This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

करत सरकार ष्णा

दिनांक ........

.को प्राप्त 16/ 3/

रजिस्ट्रीसं०डी० एल० ( ए ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

प्रभारी 2006REGD NO.D. L. (N) 04 / 0007/2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

P.o. 185 capis KM . 27

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

ePB. 158 e

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 8 जनवरी 14, 2006 , शनिवार /पौष18-पौष 24, 1927 NEW DELHI , JANUARY 8 JANUARY 14, 2006, SATURDAY/PAUSA 18- PAUSA 24, 1927

सं०२ ] No. 2 ]

किया

पूरा इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given tothis 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)

प्रभारी 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)

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क एवं सीमा शुल्क आयुक्तालय ) भावनगर, 14 अक्तूबर, 2005 सं० 02/2005 सी.शु. ( गै. टे. )

का. आ. 100.- वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सी.शु. (गै. टे ) दिनांक 01-07-94 द्वारा सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 9 के अंतर्गत मुझे प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए, मै एतदद्वारा गाँव- घांघली, पोस्ट-घांघली, शिहोर- अहमदाबाद रोड, तालुका- शिहोर, जिला-भावनगर ( गुजरात ) कोकेवल 100% निर्यात उन्मुखी इकाईयों की स्थापना के सीमित प्रयोजन के लिये भण्डारण केन्द्र के रूप में घोषित करता हूँ ।

[फा. सं. VIII/40-02/2005 ]

तालकेश्वर सिंह, आयुक्त 2 GI/2006

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS)

Bhavnagar , the 14th October, 2005 NO . 02/2005-CUS (NT)

S.O. 100- In exercise of the powers delegated to meunder Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 vide Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi's Notification No. 33/94- Cus (NT) dated 1-7-94, I hereby declare Village : Ghanghali , Post : Ghanghali , Sihor- Ahmedabad Road, Ta. -Sihor , District-Bhavnagar (Gujarat) asa Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up 100% Export Oriented Units (EOU) only.

[F.No. VIII/40-02/2005 ] TALKESHWAR SINGH, Commissioner

(275) 276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006 /PAUSA 24, 1927

(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय ) जयपुर, 2 जनवरी , 2006 सं. 01 -सीमा शुल्क( एनटी ) 2006

(सीमा शुल्क)

का. आ. 101- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 152 कखण्ड ( ए ) के तहत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग, नई दिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94 सीमा शुल्क ( एन टी ) दिनांक : जुलाई, 1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं , जयन्त मिश्र, आयुक्त , केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, जयपुर - प्रथम एतदद्वारा , शत प्रतिशत ई.ओ.यू. स्थापित करने के उ‌द्देश्य से सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम की धारा 9 के अन्तर्गत राजस्थान राज्य के कोटा जिले की लाडपुरा तहसील में ग्राम मण्डाना को भण्डारण स्टेशन (वेयर हाउसिंग स्टेशन ) नोषित करता हूँ।

[फा. सं. पंचम ( 16 ) इओयू/36/2005 ] जयन्त मिश्र, आयुक्त

THE COMMISSIONER, LENTRAL EXCISE)

Jaipur, the 2nd January, 2006

No. 01 - CUS ( NT) 2006

(CUSTOMS)

S.O. 101- In exercise of the powers conferred by Notification No. 33/94- Customs ( NT) , dated the 1st July, 1994, by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi , issued under clause (a) of Section 152 of Customs Act , 1962. 1 , Jayant Misra, Commissioner of Central Excise , Jaipur- I, Jureby declare the Village-Mandana , Teh . - Ladpura, Distt. -Kota , in the State ofRajasthan to be Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the purpose of settino up SEOU

[F. No. V( 16) EOU/36/2005 ]

JAYANT MISRA , Commissioner

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

(आयकर)

का.आ. 102- सर्व साधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतदद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 6 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 को उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ ' विश्वविद्यालय, कॉलेज संस्था को श्रेणी के अन्तर्गत दिनांक 1-3-2004 से दिनांक 2007 तक की अवधि के लिए मेसर्स की उंडेशन, उरूलिकंचन, ताल नो

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] के लिए एक मात्र मौजूद ' वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान संघ' के रूप में है ) को निम्नलिखित शब्दोंके अधीन अनुमोदित किया गया है:-

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों के लिए अलग खाते रखेगा ।

A (ii ) वितीय वर्षों के प्रत्येक वर्ष के लिए जिसके लिए यह अनुमोदन प्रदान किया जा रहा है , अनुमोदित संगठन अनुसंधान कार्य- कलापों के संबंध में लेखा परीक्षित आय एवं व्यय खाते की एक प्रति इसके क्षेत्राधिकार वाले आयकर आयुक्त/आयकर निदेशक ( छूट ) को आय कर विवरणी दाखिल करने की नियत तारीख को अथवा उससे पहले अथवा इस अधिसूचना की तारीख से 90 दिनों के अन्दर, जो भी बाद में समाप्त हो , प्रस्तुत करेगा, जिसके लिए इसे आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया है ।

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन उपर्युक्त पैरा ( ii ) में संदर्भित आय एवं व्यय खाते के साथ लेखा परीक्षक से प्राप्त एक प्रमाण पत्र भी संलग्न करेगा:-

(क) जिसमें संगठन द्वारा वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान/सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त की गई उस राशि का उल्लेख किया गया हो , जिसके लिए दानकर्ता धारा 35 की उपधारा (1 ) खंड ( ii ) के अन्तर्गत कटौती का दावा करने के लिए पात्रहैं ।

(ख ) जिसमें यह प्रमाणित किया गया हो कि किया गया व्यय सामाजिक विज्ञान/सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए ही था । [अधिसूचना सं. 01 /2006/फा. सं. 203/21/2005-आयकर नि.- II ] निधि सिंह, अवर सचिव (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES) New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006 (INCOME-TAX)

S.O. 102- It is hereby notified for general information that the organization ivi/ s BAIF Development Research Foundation , Urulikanchan , Tal . Haveli , Dist . Pune - 412 202 has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section (1 ) of Section 35 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , read with Rule 6 of the Income Tax Rules , 1962 for the period from 1-4-2004 to 31-3-2007 under the category ' University, Collège or other Institution' partly engaged in research activities ( and not as a scientific research association existing solely for research ) subject to the following conditions :-

( i) The approved organization shall maintain separate accounts for its research activities .

(ii) For each of the financial years for which this approval is being given , the approved organization 277 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खब्ज

Dawrpri Vengthar Congress Bhawan , Aizwal as part -time non-official director on the Board of United Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of notification or until his successor is nominated, whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/ 1/2006 - BO- I ] G. B. SINGH, Linder Secy. नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी , 2006 shall ubmit a copy of its audited Income & Expenditure account in respect of the research activities for which it has been approved under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of I.T. Act, 1961 to the Commissioner of Income Tax/Director of Income Tax (Exemptions ) having jurisdiction , on or before the due date of filing of return of income or within 90 days from the date of this notification , whichever expires later .

(iii) The approved organization shall also enclose with the Income & Expenditure account referred to in paragraph ( ii ) above , a certificate from the auditor :--

(a) specifying the amount received by the organization for scientific research/statistical research in respect of which the donors are eligible to claim deduction under clause (ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 .

का. आ. 104- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध पूर्व प्रकीर्ण बंध) योजना, 1970 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ परित बैंलकारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धार। की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा भैयाथान रोड़ , ड चूरजपुर, जिला सुरगुजा, छत्तीसगढ़ निवासी श्री अब्दुल रशीद की अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या उनका उत्तराधिकारी जामित किए जाने तक, जो भी हो, यूनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक निदेशरत है । (b) certifying that the expenditure incurred was for research in social science /statistical research .

1. सं. 9/1 /2006 - बोहो जी.बी. सिा New Delhi , the 10th January, 2000 [Notification No. 01 /2006/F . No. 203 /21 /2005 - ITA-11 ] NIDHI SINGH, Under Secy ,

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी , 2006

S.O. 104-In exercise of the powers co sub- section 3 (h) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 read with sub - cluse ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneouε Provisions) Scheme , 1970 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Abdul Rashid resident of Bhaiyathatı Road, PO Surajpur , District Surguja , Chattisgarh as part- time non-official director on the Board of United Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of notification or until his successor is nominated, whichever isearlier .

[F. No. 9/ 1 /2006- BO - 1 ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी, 2006 का. आ. 103- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना, 1970 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3- क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा बी-71 , दावरप्री वेंगथार, कांग्रेस भवन, आइजौल निवासी श्री पी.सी. जोरम संगलियाना को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या उनका उत्तराधिकारी नामित किए जाने तक, जो भी पहले हो, युनाइटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[ 1. स जी 26-बीओ -1 ] त्रर सचिव

(Department of E 01 (BANKING DIVIS.O New Delhi , the 10th Janu , 4006

का. आ. 105- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध। योजना, 1970 के खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंकाकारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धा की उपधारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा सुश्री ओमेन मोयोंग देओरी, जो सामाजिक कार्यकर्ता है और डी-14, अदिति अपार्टमेंट्स , 16 , आईपी एक्सटेंशन पटपड़गंज, नई दिल्ली में रहती हैं , कौ अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीच वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या उनका उत्तराधिकारी नामित किए जाने तक जो भी पहले हो, यूको बैंक के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक निदेशक के २ नियुक्तकरती है ।

[का. सं. 9/31/2005 जी.गगी .

S.O. 103-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section 3 (h) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 read with sub- cluse ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri P.C. Zoram Sangliana resident of B - 71 , 278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 10th January, 2006

19. मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , गुरू तेगबहादुर नगर

20. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी, ठाणे.

21 . वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , ठाकुर्ली

22. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी, लोनावला

चिकित्सा अधीक्षक, इगतपुरी 23.

सहायक मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , पनवेल 24.

S.O. 105-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section 3 ( h ) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 read with sub- cluse ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Ms. Omen Moyong Deori , Social Worker and resident of D - 14, Aditi Apartments , 16 I.P. Extension , Patparganj , New Delhi as part-time non - official director on the Board of UCO Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification or until her successor is nominated , whichever is earlier .

25. सहायक मंडल वित प्रबंधक, ठाकुर्ली [सं० हिंदी-2005 /रा. भा . 1/12/1 ] कृष्णा शर्मा, संयुक्त निदेशक, ( राजभाषा ) [F. No. 9/31 /2005 -BO- I ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

रेल मंत्रालय (रेलवे बोर्ड) नईदिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

S.O. 106. Ministry of Railways ( Railway Board) , in pursuance of Sub Rule (2) and (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules, 1976 (use for the official purpose of the Union ) hereby, notify the following Offices of Mumbai Division of Central Railway, where 80 % or more Officers /Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-

Central Railway (Mumbai Division)

का.आ. 106.-रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में मध्य रेलवे के मुंबई मंडल के निम्नलिखित रेल कार्यालयों को , जहां 80% से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है: -

1. Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer Wadibunder

मध्यरेलवे ( मुंबई मंडल )

1. सहायक मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर, वाड़ीबंदर

2. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel ) , Kurla.

2. वरिष्ठ मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर (डीजल ) , कुर्ला

3. वरिष्ठ कोचिंग डिपो अधिकारी , लोकमान्य तिलक टर्मिनस

3. Senior Coaching Depot Officer, Lokmanya Tilak Terminus

4. वरिष्ठ मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर ( डीजल ) , कल्याण

Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Diesel ) , Kalyan. 4.

5. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर, भायखला

Assistant Divisional Engineer Byculla 5.

6. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर ( रेलपथ ) , ठाणे

Assistant Divisional Engineer (Track ) , Thane . 6.

7. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर ( अनुरक्षण ) , मानखुर्द

8. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर ( उत्तर ) , लोनावला

Assistant Divisional Engineer (Maintenance ) , Mankhurd. 7.

