is FOC ofALCOO( C) .

I.D. 166 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri G Lingaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao I.D. 178 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri J. Arun Kumar Witness for Respondent : MWI : Alurį Rama Rao ExW1 : Caste certificate

ExW2 : TC issued by School

Ex W1 : Date of birth certificate

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : SSC marks memo

Ex W4: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Residential certificate

ExW5 : letterfrom respondent for original certificates Ex W6 : Empanel list

Ex W4 : Caste certificate

ExW7 : Service Certificate

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Ex W6 : Absorption letter

Ex W7 : Service Certificate

Ex W8 to W12 are Service Certificate

Ex. W 13 is notice of ALC( C ) , Hyderabad 8286

THEGAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 23 , 2005 / SRAVANA 1 , 1927

I.D. 182 of 2001

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] ExW5 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri K Ramulu ExW6 : Service Certificate

ExW7 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

ExW3 : Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate

ID 183 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri Gundla Sayanna Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ID 188 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri R Anasuya Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

Ex We to W7 are Service Certificates

ExW8 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW9 is bank circular to all branches

ID 189 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri M. Shyam Rao Witness for Respondent : MW1: Shri Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Notification of bank

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 to W7 are Service Certificates

Ex W8 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W9 is bank circular to all branches

ExW2 : Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Service Certificate

ExW5 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate

ID 184 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner: WW1: Shri P. Kumaraswamy Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Study certificate

ExW7 : Service Certificate

ExW8 : Service Certificate

ExW9 : Service Certificate

ExW10: Service Certificate

ExW2 & W3 are caste certificates

ExW11 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Service Certificate

Ex W12 : SSC Memo

Ex W5 to W8 are Service Certificates

ID 186 of 2001

ExW13 : Transfer Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri P. Yadagiri ExW14 : Caste Certificate

ID 190 of 2001

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification

ExW2 : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri Md . Murthuza Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Appointment letter

Ex W4 to W7 are Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Application ofbank

ExW3: Empanel list

Ex W8 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W9 is bank circular to all branches

ID 187 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri K. Jayender Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : School certificate

ExW2 : Caste certificate

ExW3 : Service Certificate

ExW4 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 to W11 are Service Certificates

ExW12 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W13 is bank circular to all branches

ID 191 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri N. Srinivasa Rao Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

ExW2: Notification of bank

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 to W7 are Service Certificates

8287

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

ID 199 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri K. Kas

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Notification of bank

Ex W8 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW2 :Appointment letter

Ex W9 is bank circular to all branches

ID 196 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri B Shayam Sundar Ex W3 : Gist of service record

Ex W4 to W11 are Service Certificates

Ex W12 is empanel list

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W13 is Interview call letter

ExW1 : Notification of bank

ExW14 is Transfer Certificate

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Empanel list

Ex W15 is Caste Certificate

Ex W16 is bonus Notification

Ex W4 to W 12 are Service Certificates

Ex W13 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W17 is High Court Orderdt 1.1.1998

ID 200 of 2001

Ex W14 is bank circular to all branches

ID 197 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri B. Lachaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri E Yellaiah, Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 to W3 are School certificate

Ex W4 & 5 are Caste Certificates

ExW1 : Notification ofbank

ExW2 : Interview call letter

ExW3: Empanel list

Ex W4 to W7 are Service Certificates

Ex W 6& 7 are Service Certificates

ExW8 isapplication for employment

Ex W9 is Service Certificate

Ex W10 is Interview call letter

Ex W8 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW11 is empanel list

ExW9 is bank circular to all branches

ID 198 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner: WW1 : Shri M. Jaganmohan Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Notification of bank

Ex W12 to 18 are Service Certificates

ID 201 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri N. Pushpa Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

ExW2: Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification ofbank

ExW3 : Empanel list

ExW3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 to W13 are Service Certificates

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W14 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW15 is audit report

ID 198 of 2002

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : Shri V. Seenaiah Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao ExW1: Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W5 to W9 are Service Certificates

ExW10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W11 is bank circular to all branches

ID 202 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : Shri T Parshuddaharao Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Shri Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1: Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 to W8 are Service Certificates

ExW2 : Notification

ExW3 : Interview call letter

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W9 is letter to emp . exchange

Ex W10 is bank's circular to its branches

Ex W5 to W13 are Service Certificates .