8. Assistant Divisional Engineer , (North ) , Lonavala सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर ( अनुरक्षण ) , इगतपुरी

10. सहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर, भायखला

9. Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Maintenance ) , Igatpuri .

11. सहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर, कल्याण

12. सहायक मंडल सिगनल एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर, पनवेल

10. Assistant Divisional Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Byculla

वरिष्ठ मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर ( कर्षण वितरण ) , कल्याण

11. Assistant Divisional Signal & Telecommunication Engineer, Kalyan ,

14. सहायक मंडल विद्युत इंजीनियर ( कर्षण वितरण ) , पनवेल

15. मंडल विद्युत इंजीमियर ( कर्षण चल स्टाक ) , सानपाड़ा

12. Assistant Divisional Signal & Telecommunicatio Engineer.Panvel

16. सहायक सुरक्षा आयुक्त/रेल सुरक्षा बल , कल्याण

13. Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer ( Traction Distribution) , Kalyan

17. मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक, कल्याण

18. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , कुर्ला

14. Assistant Divisional Electrical Engineer (Traction Distribution) , Panvel 279 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

15. Divisional Electrical Engineer (Traction Rolling Stock) , Sanpada

16. Assistant Security Commissioner , Railway Protection Force , Kalyan

80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों द्वारा हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिए जाने के परिणामस्वरूप इस कर्यालय को राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976के नियम

17. Chief Medical Suprintendent, Kalyan

18: Senior Divisional Medical Officer , Kurla

10 के उप - नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है।

[फा. सं . 11015/1 /2000- हिन्दी ] 19. Senior Divisional Medical Officer , Guruteg Bahadur Nagar.

20. Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Thane

21. Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Thakurli .

लवलीन कक्कड़, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 22. Senior Divisional Medical Officer , Lonavala.

23. Medical Suprintendent , Igatpuri .

(Department of Woman and Child Development) New Delhi , the 3rd January , 2006 24. Senior Divisional Medical Officer, Panvel .

25. Assistant Divisional Finance Manager , Thakurli .

[No. Hindi -2005/O.L.1 / 12/ 1 ] KRISHNA SHARMA , Jt. Director (O.L)

मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय ( महिला एवं बाल विकास विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

S.O. 107. In pursuance of sub - rule (4) of rule 10 ofthe Official Language (use of official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies National Commission for Women, New Delhi , an . Office of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Women & Child Development, as more than 80% of the officers / employees of the Commission have acquired working knowledge of Hindi .

[F. No. 11015 /1 /2000-Hindi ] LOVELEEN KACKER, Jt . Secy .

का. आ. 107- केन्द्रीय सरकार, मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय के महिला एवं बाल विकास विभाग के राष्ट्रीय महिला आयोग , 4 दीन दयाल उपाध्याय मार्ग , नई दिल्ली स्थित कार्यालय के

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभांग )

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 6 मई, 2005

का. आ. 108. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या,

संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

सितम्बर 2005 1. आईएस 1365 : 2005/आईएसओ

शीर्ष वाले पेंच

2009 : 1994 खांचेदार चपटे काउंटर (सामान्य शीर्ष शैली ) -उत्पाद ग्रेड ए ( चौथा पुरिनक्षण )

सितम्बर 2005 2. आईएस 6101 : 2005/आईएसओ

1580: 1994 खांचेदार पैन शीर्ष वाले पेंच-उत्पाद ग्रेड ए ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

सितम्बर 2005 3. आईएस 7383 : 2005/आईएसओ

8742: 1997 खांचेदार पिन - एक तिहाई लम्बाई के बी में खांचे ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

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

(3)

(4)

सितम्बर 2005

4. आईएस 7385 : 2005/आईएसओ 8745: 1997 खांचेद्वार पिन- आधी लम्बाई के टेपर खांचे (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

अगस्त 2005

5. आईएस 7486 : 2005/आईएसओ 7047: 1994 टाईप एच अथवा टाईप जैड के अनुप्रस्थ खांचों सहित काउंटरसंक उभरे सिरे वाले पेंच ( सामान्य -शीर्ष शैली ) उत्पाद ग्रेड ए ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

सितम्बर 2005

6. आईएस 8127: 2005 प्रेस टूल डाई समुच्चय के गाईड बुश-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

सितम्बर 2005

7. आईएस 8405 : 2005 चूड़ीदार बेलन बेलनाकार डाई- विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

सितम्बर 2005

8. आईएस 8911 : 2005/ आईएसओ 2010: 1994 काउंटरसंक खांचेदार रेज्ड हैड स्कु ( सामान्य हैड स्टाइल ) उत्पाद ग्रेड ए (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

सितम्बर 2005

9. आईएस 13927 : 2005/आईएसओ 6972: 2002 वैल्डित निर्माण , संयोजकों और स्स्रोकेट की क्रेकित- लिंक मिल चेन ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

अगस्त 2005

10. आईएस 14533 : 2005/आईएसओ 9283: 1998 परिचलान औद्योगिक रोबोट- कार्यकारिता मानदण्ड और संबंद्ध परीक्षण पद्धतियां ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

सितम्बर 2005

11. आईएस 15581: 2005/आईएसओ 4161: 1999 फ्लैंज सहित षटकोणीय ढिबरियां- मोटीचूडी

सितम्बर 2005

12. आईएस 15582: 2005/आईएसओ 4162: 1990 षटकोणी फलैंज बोल्ट लघु श्रृंखला

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

[सं. पीजीडी/जी-3.5 ]

राकेश कुमार, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( पीजीडी) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

(BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

New Delhi , the 6th May , 2005

S.O. 108. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Borsau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , prorulars of which are given in the Schedule cre to annexed have been established on the date indicated against eac 281

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established SL No.

(2)

(1)

1. IS 1365 : 2005 /ISO

2009 : 1994 Slotted countersunk flat head screws (commonhead style)-Product Grade A (FourthRevision)

2. IS 6101 : 2005 /ISO

1580: 1994 Slotted pan head screws-Product GradeA (Second Revision )

3. IS 7383 : 2005 /ISO

8762: 1997 Grooved pins-One-third- length centre grooved ( Second Revision )

4. IS 7385 : 2005/ISO

8745: 1997 Grooved Pins Half- length taper grooved (Second Revision)

5. 1S 7486: 2005 /ISO

7047: 1994 Countersunk raised head screws (Common head style) with type H or type Z cross recess Product Grade A ( Second Revision ) 6. IS 8127 : 2005 Guide

bushes for press tool die sets-Specification (Second Revision )

7. IS 8405 : 2005 Thread rolling cylindrical dies- Specification (First Revision )

8. IS 8911 : 2005 /ISO

2010: 1994 Countersunk slotted raised head screws (common head style )-Product grade A (FirstRevision)

9. IS 13927 : 2005 /ISO

6972: 2002 Cranked- link mill chains ofwelded construction, attachments and sprockets (FirstRevision)

10. 194533 : 2005/ISO

998 Manipulating Industrial Robots- mance criteria and related test methods (FirstRevision )

11. IS 15581 : 2005 /ISO

4161: 1999 Hexagon nuts with flange- Coarse thread

12. IS 15582: 2005 /ISO

4162: 1990Hexagon flange bolts-Small series

Date of Establishment No.& year of Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

September 2005

September2005

August 200

September 2005

August 2005

September 2005

September 2005 Copy ofthese Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of matan 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. PGD/G- 3.5] RAKESH KUMAR, Director & Head (PGI):

282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 109.- 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 संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

1. आईएस 15607 : 2005 डीजल ईंधन के लिए बायोडीजल ( बी 100 ) ब्लैंड स्टाक- विशिष्टि

अनुसूची

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

(3)

(4)

कुछ नहीं.

अक्तूबर 2005

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

[सं. पीसीडी/जी-7 ( गजट) ]

डा. डी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञा.' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( पैट्रोल, कोयला एवं सम्बन्धित उत्पाद )

New Delhi , the 2nd January , 2006

S.O. 109. 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 :

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

(1)

(2)

1. IS 15607: 2005 Bio -Diesel (B100) Blend Stock For Diesel Fuel -Specification

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment No.& year of Indian Standards, ifany , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(4)

None

October2005 Copy of this Standards is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices :Ahmedabad , Bangalore Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref. PCD/G- 7 (Gazette) ] Dr. D. K. CHAUDHURI , Sc . ' F' & Head (PCD)

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 110.- 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 संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

1. आई.एस. 6887: 2005/आई.एस.ओ . 1567 : 1999 दन्तचिकित्सा- कृत्रिम दान्तों के लिए आधार पालिमर (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण) ।

अनुसूची

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

(4)

(3)

IS : 6887-1986

जून, 2005 283

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(2)

(1)

2. आई.एस. 12624: 2005/आई.एस.ओ .6877 : 1995 दांतों की जड़ नाल बन्द करने वाली सुईयाँ (पहला पुनरीक्षण) ।

3. आई.एस. 12721 ( भाग-1 ) -2005/आई.एस. ओ. 6871-1: 1994 ढलवाँ मिश्र धातु आधारित दन्त भाग 1 कोबाल्ट- आधारित मिश्र धातु (पहला पुनरीक्षण) ।

4. आई.एस. 12721 ( भाग -2 ) -2005/ आई.एस. ओ. 6871-2: 1994 ढलवाँ मिश्र धातु आधारित दाँत भाग-2 निकल- आधारित मिश्र धातु, (पहला पुनरीक्षण ) ।

(3)

(4)

IS: 12624 : 1989

जुलाई, 2005

जून , 2005

IS : 12721 : 1989

जुलाई , 2005 इस भारतीय मानको की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. एम एच डी/जी-3.5 ]

सी. पी. पुरी, प्रमुख ( एम एच डी )

New Delhi , the 4th January , 2006

S.O. 110. 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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

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

(2)

(1)

1. IS 6887 : 2005 ; Dentistry- Denture base Polymers (Second Revision)

2. IS 12624 : 2005; Dental Root-Canal Obturating Oints (First Revision )

3. IS 12721 (Part 1 ) : 2005; Dental Base Casting Alloys Part 1 : Cobalt Based Alloys(First Revision)

4. IS 12721 (Part 2): 2005; Dental Base Casting Alloys Part 2 : Nickel Based Alloys(First Revision)

Date of Establishment No, & year of Indian Standards , ifany , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

IS6887: 1986-

June, 2005 IS 12624 : 1989

July, 2005 IS 12721 : 1989

June, 2005 IS 12721 : 1989

July, 2005

Copy ofthis 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 .

2 G1 /06-2

[No. MHD/G 3.5 ] C. P. PURI , Head (MHD) 284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[ PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 6 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 111 -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 संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1) (2)

1. आई एस 15546 2005 स्वचल वाहन- सीटें उनके स्थिरकें तथा श्रेणी एम 1 के लिए शीर्ष रिस्ट्रेन्ट विशिष्ट 2. आई एस 15627 : 2005 स्वचल वाहन- दुपहिया और तिपहिया मोटर वाहनों के लिए वातिल टायर -विशिष्ट

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

(3)

(4)

सितम्बर, 2003

आई एस 10914 ( भाग 1 ) : 1991 दिसम्बर, 2005

आई एस 10914 ( भाग 4) : 1992,

आई एस 10914 (भाग 5) : 1995 , आई एस 11157: 1984 और आई एस 12151: 1987

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

[सं. टी ई डी/जी-16 ] पी.सी. जोशी, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख (टीईडी)

New Delhi , the 6th January , 2006

S.O. 111 -Inpursuance 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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

St. No. , Year & title of the Indian No. Standards Established

(1) (2)

1. IS 15546 : 2005 Automotive vehicles - Seats , their anchorages and head

restraints for category M1 - Specification 2. IS 15627 : 2005 Automotive vehicles - Pneumatic tyres for two and three

wheeled motor vehicles - Specfication

Date of Establishment No. & year of Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(4)

Sep. , 2005

Dec.,2005

IS 10914 ( Part 1) : 1991 ,

IS10914 ( Part4) : 1992,

IS 10914 (Part 5): 1995,

IS 11157 : 1984 and

Is 12151 : 1987

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

[No. TED/G - 16] P. C. JOSHI , Director and Head (TED) 285 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 122. - 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 काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एक्सप्रो इंडस्ट्रीज, 36 इय्या मुवाली स्ट्रीट, चित्तादृप्त, चेन्नई -600002 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एकाय- सी डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण टिकट प्रिंट आऊट सुविधा के साथ इलैक्ट्रानिक सिक्के द्वारा संपालिव व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एक्स्प्रो" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और सिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 2005/699 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. और भूमिमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युविक है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आश्येभतुलদ प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त अशीन 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 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 अंतराल (एन ) सहित 100 कि. ग्रा. से 200 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 145 )/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2005

S.O. 111. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the models described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of non - automatic weighing instrument with digital indication (Electronic Coin Operated Person Weighing Machine with ticket print out facility) of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) belonging to ' EXP - CW' series with brand name " EXPRO " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Expro Industries , 36, Iyya Mudali Street, Chintadripet, Chennai- 600 002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/699 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load celi based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 150kg and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 50g . The display is of Light Emitting Diode (LED) type . The instruments operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply ;

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 100kg to 200kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1× 10k, 2× 10kor 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (145 ) /2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 287 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 113. - 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 मांप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) 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 वेटस्केल इण्डिया प्रा० लि०, टी-180 , एम० आई ०डी० सी० , भोसारी , पुणे -411026 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वसूचक, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( पोर्टेबल बार स्केल ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हॉकले " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005 /777 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( पोर्टेबल बार स्केल ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 3000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 किलो ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 कि. 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 सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद किया जाएगा । और, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती हैकि 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 विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलो ग्राम 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. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 318 )/2003] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2005

S.O. 113 . Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the models described in the said report ( See the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over 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 ( Portable Bar Scale ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " PB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " HAWKLEY " (herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Weightscale India Pvt . Ltd. , T- 180 , M.I.D.C. , Bhosari , Pune- 411026 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/ 777;

The said model ( see the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument (Portable Bar Scale) with a maxiumu capacity of 3000 kg and minimum capacity of 20kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 1kg. It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 volts 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 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 same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upte 5000kg 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 I × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F No. WM - 21 (318)/2003 )

P. A. KRISHI AMOOR/THY, Director of Legal Metrology 289 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 114. 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 वेटस्केल इण्डिया प्रा० लि० , टी -180, एम ० आई ०डी० सी० , भोसारी, पुणे -411026, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईएस- ईआर " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वसूचक, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( पोर्टेबल प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हॉकले " है ( जिसे इसमें इनके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/ 775 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( पोर्टेबल प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 किलो ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 कि. 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, और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने 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 हैकि 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 विनिर्माण 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 भापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक 5000 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 318 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2005

S.O. 1M. - 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 (Portable Platform Scale) weighing instrument with digital indication of " ES - ER " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " HAWKLEY " ( herein after referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s Weightscale India Pvt . Ltd. , T- 180 , M.I.D.C. , Bhosari , Pune - 411026 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/775;

The said model (See the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument ( Portable Platform Scale) with a maximum capacity of 5000kg and minimum capacity of 20kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is Ikg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternate current power supply;

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of same series with maximum capacity above 50Kg . and up to 5000 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 × 10% , 2× 10kor 5 × 10kk 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 (318)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 291 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 115. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह 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 वेटस्केल इण्डिया प्रा. लि. , टी-180, एम.आई.डी.सी. , भोसारी, पुणे -411026 , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ई एस ए" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( एकल ऐक्सल वेइंग स्केल ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हॉकले " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /2005/ 776 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( एकल ऐक्सल वेइंग स्केल ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । इसका लोड सैल विकृत गैज प्रकार का है ।

NNIS

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 को उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती . हैकि 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 विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 कि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 50 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य केसमतुल्यहैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 318 ) / 2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान - 2 G1 /06-3 292

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2005

S.O. 115. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( single axle weighing scale ) with digital indication belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III ) of "ESA" series with brand name " HAWKLEY " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Weightscale India Pvt . Ltd. , T- 180 , M.1.D.C. , Bhosari , Pune-411026, Maharashtra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/776;

ENNIS

The said model is a non - automatic weighing instrument ( single axle weighing scale ) with a maximum capacity of 20 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg . The verification scale interval (c ) is 10 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light Emitting Diode display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 - Hertz alternate current power supply. The load cell is of strain gauge type .

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 50 tonne with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5kg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 ×10%、 2 × 10k, 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the samc 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 (318 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 293

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 8 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 116.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाएं रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एम.के. जैन एण्ड कम्पनी , 19 , मनौली हाऊस , जेल के पास , अम्बाला सीटी-134003 , हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- IV ) एनालोग वाले सूचन ( स्प्रिंग बेलेंश हैंगिंग स्केल डायल प्रकार ) सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " ट्राफी" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/ 895 समनुदेशित किया गयां है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक मेकेनिकल स्प्रिंग आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 किलो ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 1 किलो ग्राम 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 ।

190 200

180

10 20 30

170

160

6050

ALAND

140

430 20 110 100

जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती हैकिउक्त 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 विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 किलो ग्राम से अधिक और 500 किलो ग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 210 या 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 278 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II SBC. 3( ii)]

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2005

S.O. 116. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument with analogue indication ( Spring balance- hanging scale- Dial type) of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class - IV) and with brand name " TROPHY" ( herein after referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s. M.K. Jain & Co. , 19 , Manauli House , Near Jail, Ambala City- 134003 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/895;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a mechanical spring based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 200 kg . and minimum capacity of 10 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 1 kg. A dial indicates the result of measurement .

190 200

180

170

160

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range from 50 kg and upto 500kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e' value of 500g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10kor 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 and with the same materials with which , the approved said model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM- 21 (278 )/2005 ]

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

295

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 8 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 117. - 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 सोमसंग डिजीटल स्केल, स्ट्रीट सं ० 3 , कृष्णा प्लाट, देवेला गेट, सावरकुण्डला, गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डब्ल्यू आई -101 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम "सोमसंग" है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2005/63 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल लोड सेल आधारित दोहरी रेंज वाला तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 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 ।

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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विमिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित्त उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्राम 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 हैं , जो धनांत्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (234 ) /2002 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927.

296

New Delhi , the 8th December, 2005

S.O. 117. 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 (Table top type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) , series WI - 101 and with brand name " SOMSUNG" (herein after referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Somsung Digital Scale, Street No.3 , Krishna Plot , Devela Gate , Savarkundla , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/63 ;

The said Model is a load cell based dual range weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing 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 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 . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . 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 × 10 % , or 5 × 10% , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (234 )/2002 ]

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

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

297

नई दिल्ली, 13 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 118.-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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 श्री रंदल स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज , कनादी नगर, रामजी मंदिर रोड, सावरकुंडला, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पैरामाउण्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005/ 455 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल काउंटर मशीन है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 किलो ग्राम है ।

PARE MOUNT

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 अनुमोदितं मॉडल का विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्राम से 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता की रेंज वाले हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 283 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927-

298

New Delhi , the 13th December , 2005

S.O. 118. 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 Counter Machine with brand name " PARAMOUNT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/ s. Shri Randal Scale Industries , Kanadi Nagar, Ramji Mandir Road , Savarkundla , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005 /455;

The said Model (see the figure given below ) is a counter machine with maximum capacity of 10kg .

PARE MOUNT

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central. Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 500g 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 has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 283 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 299 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 119 . 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 ) बाटं 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 मेटलर इलैक्ट्रानिक्स इंडिया, 120 मुक्ता जीवन , काम्पलेक्स, प्रथम तल , स्मृति मन्दिर रोड, बोडासर, अहमदाबाद- 380050 गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " पी एस आई टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " साफ्ट टेक " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/ 590 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 किलो ग्राम है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन मुक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक- धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकारण 230 बीएट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 181 )/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2 GI /06-4 [PART II-SEC.3 ( ii) ] 300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

S.O. 119 . 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 non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type ) with digital indication of " PSITT" series of high accuracy ( accuracy class - 11 ) and with brand name " SOFT - TEC" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s Metlar Electronics India, 120, Muktajivan Complex, 1st Floor , Smruti Mandir Road, Ghodasar , Ahmedabad - 380050 , Gujarat, and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/05 /590 ;

The said model ( see the figure given.below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type ) with a maximum capacity of 22 kg and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2 g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) 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 fraudülent practices .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Govemment hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 5000 fur ' e ' value of Img to 50mg and with number of 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 being the 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 ( 181 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 301

भारत काराजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 120 . 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 टेक्नो टैक स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज, शाप नं. 3 , सूर्यारथ अपार्टमेंट , कावडा पटेल वाड़ी, बड़ोदा एक्सप्रैस रोड, सी टी एम , अहमदाबाद ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ओम " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 197 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पंत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल काउंटर मशीन है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा . है ।

BEST QUALDA

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 500 ग्रा. से 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता की रेंज वाले हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (24)/2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

S.O. 120. 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 saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Counter Machine with brand name " OM" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Techno - Tech Scale Industries , Shop No. 3 , Surya Rath Appartment , Near Kadva Patel Vadi , Baroda Express Road , C.T.M. , Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2004/197

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a Counter Machine with maximum capacity of 10kg.

TECHNO TECH SCALE INU

SEST OFWALIY

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Jovernment hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy, performance and of same series with capacity ranging from 500 g to 50 kg , 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 ( 24 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 303

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 121.- 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 कॉटैक इंस्ट्रूमेंट लि. 32-33 , भंडप इण्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, पन्नालाल सिल्क मिल्स कंपाउंड, एल बी एक मार्ग, भंडूप ( वेस्ट) मुंबई -400 078 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कॉटैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2005/700 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकशित करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सैल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आषेयतुलन 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 ।

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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 किलोग्राम 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. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 359 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

S.O. 121. 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 " CP " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " CONTECH " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Contech Instruments Limited , 32-33 , Bhandup Industrial Estate , Pannalal Silk Mills Compound, L.B.S. Marg , Bhanduo (West ) , Mumbai -400 078 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2005/700 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 300 kg . and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 50g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . It has also a facility to convert mass ( kg ) to volume litre . 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 from opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg to 1000 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 × 10 , 2 × 10 or 5x 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (359 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 305 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 122.- 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 न्यूजेन इंस्ट्रूमेंट अर्बुदनगर, पंचदेव मंदिर के सामने, ऊधव , अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एन जेड एस- टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " न्यूजेन " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 977 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकशित करती है ;

उक्तमॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने 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 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 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक कीअधिकतम 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( 138 ) /2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

306

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

S.O. 122 . 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 high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and brand name "NEW ZEN" and series " NZS - TT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . New Zen Instrument, Arbudanagar, Opp . Panchdev Mandir, Odhav, Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/977;

The said Model (see the figure given section) is a load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 22kg . and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

NEW XEN

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 and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 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 1 x 10k, 2 x 10 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 and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 138 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY , Director of Legal Metrology 307 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 123 . 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 उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स न्यूजेन इंस्ट्रूमेंट अर्बुदनगर , पंचदेव मंदिर के सामने , ऊधव, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एन जेड एन - पी एफ " श्रृंखला के. अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम "न्यूजेन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/978 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्राम 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 पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिंद्धान्त, 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 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 138 ) /2004 ) पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2 GI /06-5 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

308

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

S.O. 123 . 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 (Plat form ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and brand "NEW ZEN" and series " NZN - PF " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . New Zen Instrument, Arbudanagar , Opp . Panchdev Mandir , Odhav, Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2005/978;

The said model (See the figure given below) is a load call based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e ) is 100g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50- Hertz alternate currrent power suply.