8288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ExW3 : Service Certificate

Ex W14 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Ex W15 is bank circular to all branches

Ex W4 : Application format

ID 203 of 2001

Ex W5 : Interview call letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri O.P. Thakur

Ex W6 : Circular of bank to all branches

Ex W7 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex WI : Service Certificate

Ex W8 : Service Certificate

Ex W2: Notification of bank

Ex W9 : Notification ofbank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W 10 : Present vacancy position of bank

I.D. 212 of 2001

ExW4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 to W11 are Service Certificates

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri G. Anjaiah ExW12 is bank letter to emp. exchange

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao ExW13 is bank circular to all branches

Ex W1 : Notification of bank

I.D. 208 of 2002

Ex W2 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri A. Shankar Rao

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W4: Bank's letter to emp . exchange

Ex WI : Service Certificate

Ex W5 : Bank's circular to all branches

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

I.D. 219 of 2002

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri L. Sanjeeva I.D. 209 of 2001

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner: WWI : S/ Shri A. Agaiah

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

Ex WI : Service Certificate

ExW3 : Empanel list

Ex W2: Notification of bank

I.D. 222 of 2001

ExW3 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S/ Shri Anil Kumar Ex W4: Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W5: Notification of bank to emp . exchange

Ex W1 : Notification of the bank dated 1.5.91

Ex W6 : Circular of CGM to all branches

Ex W2 : Interview call letter dt 8.7.92

L.D. 210 of 2001

ExW3 : Empanel list dt 12.1.93

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri B. Anantha Reddy Ex W4 : Service Certificate

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao

ExW5 : Service Certificate dt. 5-7-94

Ex W1 : Service Certificate

ExW6 : Service Certificate dt . 30-6-94

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

ExW7 : Service Certificate dt . 5-5-96

1 Ex W3 : to W6 is Service Certificates

Ex W8 : Service Certificate dt . 3-4-97

Ex W7 is empanel list

Ex W9 : Bank letter to emp . exchange dt 7.4.99

Ex W8 to 11 are appointment orders

Ex W10 : Audit report of the bank

Ex W12 is letter of IF branch

Ex W11: Reply submitted by petitioner

7 Ex W13 to 22 are Service Certificates

Ex W12 : Rejoinder submitted by respondent before

ALC (C) , Hyderabad

L.D. 211 of 2001

I.D. 223 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S / Shri K. Ashok

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri B. Sulochana Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Appointment order

Ex W2: Service Certificate

ExW1 : Notification [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Ex W2 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Empanel list

Ex W4: Service Certificate

Ex W5 to W 10 are Service Certificates

ExW11 is bank letter to emp. exchange

Ex W12 is bank circular to all branches

8289

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 23 , 2005/ श्रावण 1 , 1927

Ex W11 : Service Certificate

ExW12: Service Certificate .

I.D. 240 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri P. Bharathi Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification ofbank

L.D. 236 of 2001

ExW2: Sponsered letter of emp . exchange

Ex W3 : Interview letter

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M. Lingam Ex W4: to W9 are Service Certificates

Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W5 : Ex. W10 is Bank Notification to emp . exchange Ex W6 : Ex W11 is Audit report of bank

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Ex W4 to W 17 are Service Certificates

Ex W18 & 19 are head charges

Ex W19A is hharges account slips of charminar I.D. 241 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri Y. Nageswarao Witness for Respondent: MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1: & WIA are Service Certificates

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W20 is 37 petty cash vouchers bunch .