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and up to 5000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 5,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x 10k , 2x 10k or 5 × 10k , kbeing the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 138 )/ 2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 309 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/ पौष 24, 1927.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 124. 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 उपधारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स न्यूजेन इंस्ट्रूमेंट अर्बुदनगर, पंचदेव मंदिर के सामने , ऊधव, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एन जेड एन - टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम "न्यू जेन" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /2005/ 979 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकशित करती है;

उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक भार सैल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 2 ग्राम 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 ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्राकन 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्राम तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अन्तराल ( एन ) सहित 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन्न 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 ( 138 )/2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/ PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

S.O. 124. - 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 withthe 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 self- indicating , non- automatic (Table type) weighing instrument with digital indication of " NZN TT" series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III) and with brand name " NEW - ZEN " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . New Zen Instrument , Arbudanagar , Opp . Panchdev Mandir , Odhav, Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/979;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based type dual range weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 20kg . and minimum capacity of 40g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

0000

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the 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 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g 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 I × 10 % , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10% , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 138) /2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 311

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 125.- 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 मास्टेक इण्डिया, मास्टेक हाउस, क्रांति नगर, जय कृष्णा सोसायटी, इसानपुर, भदवाटनगर रोड, इसानपुर, अहमदाबाद, 382443 गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एम डब्ल्यूबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मास्टैक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/408 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

MASTEC FULLY

ElectronicWeight bridge

MWB - Series

MASTEC

उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । ( वे ब्रिज प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 322 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान } [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

312

New Delhi , the, 15the December, 2005

S.O. 125 . Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained, use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of "MWB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and withbrand name " MASTEC " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Mastec India , Mastec House, Krantinagar , Opp. Jay Krishna Society, Isanpur -Bhadvatnagar Road, Isanpur , Ahmedabad - 382 443 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/408 ;

MASTEC FULLY

Electronic Weight bridge

MWB Series

Retiable

MASTEC

Durable

Accurate

Economical

Sturdy Structure fur

Extreme user onditions

Easy to Operate

The said model is a strain gauge tape load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge type ) with a maximum capacity of40 tone and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative currenı power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM- 21 (322)/2004]

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

313

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 126 . 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 मास्टेक इण्डिया, मास्टेक हाउस , क्रांति नगर, जय कृष्णा सोसायटी, इसानपुर, भदवाटनगर रोड, इसानपुर, अहमदाबाद, 382443 गुजरातःद्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एम डब्ल्यूबी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वे ब्रिज के लिए कनर्वशन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मास्टेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/409 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकशित करती है ।

MASTEC ELCTRO

Conversion Kit For

MechanicalWeigh Bridge

MWBC- Series

MASTEC

उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । (वे ब्रिज के लिए कनर्वशन किट ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 कि.ग्रा. है.। इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक 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 ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 322 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

314

New Delhi , the , 15the December , 2005

S.O. 126. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub -sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Conversion kit for Weighbridge) with digital indication of "MWBC " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " MASTEC " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by Ms. Mastec India , Mastec House , Krantinagar , Opp . Jay Krishna Society, Isanpur - Bhadvatnagar Road , Isanpur,Ahmedabad- 382 443 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2005/409;

MASTEC ELCTRO

Conversion Kit For

Mechanical Weigh Bridge

MWBC - Series

MASTEC

The said Model is a strain gauge tape load cell based weighing instrument (Conversion Kit for Weigbridge) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 100 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5kg or more and with ' e ' 1x 10% , 2 x 10k or 5x 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 ( 322 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 315 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 127.-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 भारती इलैक्ट्रिकल , 41 , अविनाशी रोड, सिट्रा, कायम्बतूर -641014 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " वी ई टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " विक्ट्रा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्तमॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /05/ 17 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा जिद्युत 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान 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 ( 33) /2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2 G1/06-6 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] 316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 127. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " VET" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " VICTRA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s . Bharathi Electrical, 41 , Avinashi Road, Sitra Coimbatore - 641014 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/ 17;

Victre

The said model is a strain gauge tape 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 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to50kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 50mg . and 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 × 10kor 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 (33)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 317 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 128.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 भारती इलैक्ट्रिकल, 41 , अविनाशी रोड, सिट्रा, कोयम्बतूर -641014 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " वी ईपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " विक्ट्रा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 16 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम् क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा . है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट 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 हैकि उक्तमॉडल 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 1,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 33 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005

S.O. 128. 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 non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with digital indication of " VEP" series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " VICTRA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Bharathi Electrical , 41 , Avinashi Road, Sitra, Coimbatore-641014 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005 / 16;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 500kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230 Volts ; 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 fraudulent practices .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg and up to 1000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10k or 5 × 10k , where 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 (33 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 319 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 129.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 कड़ाकिया इंडस्ट्रीज, नेताजी बाजार, दाहोद, गुजरात-389151 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डीई पी-500 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " दृष्टि" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /2005/894 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन 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 ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन 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 हैकि उक्तमॉडल 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल 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 घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 196)/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II SEC . 3 (ii)] 320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005

S.O. 129. 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 series ' DEP - 500'of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DRASHTI " ( herein after referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Kadakiya Industries , Netaji Bazar , Dahod, Gujarat - 389151 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/ 894;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 500kg 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, 50 Hertz alternate 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 conferred by Sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 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 × 10k, 2 × 10kor 5 × 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 196)/2005]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 321 [ भाग II -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 130.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 अधिक्रियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स बुलुन पावरटैक प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, प्रथम तल, प्लाट सं. 240-242, हनुमान मंदिर के सामने, चिन्ना थोकट्टा, न्यू बोवेनपल्ली, सिकन्दराबाद, आंध्र 'प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " डी आई जे-30 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डिजीटल कनैक्शन्ज" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005/994 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त मॉडल (नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्राम 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 के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन 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 हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 5000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं । के

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 187)/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

322

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 130. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of series "DIJ -30 " series of high accuracy (accuracy class- II ) and with brand name " DIGITAL CONNECTIONZ " (herein after referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s Vulun Powertech Pvt. Ltd. , 1st Floor, Plot No. 240-242 , Opp. Hanuman Temple , Chinna Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, A.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /05/994 ;

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 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 instruments operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same serics with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50100 for ' c ' valuc of Img to 5t) mg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' c ' value of 100mg or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10kor 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in acordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

JF. No. WM-21 ( 187)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 323

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/ पौष 24 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 131.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 बुलुन पावरटैक प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, प्रथम तल, प्लाट सं. 240-242, हनुमान मंइिर के सामने , चिन्ना थोकट्टा, न्यू बोवेनपल्ली, सिकन्दराबाद, आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी ई आई टी-30 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के माडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डिजीटल कनैक्शन्ज " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/ 995 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्राम 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 और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकत 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 हैकि 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 10000 तक की रेज में सत्यापन 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 9 × 10 के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 187)/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006 /PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 131. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) weighhing instrument with digital indication of "DIT - 30 " series of high accuracy (accuracy class - III) and with brand name " DIGITAL CONNECTIONZ" ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Vulun Powertech Pvt . Ltd. , Ist Floor , Plot No. 240-242 , Opp . Hanuman Temple, Chinna Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad , A.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 /05/995 ;

1 The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 15kg and minimum capacity of 40g . The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

In addition to scaling the stamping p'ate , 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 ınake . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 10000 for value of 100mg to 2mg or with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10.000 for re value of og or more and with value of 1 × 10 . 2 × 10kor 5 × 10 . k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer i acordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM -21 ( 187)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 325

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 132.- 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 वुलुनं पावरटैक' प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, प्रथम तल, प्लाट सं. 240-242 , हनुमान मंदिर के सामने , चिन्ना थोकट्टा, न्यू बोवेनपल्ली, सिकन्दराबाद, आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी आई पी-500 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डिजीटल कनैक्शन्ज" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 996 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै 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 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 5 ग्रा..या उससे अधिक के' ई ' मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 × 10 के, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 187 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 132 -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 arld publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the self indicating , non-automatic , (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " DIT- 500 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " DIGITAL CONNECTIONZ " ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Vulun Powertech Pvt . Ltd. , 1st Floor, Plot No. 240-242 , Opp. Hanuman Temple , Chinna Thokatta, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad, A.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/996;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain guage type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 500kg and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval (c) is 100g . It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate 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 conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Governinent hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 1000 kg and with number of verification scale 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 × 10kor 5 × 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM -21 ( 187)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 327

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 133.- 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 मामक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) 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 . प्रेसिडेंट स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज , 5 , 3-513, बी बी बिल्डिंग , ओस्मानगंज के सामने, पुराना तोपखाना रोड, हैदराबाद-500012 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " पी एस आई टी-11 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के माडल का जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रेसीडेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/601 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

PRESIDENT

---

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 11 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभान 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 उपधारा ( 12 ) प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के ' ई ' मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 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 के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 244 )/2003 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006 /PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005

S.O. 133. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of "PSITT - 11 " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class- II ) and with brand name " PRESIDENT " ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. President Scale Industries, 5-3-515 , B. B. Building , Opp . Osmangunj , Old Topkhana Road , Hyderabad - 500012 , (A.P. ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05/601 ;

PRESIDENT

---

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 11kg . and minimum capacity of 50g . The verification scale interval (e) is 1g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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 and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 5000 for ' e ' value of Img to 50mg and with number of 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 ×10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 244)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 329

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 134.-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 काअनुमोदन ) 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;

अंतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स प्रेसिडेंट स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज, 5-3-513 , बी बी बिल्डिंग, ओस्मानगंज के सामने, पुराना तोपखाना रोड, हैदराबाद-500012 .द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी एस आई टी टी-30 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रेसीडेंट" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05/ 602 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) 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 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 को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकनें के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 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 मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और ' ई ' मान 1 10,2 10 * या 5 × 10 के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 244 ) /2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

330

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 134. 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 " PSITT - 30 " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " PRESIDENT " ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . President Scale Industries , 5-3-515 , B. B. Building , Opp . Osmangunj , Old Topkhana Road, Hyderabad- 500012 , ( A.P. ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05 /602;

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 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval (c) 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 weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

In addition to scaling the stamping plate , scaling shall also be donc 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 , accurancy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' c ' value of 100 mg . to 2 g . or with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5101) to 10,000 for ' c ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 ( 244)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 331 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 135.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 प्रसिडेंट स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज , 5-3-513 , बी बी बिल्डिंग , ओस्मानगंज के सामने, पुराना तोपखाना रोड, हैदराबाद-500012 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी एस आई पी एफ-1100 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रेसीडेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोद‌न चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05/ 603 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 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 । उप्तकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 कि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 244 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2 GI/06-8 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

332

New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005

S.O. 135. 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 the self indicating , non- automatic , (Platform type ) weighing instrument with digital indication of " PSIPF - 500 " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " PRESIDENT " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . President Scale Industries, 5-3-515 , B. B. Building , Opp. Osmangunj , Old Topkhana Road , Hyderabad- 500 012 , (A.P. ) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 05/604 ;

The said model (See the figure given below ) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 500 kg. and minimum capacity of 1kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50-Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

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

( F. No. WM-21 ( 244 )/20031

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 333

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौप 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 136.- 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 प्रेसिडेंट स्केल इण्डस्ट्रीज , 5-3-515 बी बी बिल्डिंग , ओस्मानगंज के सामने , पुराना तोपखाना रोड, हैदराबाद-500012 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " पी एस आई पी एफ-500 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रेसीडेंट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/603 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

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

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह श्रोममा करती हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री, से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित क्सी श्रृंखला के जैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे ज़ो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 1,000 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 ( 244 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

334

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 136. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic , weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with digital indication of " PSIPF - 1100" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II ) and with brand name " PRESIDENT" ( herein after referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . President Scale Industries , 5-3-515 , B. B. Building , Opp . Osmangunj , Old Topkhana Road , Hyderabad- 500 012 , (A.P. ) and which isassigned the approval mark IND/09/05/603 ;

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 1100kg . and minimum capacity of 5kg . 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) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate 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 50kg . to 5000kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 50,00k g . to 50,000 . for ' e ' value of 100 mg . g 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 accuracy and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (244 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 335

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 137.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह 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 प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स अनीता स्केल कंपनी , 4402/3 , नहान हाऊस के पास, अम्बाला शहर, 134003 हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) के सादृश्य सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लटकने वाला कमानीदार तुला प्रकार ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुला- लक्ष्मी " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05/479 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक लटकने वाले प्रकार का स्प्रिंग आधारित सादृश्य सूचन सहित अस्वचालित सादृश्य तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. हैं। 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 हैकिउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 500 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 1,000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 300 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 (344)/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC. 3(ii ) ) 336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 137. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic , weighing instrument (Spring balance hanging type ) with analogue indication of ordinary accuracy (Accuracy class- II) and with brand name " TULA -LAXMI" (herein after referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/s. Anita Scale Company, 4402/3 , Near Nahan House, Ambala City- 134 003 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/479;

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

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 , and performance of same series with maximum capacity in range 50 kg. to 300 kg . and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e ' value of 500 g. or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (344)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 337

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 138.- 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 एस्सार पेंटागन सिस्टम्स, 9 - ए, पाथे हनुमंत अय्यर सेंट कामराज सालाय, मदुरई-१ द्वारा विनिर्मित ठच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस बी एस टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम" पेंटागन" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन बिद्ध आई एन डी/09 / 2005 /751 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का) ओल उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2प्रा. है । इसमें एक आधोमधुन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक भारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपहतित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत 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 उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोगे 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 तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 ग्राम तक " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 5000 तक के रेंज में सत्यपान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" माम के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 110 *, 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धमात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम-21 (87 )2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 138. 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 the non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) and with digital indication of " SBS - T" series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class-II ) and with brand name "PENTAGON" ( herein after referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Essar Pentagon Systems , 9 -A, Padhe Hanumantha Iyer St. , Kamarajar Salai , Madurai - 9 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/751;

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 30 kg. and minimum capacity of 40g. The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

000

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 and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 5000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 5× 10k, kbeing the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principel , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (87) /2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 339

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 139.-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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 उपधारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स एस्सार पेंटागन सिस्टम्स, १ - ए, पाधे हनुमंत अय्यर सेंट कामराज सालाय, मदुरई -१ द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एस बी एस पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पेंटागन" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 2005/ 752 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 50 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलानात्मक 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 पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता औ कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50000 तक की रेंज में सत्पापन अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (87 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2 GI/06-9 340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 139. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the models described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non -automatic , weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of " SBS -P" series of high accuracy (Accuracy Class - II ) and with brand name " PENTAGON" ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Essar Pentagon Systems , 9 - A, Padhe Hanumantha Iyer St. , Kamarajar Salai , Madurai - 9 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005/752;

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 600kg . and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 50g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode LED) 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 and performance of same series with maximum capacity ranging above 50 kg . to 1000 kg . and with number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' c ' valuc of 100 mg . or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10kor 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 (87)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 341

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 140.-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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 सीको इण्डिया, मकान सं. 69 , आर के नगर, सोसायटी नं. 2, मोरवाडी, ताल करवर, कोल्हापुर, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सीको इन्ड " श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित अंकक सूचन सहित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) का तोलन उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सीको इन्डिया " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2004/ 177 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलानात्मक 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 भी सील की जाएगी। और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक को रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 ,*, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 100 )/2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 140. 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 " SEICO - IND " series of high accuracy (Accuracy Class - II ) and with brand name " SEICO INDIA " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s. Seico India, House No. 69 , R.K. Nagar Soc . No. 2 , Morewadi , Tal -Karver, Kolhapur , Maharashtra and which is asigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/ 177 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 15 kg . and minimum capacity of 50 g. 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 ad 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

A In addition to scaling the stamping plate , scaling shall also be donc 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 ' c ' value of Img. and 510 mg. and with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for ' c ' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k, where k , is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM- 21 ( 100)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 343 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 141.-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; y अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सीको इण्डिया , मकान सं. 69, आर के नगर, सोसायटी नं. 2 , मोरवाडी, ताल करवर, कोल्हापुर, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सीको इन्ड- पी टी" श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित अंकक सूचम सहित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) का तोलन उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का मााम " सीको इण्डिया " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एम डी/09/2004/ 178 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण का, ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 कि. ग्राम और न्यूनतम क्षमता 250 ग्राम है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 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 पर कार्य करताहै ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए भी 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 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 ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 300 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैंहैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 *10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 100) /2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 141. 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 (Platform type ) with digital indication of " SEICO - IND - PT " series of high accuracy (accuracy class - II) and with brand name " SEICO INDIA " (herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/s . Seico India, House No. 69, R.K. Nagar Soc. No. 2 , Morewadi , Talk- Karver, Kolhapur , Maharashtra and which is asigned the approval mark IND /09/2004/ 178;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with a maximum capacity of 60 kg. and minimum capacity of 250 g. 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 ) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts ad 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity obove 50 kg. and upto 300 kg . 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 I × 10k, 2 × 10kor 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 principel , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 100)/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 345 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 142.-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 काअनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्तं शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स हाबसन इण्डिया, 138 ए, पंजाबी बाग , अम्बाला छावनी, हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित सामान्यं यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " स्प्रिंग किंग' श्रृंखला के सादृय सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लटकने वाला कमानीदार तुला प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " हाबसन " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 05 /482 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) सादृश सूचन संहित स्प्रिंग आधारित अस्वचालित लटकने वाले प्रकार का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 कि.ग्रा. 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 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 500 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के "ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 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. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (350 )/2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006 /PAUSA 24 , 1927

346

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 142. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the. Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Spring balance hanging type ) with analogue indication of ordinary accuracy ( accuracy class III ) of series " Spring King " and with brand name " HABSON " ( herein referred to as the sais Model ), manufacured by M/s. "Habson India , 138 - A, Punjabi Bagh , Ambala Cant , Haryana and which is asigned the approval mark IND/09/05/482 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a hanging type spring based non - automatic analogue weighing instrument with analogue indication and of a maximum capacity of 200 kg . and minimum capacity of 10 kg. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 1 kg .

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 and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 50 kg . to 500 kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e ' value of 500g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 % , 2 × 100mm5 × 10%, k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer.in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 350 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 347 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 143.-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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 एलप्रो इंजीनियरस, सं. 4 , सेलर, शुभलक्ष्मी काम्पलेक्स , नरानपुरा , अहमदाबाद द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डीगी तूला" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डीगी तूला " है (जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 05/ 599 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( क्रेन प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1500 कि. ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम 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 तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 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. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 159 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2 GI/06-10 348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005

S.O. 143. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections ( 7) and (8 ) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Crane type ) with digital indication of " Digi Toola " series of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III) and with brand name "Digi Toola" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Elpro Engineers , No: 4 , Cellar, Sublaxmi Complex , Naranpura, Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 05/599;

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument ( Crane type ) with a maximum capacity of 1500 kg and minimum capacity of 4 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results .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 fraudulent practices.

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

[F. No. WM -21 ( 159)/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology

1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौप 24, 1927

349

नई दिल्ली , 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 144.-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 एलप्रो इंजीनियर्स, सं. 4 , सेलर, शुभलक्ष्मी काम्पलेक्स, नरानपुरा , अहमदाबाद द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डीगी तूला " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लटकने वाला प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डीगी तूला " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 05/600 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( लटकने वाला ) 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 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 ।

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 हैकि 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 का निर्माण 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 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 शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 159 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 144. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Hanging type) with digital indication of " Digi Toola " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Digi Toola" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s Elpro Engincers, No. 4 , Cellar, Sublaxmi Complex , Naranpura, Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 05/600;

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

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

Further in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 1000 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' c ' value of 5g or more and with ' c' valuc of Ix10% , 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 ( 159 )/ 2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 351 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 145.- 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 मिरगा इण्डस्ट्रीज, गांव नसीरपुर, हिसार रोड़ अम्बाला शहर, हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित सामान्य यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- IV ) के सादृश्य सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( सैल्फ इन्डीकेटिंग प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसका ब्रांड का नाम " मिरगा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/481 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है । उक्तमॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक लीवर आधारित सादृश सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है ।

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

[फा सं डब्ल्यूएम-21 (364)/2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 145. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( self indicating type ) with analogue indication of ordinary accurancy (accuracy class IV) and with issues and brand name " MIRGA " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s Mriga Industries , Village -Nasirpur, Hissar Road, Ambala City, Haryana - 134002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 /05/481 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below ) is a lever based non - automatic analogue weighing instrument with analogue indication and of a maximum capacity of 20kg. and minimum capacity of 1kg . the verification scale interval ( c) is 100g .

MRIGA INDUSTRI

AMBALA CITY- 13400

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance and of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' c ' value of 5g . or more and with ' c ' valuc 1 × 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 and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM- 21(364)/2004 ]

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

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौप 24, 1927

353

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 146.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह 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 काअनुमोदन ) 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 मिरगा इण्डस्ट्रीज , ग्राम नसिरपुर, हिसार रोड़ अम्बाला शहर, हरियाणा-134001 द्वारा निर्मित साधारण यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- IV ) वाले सदृश सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( लटकने वाला स्प्रिंग तुला प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसका ब्रांड का नाम " र्मिरगा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05 /442 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) सदृश सूचन सहित स्प्रिंग आधारित अस्वचालित लटकने वाले प्रकार का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 500 ग्रा. है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को 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 500 ग्रा. या उसे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 1000 तक की रेंज में मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 300 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 ( 364 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 146. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Spring Balance hanging type) with analogue indication of ordinary accurancy ( accuracy class IV) and with issues and brand name " MIRGA " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s .Mriga Industries , Village-Nasirpur , Hissar Road, Ambala City, Haryana - 134002 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/442;

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

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

RIGA INDUSTRIES MBALA CITY-13402

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 50kg to 300kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 1000 for ' e ' value of 500g or more and with ' e ' value, 1 × 10 , 210 , or 5x10%, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (364 )/ 2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 355 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

2 नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी , 2006

का. ओ. 147. तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम 1974 ( 1974 का 47 ) की उप - धारा (4 ) के खण्ड 3 द्वारा प्रदत की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 1 जनवरी , 2006 को पूर्वाश्न से श्री एम. एस. श्रीनिवासन, सचिव, पेट्रोलियम एवं प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय को अगले आदेश जारी होने तक, अध्यक्ष , तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. जी.- 35012/3/92- वित्त- II ] के. पी. के. नम्बीसन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

NewDelhi the 12th January, 2006

S.O. 147-. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 4) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government hereby appoints , with effect from the forenoon ofthe 1st January, 2006 and until further orders , Shri M.S. Srinivasan, Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, as the Chairman of the Oil Industry Development Board vice Shri S.C. Tripathi .