I.D. 237 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri D. Prasad Rao Ex W3 : Interview call letter

Ex W4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 to W 12 are Service Certificates

Witness for Respondent : MWI: Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Notification of bank

Ex W2 : letter of interview

Ex W3 : Selection & recruitment letter

Ex W4 : Service Certificate

Ex W5 to W12 are Service Certificates

Ex Ex. W 13 is bank letter to emp. exschange

Ex Ex . W 14 is circular ofbank to all branches

I.D. 242 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WWI : S /Shri A. Gopalyadav Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex WI : Service Certificate

Ex W13 is bank letter to emp. exchange

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W14 is Audit report of bank

1.D. 238 of 2001

Ex W3 : Empanel list

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri B.R. Prabhakar Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification

I.D. 244 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri M. Saroopa Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW3 : Application to bank

Ex W4 : Empanel list

Ex W5 : to W42 are Service Certificate

I.D. 239 of 2001

ExW4 : Interview call letter and empanel list

Ex W5 to W 19 are Service Certificates

Ex W20 is another Service Certificate

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/ Shri E. Nagaraju ExW21 is bank letter to emp . exchange

Witness for Respondent : MW1 : Aluri Rama Rao Ex W1 : Memorandum of marks

Ex W22 is audit report

Ex W2: Interview call letter

Ex W3 : Service Certificate

Ex W4 to W6 are appointment orders

Ex W7 : Service Certificate

I.D. 246 of 2001

Witness for Petitioner : WW1 : S/Shri C. Anil Kumar Witness for Respondent : MWI : Aluri Rama Rao ExW1 : Service Certificate

Ex W2 : Notification of bank

Ex W8 : Service Certificate

Ex W3 : Interview call letter

ExW9 : Service Certificate

Ex W10 : Service Certificate

ExW4: Empanel list

8290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 23 , 2005/ SRAVANA 1 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Ex W5 to W9 are Service Certificates

नई दिल्ली, 14 जुलाई , 2005

ExW10 is bank letter to emp . exchange

ExW11 is bank circular to all branches

Documents marked by Management (in all the 150 cases)

Ex. M1 : Settlement dated 17-11-1987

Ex . M2 : Settlement dated 16-7-1988

Ex. M3 : Settlement dated 27-10-1988

Ex. M4 : Settlement dated 9-1-1991

Ex. M5 : Minutes of Conciliation Proceedingsdt . 9-6-1995

Ex. M6: Settlement dated 30-7-1996

का.आ. 2640.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित मेंऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ ) के उप- खण्ड ( vi ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 380 दिनांक 13-1-2005 द्वारा करेंसी नोट प्रेस नासिक रोड़, जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि25 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-1-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

Ex. M7 :Memorandum of Understanding dtd. 27-2-1997

Ex. M8: Particulars of 1989 Messenger panel

Ex. M9 : Particulars of 1989 Non- Messenger Panel

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

Ex. M10 : Particulars of 1992 General Attendent Panel

Ex. M11 : Judgement of Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. in WritAppeal No. 86/98 and batch dtd . 1-5-1998

Ex. M12: Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of INDIA in SLP 11886-11888/98 dt. 10-8-1998

नई दिल्ली 13 जुलाई , 2005

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ ) के उप - खण्ड ( vi ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 15-7-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिएलोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा. सं. एस-11017/3/91- आई- आर. ( पी.एल. ) ]

जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 14th July, 2005

का.आ. 2639.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 अगस्त, 2005 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबन्ध केरल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्: -

" कण्णूर जिला में तलिपरंबु तालुक के करिवेल्लूर क्षेत्र "

[सं. एस-38013/33/ 05 - एस.एस. - 1 ]

संयुक्ता राय, अवर सचिव

New Delhi the 13th July , 2005

S.O. 2640.- 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 ofLabour S.O. No. 380 dated 13-1-2005 the service in Currency Note Press . Nashik Roadwhich is covered by item 25 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act , for a period ofsix months from the 15th January, 2005.

Andwhereas , the Central Government is of opinion thatpublic interest requires the extension of the said period by a furtherperiod of six months .

S.O. 2639. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st August , 2005 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter Vand VI [ except Sub - section ( i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Kerala , namely :-

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub - clause ( vi ) of clause (n) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act, for a period of six months from the 15th July, 2005 .

"Karivellor in Thaliparambu Taluk in Kannur District."

[F. No. S. - 11017/3/ 91 - IR (PL ) ]

J. P. PATI , Jt . Secy .

[F. No. S -38013/ 33 / 2005 - SS . I ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy .

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.