[No.G-35012/3/92-Fin. II ] K.P.K. NAMBISSAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 148.- तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 47 ) घांस 3 की उप - धारा (3 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में, उनके सामने दर्शायी गई अवधिके लिए, या अगले आदेश जारी होने तक, जौं भी पहले हो , नियुक्त/पुनर्नियुक्त करती है :-

से

तक

27-8-2005 26-8-2007 1. श्री पी. बनर्जी, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक गेल

18-8-2007

19-8-2005

2. श्री अशोक सिन्हा, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, बी पी सी एल

[सं. जी.- 35012/2/91- वित्त- II ] के. पी. के. नम्बीसन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th January, 2006

S.O. 148. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause ( C) of sub - section (3 ) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974 ) , thê Central Government hereby appoifits/re - appoints the following officers as Members of theOil Industry Development Board for the period shown against their names or until further orders , whichever isearlier:

From

26-8-2007

27-8-2005

1. Shri P. Bannerjee, Chairman & Managing Director , GAIL.

18-8-2007

19-8-2005

2. Shri Ashok Sinha, Chairman & Managing Director, BPCL

[No.G- 35012/2 /91 -Fin . II ] K.P.K. NAMBISSAN, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 12 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 149.- तेल उद्योग ( विकास ) अधिनियम , 1974 ( 1974 का 47 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ड) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा डा ० अविनाश चन्द्र, पूर्व महानिदेशक डी जी एच को तत्काल प्रभाव से दो साल की अवधिके लिए, या अगले आदेश जारी होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, तेल उद्योग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं . जी.- 35012/2/91- वित्त- II ] के. पी. के. नम्बीसन, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 12th January, 2006

S.O. 149. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause ( d ) of sub - Section ( 3 ) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development ) Act, 1974 (47 of 1974 ) , the Central Governrnent hereby appoints Dr. Avinash Chandra , former DG, DGH with immediate effect for a period not exceeding two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier as Member of the Oil Industry Development Board.

[No.G- 35012 /2/91 -Fin. II] K.P.K. NAMBISSAN, Under Secy.

2 GI /06-11 356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

1 नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

ठाणे

का.आ. 150.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या कार.. 695(अ), तारीख 14 जून, 2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में हाजीमालानगवाडी- ट्राम्बे स्परलाइन तक दहेज- हजीरा- उरान की ट्रंक पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचनां की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 10 जुलाई, 2004 से 30 अप्रैल , 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

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

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

जिला

गाँव

तहसील

सर्वे नं.

आर.ओ.यू.

अर्जित करने

के लिए

(हेक्टेयर में) 1

5 ठाणे

ठाणे

114/1पै

नांगांव

114/2पै

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

5 2

ठाणे नांगांव

114/3पै

110/24 00-01-00

110/3पै 00-21-00

110/44 00-14-00

84/1पै 00-10-00

84/24 00-06-00

84/3पै 00-22-00

00-07-60

84/4

66/4पै 00-01-00

66/54 00-05-00

65/14 00-13-00

65/24

47/9पै 00-14-00

47/104 00-02-00

00-09-00

31/1

31/2पै

29/2पै

29/4पै

28/5पै

28/6पै 00-03-30

28/7पै

8/2पै

8/3पै (X0-02-00

10/1पै 00-16-00

10/2पै

11/2पै (X0-02-00

11/3पै ( 0-17-00

11/4चै (00-15-00

11/5पै (00-01-00

नाला

( 010-0

269पै (0-03-000

265पै (X)-17-4X)

264पै 00-01-400

263पै

268पै

बाले

(00-03 - X)

14पै

25/3चै 0014-00

25/5पै (X0-02-00

25/6पै (00-02-00

26/1चै 00-01-50

26/2पै 357

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1 2

ठाणे ठाणे ठाणे बले

26/3 00-03-00

27/24 00-17.00

00-05-00

28/74

28/8पै 00-26-00

40/1पै 00-30-00

40/24

00-01-00

40/4

41/2पै

39पै

34/1पै 00-13-00

374 00-23-00

00-17-00 भंडारली

24/1पै

1174

उत्तरशिव

00-68-00

00-11-00

122/4पै

122/5पै 00-02-00

00-22-00

खाडी

नारीवली

164/1पै 00-07-00

00-56-00

164/2पै

140/3/1/14 (00-35-00

140/3/1/2 00-01-00

141/4/1पै 00-30-00

136/8पै

136/7पै

136/6पै

136/10पै

136/4चै 00-03-00

136/9पै

135/4पै

135/5पै

135/12पै

135/13पै 00-22-00

52/2पै 00-32-00

52/5पै

52/4पै

53/2पै

53/3पै

53/4पै

53/54 00-16-00

73पै 00-13-00

74/2पै 00-28-00

74/3पै 00-15-70

5 2

नारीवली

ठाणे

80/1पै 00-03-00

00-01-00 :

80/24

824 00-16-00

00-11-00

83/24

694

674

00-24-00

68/4

00-12-00

68/34

वाकलन

00-38-00

25/3पै

30पै 00-12-00.

00-32-00

294

57पै 00-13-00 गोटेघर

100/24 00-19-00

100/3पै 00-01-50

00-22-00

1224

130पै 00-11-00

131/4पै 00-04-00

131/6पै

131/5पै

129पै

127/1पै

128/1पै

125/2पै 00-17-00

138पै

00-13-00

1374

142पै

146पै 00-14-00

145पै (X)-22-00

144पै 00-44-00

154पै 00-26-00

155पै

96/5पै

94/2पै 008-0

94/3चै

94/4चै

92/3

92/1

00-15-00

00-21-00

92/2पै

53पै

[फा. सं. एल-14014/20/04-जी.पी. ( भाग-1 ) ]

एस. बी. मण्डल, अचार सचिव 358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

I New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

Thane S.O. 150. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 695 (E) dated the 14th June , 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 ) , 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 pipelines for the transportation of natural gas through Hajimalangwadi - Trombay spurline of Dahej- Hazira - Uran trunck pipeline project in the State of Maharashtra by the GAIL (India ) Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 10th July, 2004 to 30thApril , 2005;

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

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its 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 pipelines , 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 land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification ishereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

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 land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on the date of the publication of the declaration , in the GAIL (India) Limited, proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in the GAIL ( India ) , free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District Tehsil

Area to be

Village Survey

No.

acquired for

ROU

(InHectare) 1

Thane Thane

114/ 1P

Nagaon

1-14/2P

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

5 Thane

00-02-00

114/3P

Nagaon

110/2P 00-01-00

110/3P 00-21-00

114/4P 00-14-00

84/ 1P 00-10-00

84/2P

84/3P 00-22-00

84/4 00-07-60

66/4P

66/5P

65/ IP 00-13-00

65/2P

47/9P 00-14-00

47/ 10P

48P

00-01-30

31/ 1P

31/2P

29/2P

29/4P

28/5P

28/6P

00-03-00

28/7P

00-05-00

8/2P

8/3P

10/ 1P 00-16-00

10/2P

11/2P

11/3P 00-17-00

11/4P 00-15-00

11/5P

NALA

00-03-00

269P

265P 00-17-00

264P

263P

268P

Bale

14P

25/3P 00-14-00

25/5P 00-02-00

25/6P (00-02-00

26/ 1P 00-01-50

26/2P

26/3P [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

359

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

5 Thane Thane Bale

27/2P 00-17-00 Thane Thane

83/2P

Narivali

00-11-00

28/7P

69P

28/8P 00-26-00

67P

40/ IP 00-30-00

68/4P 00-24-00

40/2P 00-09-00

68/3P 00-12-00

40/4P 00-01-00

25/3P

Vakhalan

00-38-00

41/2P 00-01-00

30P

00-12-00

39P

29P

00-32-00

34/ 1P 00-13-00

57P

00-13-00

37P

00-23-00

100/2P 00-19-00

Goteghar

Bhandharbi 14/1 00-17-00

100/3P 00-01-50

117P

Uttar Shiv

00-68-00

122P

00-22-00

122/4P 00-11-00

130P 00-11-00

122/5P 00-02-00

131/4P Narivali

Khadi 00-22-00

131/6P 00-01-00

164/ 1P 00-07-00

131/5P 00-01-00

129P

164/2P 00-56-00

127/ 1P 140/3/ 1/ 1P 00-35-00

128/ 1P 140/3/1/ 2P 00-01-00

125/2P 00-17-00 141/4/ IP

138P

136/8P

137P 00-13-00

136/7P

142P

136/6P

146P 136/10P

145P

00-14-00

00-22-00

136/4P

144P

136/9P

00-44-00

154P 00-26-00 135/4P

155P 00-33-00 135/5P

96/5P 135/ 12P

94/2P 135/ 13P 00-22-00

94/3P

52/2P 00-32-00

94/4P 00-02-00

52/5P

92/3P

52/4P 00-08-00

92/ IP 00-15-00

53/2P

92/ 2P

00-21-00

53/3P

53P 53/4P 00-01-00

53/ 5P 00-16-00

[F. No. L- 14014/20/04-G.P. (Pt. - 1) ]

73P

00-13-00

S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy .

74/2P 00-28-00

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

74/3P 00-15-70

का.आ. 151. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज 80/1P 00-03-00

80/2P 00-01-00

00-16-00

पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

360

रायगढ़

'सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1412 ( अ ) , तारीख 24 दिसम्बर, 2004 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में गेल उसर से इस्पात इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन परियोजना द्वारा प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 15 अप्रैल, 2005 से 31 मई, 2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

सर्वेनं.

तहसील गाँव

जिला

आर.ओ.यू.

अर्जित करने

केलिए

(हेक्टेयर में)

5 2

00-42-00

309

बेलोशी

अतिमानत

रायगढ़

310

00-36-00

344

00-25-00

8/1पै

कोलघर

अलिबाग

रायगढ़

8/2पै

20/2पै

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

3 .

00-31-00

19/2पै

कोलघर

अलिबाग

00-37-00

19/1पै

नाला 00-08-00

25/1पै

00-49-00

44/1पै

00-07-00

44/2पै

43पै

45पै

46पै . 00-53-00

00-47-00

58पै

00-15-00

57पै

00-27-00

64पै

65पै

56पै

66पै

नाला

774

00-31-00

79पै

86पै

39पै

४पै

कलवाडखार

7पै

00-26-00

6पै

5पै

15पै

72पै

263पै

260पै

247पै

252पै

249पै

248पै

234पै

233पै

226पै

003-00

224चै

(X0-03-000

2274

217पै [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

361 I

5 रायगढ़ अलिबाग कलवाडखार 2254

395

भोपोली

अलिबाग

रायगढ़

223पै

394 00-11-00

218पै

393

00-17-00

221पै 00-16-00

2204

352

00-11-00

00-22-00 भोपोली

22/24 00-18-00

407

20पै

00-54-00

410

00-26-00

15पै 00-26-00

413

00-24-00

18/1पै 00-17-00

414

00-37-00

17/1पै

17/2पै

303

00-13-00

14पै 00-15-00

415

00-26-00 श्रीगाव

416

00-19-00

00-21-00

290 00-44-00

295

00-16-00

297

00-18-00

289

277

00-38-00 41/एपै

271 00-32-00 41/बी पै

272

00-28-000

00-28-00

273

264

00-15-00

265

00-20-400

267

00-13-00

263

00-16-00

100

00-12-00

262

101

102

[फा. सं. एल-14014/20/04- जी.पी. ( भाग -1 ) ]

103

एस. बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 88/एपै

88/बी पै

S.O. 151. Whereasby notification of the

Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

105

Natural Gas number S.O. 1412 ( E ) dated the 24th December .

87/एपै

2004 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the

00-61-00

87/बी पै

Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of

User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) ( hereinafter referred

00-07-(0) to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its

(X) 01 -X)

intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified

in the Schedule appended to that notification for the

00-16-00 purpose of laying pipelines for the transportation of natural

397

gas through GAIL Usar to Ispat Industries Limited pipelinc

project in the State of Maharashtra by the GAIL ( Indica )

399

Limited

(X- 07-00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/ PAUSA 24, 1927

362

1 Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from15th, April 2005 to 31stMay, 2005 ;

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

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

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

Raigad

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

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 land for laying the pipclincs shall , instead of vesting in the Central Governinent , vest , on the date of the publication of the declaration , in the GAIL (India) Limited, proposing to lay the pipelines and thereupon the right of such user in the land shall , subject to the terms and conditions so imposed, vest in the GAIL ( India) , free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil

District

Village Survey No.

Area to be acquired for

ROU

(InHectare)

309

00-42-00 Alibaug Belosi

Raigad

310

00-36-00

344

00-25-00

8/1P

Kalghan

Alibaug

Raigad

8/2P

20/2P

00-31-00

19/2P

00-37-00

19/1 P

NALA

25/1 P

(X0-49-(X)

44/1 P

Raigad Alibaug Talasheth

(X0-07-(X)

44/2P

43 P

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

45P

00-53-00

46P

00-47-00

58P

00-15-00

57 P

00-27-00

64P

65P

56P

66P

NALA

77 P

00-31-00 .

79P

86P

39P

Alibaug Kalwadkhar

6P 00-26-00

15P

72P

263P

260 P

247 P

252P

249 P

248 P

234 P

233 P

Kalwadkhar 226 P

Alibang

Raigad

224 P

227 P

10-03-00

217 P

10-03-00

225 P

223 P

218P (00-09-00

221 P 00-16-00

220 P

( 000-11 :00

00-18-00

22/2P

Raigad Alibaug Bopoli

20 P 00-54-00

15P (X)-26-(X)

(0-17-00)

18/1 P

10-01-00

17/1 P

17/2P

(X) -40- (X)

14P 10-15-000 363 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(0-18-00

297

Srigaon

Alibaug

Raigad

Alibaug Srigaon

Raigad

( 00-01-00

289

00-21-00

00-38-00 32

277

00-16-00

00-32-00

271

00-28-00

272

273

00-15-000

264

41/AP

265

41/BP

00-28-00

267

00-16-00

263

262

(00-55-4000 44

[F. No. L- 14014/20/004 -G.P. (Pt. -1 )]

00-13-00

S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy ..

100 00-12-00

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

101

102

103

88/AP

88/B P

105

00-19-00

87/AP

87/BP

00-16-00

का.आ. 152.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 695( अ ), एवं 813 ( अ )तारीख 14-6-2004 एवं 10-6-2005 क्रमशः द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में दहेज़- हजीरा - उरान एवं स्पर पाइपलाइनों के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

397

399

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 7-10-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

395

394 00-11-00

00-17-00

393

00-22-00

392

407

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

00-26-00

410

00-24-00

413

00-37-00

414

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

00-13-00

303

00-26-00

415

416 00-19-00

00-44-00

290

295

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

2 G1 /06-12 364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 और, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाईनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , पाइपलाईनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि , भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड मेंनिहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला

गाँव

तहसील

सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.

S.O. 152. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 695 (E) and 813 ( E) dated 14-06-2004 and 10-06-2005 respectively issued under sub - section ( I ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipelines for the transport of natural gas througlı Dahej -Hazira -Uran and its spur pipelines in the State of Maharashtra by the GAIL ( India) Limited:

अर्जित करने

के लिए

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 7-10-2005:

( हेक्टेयर में)

ठाणे ठाणे

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority:

गोटेघर

10-35-000

00-05-(0)

00-11-00

And whereas the competent authority has , under sub - section ( I ) of Section 6 of the said Act , submitted its report to the Central Government :

(00-16-00

(00-07 - X)

And whereas the Central Government has after considering the said report decided to acquire the right of user in the Lands specified in the schedule:

4()

157/0 00-31-00

ठाणे

वाकलन

28/0 (00-31-(X)

ठाणे

ठाणे बाले

16/0 (00-67-00)

17/2 10-11-00

17/3

ठाणे

ठाणे नांगाव

118/6 00-2600

And. further, the 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 land for laying the pipelines shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication of the declaration , in the GAIL ( India ) Limited. free form all encumbrances .

तालाब

267

SCHEDULE

ठाणे

ठाणे नारीवली

161/1

District Taluka Village

165/0 100-26-00

Survey No.

ठाणे

Area to be acquired for ROU

भंडारली

( IbnHectare) ठाणे

29/1

00-65-00

अंबरनाथ करवले खुर्द

5 31/0 100-72-00

00-55-00 Thane

Thane

(X0-35 ( X )

Gotheghar

40/0

ठाणे

उसाटणे

अंबरनाथ

50/0 00-83-00

(0005 )

00-11-00

(00-20-000 [फा. सं. एल-14014/ 23/05- जी.पी. ( भाग -1 ) ]

(00-16 -X0 एस.बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव 365 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Thane Thane

Gotheghar 57

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्और यह समाधान ही जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित हैं, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है;

00-31-00

157/0

00-31-00

28/0

Thane Thane

Vakalan

00-67-00

Bale

16/0

Thane Thane

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

17/2 00-11-00

17/3

00-26-00

118/6

Thane Thane

Nagaon

Pond

267 00-02-00

Thane Thane

161/1

Naariwali

165/0 00-26-00

01-09-00

Bhandarli 13

Thane Thane

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

00-65-00

Karawale 29/1

Thane Ambernath

अनुसूची

Khurd

गाँव

जिला

तहसील

सर्वे नं. आर.ओ.यू.

00-72-00

31/0

अर्जित करने

00-55-00

40/0

के लिए

00-83-00

50/0

Usatane

Thane Ambernath

(हेक्टेयर में) 69

[F. No. L- 14014/23/05 -G.P. (Pt. -I ) ]

S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy .

257

00-17-00

पनवेल नितलस

रायगड़

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

261

00-06-30

263

00-24-00

264

269

271

273

272

274

275

00-12-00

का.आ. 153.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 813 ( अ ), तारीख 10-6-2005 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में दहेज़ हजीरा उरान एवं स्पर पाइपलाइनों के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय कीघोषणा की थी;

39/5

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 21-10-2005 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

00-14-00

39/4

00-18-00

00-38-00

00-10-00

35/10 35/11 और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन केन्द्रीय सरकार की अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है ;

366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

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

पनवेल नितलस

00-22-00

रायगड़

206

acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose oflaying pipeline for the transport of natural gas through Dahej -Hazira - Uran and its spur pipeline in the State of Maharashtra by the GAIL (India) Limited;

00-34-00

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 21-10-2005 ;

53/5 . 00-14-00

00-27-00

77/1

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the competent authority:

00-29-00

59/5

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

59/6

59/7 00-08-00

59/4 00-02-00

And whereas the Central Governinent has , after considering the said report , decided to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the Schedule :

74/1

72/1

72/2 00-06-00

69/1

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

00-02-00

69/2

00-21-00

70.

00-16-00

171

00-41-00

170

00-21-00

169

And, further , in exercise of thópowers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead ofvesting in the Central Government , vest , on this date of the publication of the declaration, in the GAIL ( India ) Limited . free from all encumbrances .

163/6

SCHEDULE

163/7

District Tehsil Village

163/5

Survey No.

163/2 00-27-00

Area to be acquired for ROU

163/3 00-23-00

(In Hectarc)

163/4 00-23-00

162/0 00-03-00

Panvel Nitalas 257

00-17 - X)

Raigad

157/1

261

00-06-30 पनवेल चाल

रायगड़

263

00-15-00

264

00-24-00

269

(00-01-000 [फा. सं. एल-14014/23/2005- जी.पी. ( भाग -1 ) ]

271

एस.बी. मण्डल, अवर सचिव

273

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

272

274

00-12-00

275

(00-01 - X )

39/5

S.O. 153. Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 814 (E) dated 10-06-2005 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 ) , the Central Government declared its intention to 367 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

00-14-00

39/4

Panvel Nitalas

Raigad

00-18-00

दी गई अनुसूचीके स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित व्यक्ति को, उक्त अनुसूची केस्तम्भ ( 2 ) में की तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टि में उल्लिखित क्षेत्र के संबंध में, उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है, अर्थात्ः-

00-38-00

35/10

अनुसूची

35/11

अधिकारिता का

प्राधिकारी का नाम और पता

00-22-00

क्षेत्र 206

00-34-00

(2)

(1)

हरियाणा राज्य

श्री पृथ्वीसिंह

53/5

तहसीलदार

00-14-00

00-27-00

इडिंयन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में

77/1

00-29-00

प्रतिनियुक्तिपर

सक्षम प्राधिकारी,

59/5

उत्तरी क्षेत्र पाइपलाइन्स,

59/6

59/7

डाकघर- पानीपत रिफाइनरी , बहोली,

पानीपत-132140 ( हरियाणा)

59/4

74/1

[फा. सं. आर-25011/44/2002- ओ.आर-1 ] 72/1

एस. के. चिटकारा , अवर सचिव 72/2

69/1

New Delhi , the 13th January , 2006 69/2

00-21-00

70 00-16-00

00-41-00

171

170 00-21-00

169

163/6

163/7

163/5

S.O. 154. In pursuance of clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) and in super- session of the notification of Government of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 3294 dated the 25th Deccinber , 21)04 , the Central Government hereby authorises the person mentioned in column. ( 1 ) of the Schedule below to perform the functions of the Com- petent Authority under the provisions of (he said Act, within the arca mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Schedule :-

163/2

(X)-27-( X)

SCHEDULE

163/3

(00-23-00

163/4 (X)-23-(X)

Arca of

Name and address of the Authority

162/0

jurisdiction 157/1

Chal

(1)

Panvel

(2) Raigad

State of Haryana

Sluri Prithvi Singh

10-15-00

Tehsildar,

1F. No. L -14014/23/2005 -G.P. (PL. -1 )|

Competent Authority

S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy .

on deputation in the Indian Oil

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी 2006

Corporation Limited,

Northern Region Pipelines ,

Post Office-Panipat Refinery, Baholi,

Panipat - 132140 (Haryana)

[F.No. R-25011/44/2 ( X )2 -O.R. - I]

S. K. CHITKARA, Under Secy.

का.आ. 154. केन्द्रीय सरकार , पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में और भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या 3294 तारीख 25 दिसम्बर, 2004 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए नीचे 368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

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

No. L-40012/327/2000/ IR(DU) dated 22-5-2002 . The terms ofreference given in the schedule are as follows:

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether the action of the Management of Telecom Factory, Mumbai , in compulsorily retiring the services of Shri . Balkishan V. Rane , ex -chargeman with effect from 17-5-2000 is legal & justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entititled? "

का. आ. 155.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टेलीकॉम फैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं० , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-7/2002 )को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-40012/327/2000- आई आर (डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi the, 15th December , 2005

S.O. 155. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 7/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Telecom Factory and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 15/12/2005 .

[No- L- 40012/327/2000- IR(DU) ] KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, MUMBAI

Present: Justice Ghanshyam Prasad , Presiding Officer. Reference No. CGIT -07 of 2002.

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of TelecomFactory

AND

Shri . B.V. Rane

Appearances:

For the Management : Shri Kadam, Advocate.

For the Workman

2. The second party workman Shri . B.V. Rane (hereinafter referred to as " workman " filed his statement of claim dated 18-9-2002 conteding that he had joined the services of the Telecom Factory on 05-1-1965 as wireman . He was made permanent immediately. Thereafter, he was promoted as a charge man on 1st July 1971. He wprked as such till the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 17-5-2000 and in view of the duties performed by him as chargeman , he is a workman under the provisions of Section 2 ( s) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ) . He contended that 80 % of his duties were manual and 20% were clerical . He was not to supervise anybody'swork since no one worked under him, infact he received the instructions regarding his duties from his superiors . He was placed under suspension by Senior Engineer ( TN) exercising powers under rule 30 ( 1 ) of the Certified Standing Orders which meant that this disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the claimant treating him the workman . Further the workman has been compulsorily retired in view of the outcome of the domestic enquiry conducted by Mr. P.K. Choudhary, Enquiry Officer/ Assistant Manager, Telecom factory, Jabalpur. The Enquiry Officer held that all the three charges against the delinquent were proved. It is contended that the said enquiry is vitiated by law since no opportunity of proper hearing or defending properly or follow of principles of natural justice had been there . The penalty of compulsory retirement imposed by the Senior Engineer (TN) appointing/punishing authority is harsh and did not commensurate to the charges even if they are found to be proved. In fact , he has been victimized since being in active role of the union . He was due to retire after a year on 31-5-2001 and he has been wrongly compulsorily retired one year before due date of superannuation .

: Mrs. Taleker, Advocate . Workman present in person

State

: Maharastra

Mumbai , dated, the 17th day of November , 2005

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section I and sub - section 2A of Section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( the Act for short ) vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order

3. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the management. The matter has been contested on two counts. Firstly, that the applicant is not a workman and secondly, that the charges are proved in the domestic enquiry to which the applicant deliberately did not contest and appear to participate therein despite number of opportunities offered to him from time to time. The penalty imposed as such is not a victimization . In fact a lenient view has been taken and the penalty of removal has been changed and compulsory retirement by the Competent Punishing Authority.

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4. The Second party workman filed his affidavit as a piece of evidence . On the other side, the first party filed affidavits of Shri . Sahu , Junior Telecom Officer and Shri . P.K. Pawar , Asstt, General Manager . The affidavit of Junior Telecom Officer is being filed to show that the second party is not a workman while the second affidavit of the Asstt. General Manager is being filed to prove the details of the enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer in accordance with law. All the documents of the enquiry filesare being proved . The written submissions have been filed by both the parties . I have perused them . The bral submissions made by the parties have also been heard. The record is also perused.

5. At the very outset, 1 would like to mention that this is a case in which both the parties are fighting the case on altogether contradictory stands . The first party has conducted the enquiry treating the second party as a Workman and making him to compulsorily retire on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer. On the other side, the second party did not participate the domestic enquiry on the plea that he was not a Workman and hence he need not to appear there in. Now having realised the consequences of the claim , the second party has contended before this tribunal that he is a Workman.

6. The first point for consideration is as to whether the second party is a Workman within the provisions of Section 2( s ) of the Act . Section 2 ( s) reads as under:

"Workman" means any person ( including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled , skilled , technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or 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 persons.

c. Who is employed mainly in a managerical or administrative capacity, or

d. Who , being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercise , either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a managerical nature.

In 1991 II CLR 789 , R.M. Narlekar , v/s . Chief Commercial Suprintendent, Central Railway, the Honourable Supreme Court held that " The Respondents having set up

369 the defence that the applicants were not workmen within the meaning of S.2 (s) of the Act, the burden lay upon them to satisfy the Labour Court on cogent material that it was SO.

The settled law in the application of 5.2 ( s ) is that an employee is to be considered to be employed in the capacity for which he is mainly employed. The test is one of the dominant character of employment . The evidence on record does not show that the applicants were employed to do mainly supervisory duties. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel that merely because the duties discharged by the applicants were of a responsible nature, they must be considered to be supervisory in character . The expression " supervise " means to over see , to exact work from other employees by giving them suitable directions or to accept responsibility for the execution of work by others under one's control . Unless these elements are present in the character of an employment , it is not possible to accept that there is employment in supervisory capacity. The evidence on record falls woefully short of this as there is nothing whatsoever of supervisory capacity in the list of duties enumerated by Mr. Sharma in his evidence .

In S.K. Verma V. Mahesh Chandra A.I.R. 1964 S.C. 1462 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the scheme of the definition is such that all persons employed are workmen within the meaning of S.2( s) of the Act . except those employed in managerial or strictly supervisory capacity, who would be excluded therefrom. Assuming that a few jobs were allotted to the petitioner which were in the nature of checking the work of others , these were not the main work of the applicants as disclosed by the evidence on record. In such circumstances it would be unreasonable to take the view that the petitioner was not a Workman covered withinthe meaning of S.2 (s ) of the Act. " 7. In 1988 LAB I.C 384 AIR 1988 Supreme Court 329 National Engineering Industries Ltd. vs. Shri Kishan Bhageria Honourable Supreme Court has held that "Where the employee was working under Company as an Internal Auditor on a monthly salary and his duties were mainly reporting and checking up on behalf of the management but he had no independent right or authority to take decision and his decision did not bind the Company, the employee would be a Workman within the meaning of S. 2 ( s) and not Supervisor. A checker on behalf of the management or employer is not a Supervisor . The conclusion as to by the High Court on appreciation of evidence on record could not be interfered with under Art. 136 ofConstitution .

8. In Lab IC 658 AIR 1984 Supreme Court 914 Ved Prakash Gupta vs. Delton Cable India ( P) Ltd. the Honourable Supreme Court held that " In the instant case.

370

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

workmen within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Act and therefore impugned order needs to be interfered with."

11. The evidence lead by the parties has to be interpreted after keeping in mind the settled legal proposition in view ofthe aforesaid citations . The evidence lead by the second party goes to show that he was a Workman since he did not perform any supervisory duty. The evidence lead by the first party on this point is quite insufficient. The duty chart of a charge man filed on record does not help the second party in showing that he was actuallyperforming the duties of Supervisor. The evidence ofJunior Telecom Officer is not sufficient on this point. In fact, the second party has been treated through out as Workmanby the first party during the course of domestic enquiry and now the second party is debarred from claiming that the second party is not a Workman.

12. Considering the record and the aforesaid discussion, I hold the second party to be a Workman .

substantial part of the work of the concerned employee consisted of looking after security of the factory and its property by deputing the Watchmen working under him to work at the factory gate or sending them to watch-towers oraround the factory or to accompany visitors at the factory and making entires in the visitors ' register as regards the visitors and in the concerned registers as regards materials entering orgoing out of the premise of the factory. In the absence of anywritten directons specifying his duties the employee also did other items of workmen, issuing some small items of stores like torch -cells etc. , to his subordinate watchmen , which can be got from the stores even under the signatures ofwatchman and filling up application forms of other workmen and counter signing them or recommending advances and loans or for promotion ofhis subordinates. However, he had no power to appoint or dismiss anyWorkman or order any enquiry any Workman. Held, that in these circumstances the substantial duty of the concerned employee was only that of a Security Inspector at the gate of the factory premises and it was neither managerial nor supervisory in nature , or as to exclude him from the defination of "Workman" under Section 2 (s) of then Act. "

9. In 1994 LAB I.C. 1095 M/ s . Inter Globe Air Transport, a Division of Inter Globe Enterprises Private Ltd. vs. Mrs. Leela Deshpande and another, the Bombay High Court held that that " Predominant duties of respondent consisting of booking of air tickets and other incidental jobs such as maintenance of lifts , typing on computers etc.-Respondents is "Workman " power of allocation of work between three other employees , who were answerable to her, notwithstanding."

lands up before an industrial adjudicator. Show -cause

Notices and charge sheets referred to in this judgment

cannot he ignored and dae weightage will have to be given

10. Lastly, in the case of S.A. Sarang vs. W.G. Forge &Allied Industries Ltd. Thane & Ors . the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that Uniformly, in each Show -cause Notice and charge-sheet , it has been alleged that the act imputed to the Petitioner was a misconduct under theModel Standing Orders. It is not possible to ignore the cumulative effect of this conduct on the part of the First Respondent Employer. To that extent, the contentionofDr. Kulkarni needs to be accepted. Ifan employer continuously and consistently proposes and takes action against its employee on the footing that he is covered by the Model Standing Orders ( thereby implying that the employee is a "Workmas"within the meaning of the Act ) , then such employer must be stopped from denying the said factwhen a dispute regarding the dismissal of the employee finally to them. Considering the cumulative effect of these

documents, it has to be conduced that the petitioner was a

13.The next point for determination is as to whether the second party has been rightly compulsorily retired after holding a just and fair domestic enquiry. The perusal ofthe enquiry file leaves no room for doubt in concluding that the second party deliberately did not participate in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer . The order sheet maintained for each and every date goes to show that the second party had been offered the due knowledge of the date of hearing and the second party persistedhis claim that he would not appear to contest the domestic enquiry since he was not a workman . In fact, he moved the application on each and every date well informing his view not to appear in the domestic enquiry which was being conducted against the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and hence the question of his appearance in the aforesaid enquiry does not arise . This stand of the second party was definitely damaging one and that hit him hard . The result was obvious . The Enquiry Officer did whatever he could do . The second party did not participate on account of his own whims. Thus, it could not be said that principles of natural justice have been violated and no opportunity of hearing has been given. The domestic enquiry continued for sufficient long time. Several dates were being fixed . The evidence was duly recorded. Due opportunity was given to the second party. The opportunity to lead evidence in defence was also given . All the documents of the enquiry file are duly proved by the Assistant Manager Shri . P.K. Pawar. It is wrong to say that he was wrongly disallowed to appoint the defence representative of his own choice . The defence representative could be in accordance with the rules and regulations. It is wrong to allege that the Enquiry Officer भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

waspredetermined to hold the workman guilty. It is further wrong to allege that the second party has been victimized since he was having leading part in the trade union activities . No evidence whatsoever available to give the finding on the second party on the aforesaid count.

14. The second party was charged with misconduct for three Articles:

Article-I: That the said Shri . B.V. Rane, 8484/9, while functioning as chargeman alleged to have went out of the factory on 12-2-97 at 11.15 AM along with Shri A.H.Jain, 8655/9 another chargeman of the same shop without obtaining prior permission of the Shop- in -charge .

Article-II: That the said Shri .B. V.Rane , 8484/9while functioning in the aforesaid post went out of the factory on 12-2-97 at 11.15 AM by using a forged gate pass . Knowingfully that the gate pass was forged by Shri Jain , 8655/9 another chargeman ofElectric Shop.

Article-III : That the said B. V.Rane , 8484/9 while functioning in the aforesaid post alleged to have misrepresented the facts before the Security staff at the Main gate at 11.15 AM on 11-2-97 with intent to go out of the factory.

Shri.B.V.Rane by his above acts exhibited lack of maintaining absolute integrity, failed to maintain devotion toduty and also behaved in a manner unbecoming ofGovt. servant and thereby violated the rules 31 (a), (g) , & (k) of C.S.OP. read with rule 3 ( 1 ) (i ) ( ii ) & (iii ) ofC.C.S. (conduct) Rules 1964.

The perusal of the enquiry file goes to show that there was sufficient evidence that the Enquriy Officer to hold the second party guilty for the charge of misconduct. It is the settled legal position that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are to be judged on the basis of pre- ponderence ofthe evidence . The charge is not to be proved as a criminal charge. The provisions of evidence Act are not strictly applicable to the domestic enquiry. I do not find anything worth for which it may be inferred even that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct the enquiry in just and fair manner or that he did not follow the principles ofnatural justice. The Enquiry Officer was not pre-determined to hold the second party guilty nor the second party was being victimized in this case .

Since the charge of misconduct is proved on record, the penalty of compulsory retirement can never be said to be harsh in any manner. In fact , the lenient view has been takenwhile imposing the penalty of Compulsory retirement. Merely, Because he was due to retire after a year or that he was having a leading role in trade union activities could not be said that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not proper. The penalty has been imposed on the basis offirst charge sheet for misconduct quoted above and not for the second charge sheet . The second charge tried to 2 GI/06-13

371 mess the situation by alleging that he was being penalized for the second charge sheet for which no enquiry was conducted.

16. In view of what has been discussed above, I conclude that the action of the Management of Telecom factory, Mumbai in compulsorily retiring the services of Sh. Balkrishna V. Rane, an ex -Chargeman with effect from 17-5-2000 is legal and jsustified. The Workman is not entitled to any relief.

17. The reference is accordingly answered in affirmative. Justice GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 156.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पोस्ट मास्टर जनरल ( बी एम एण्ड एफ एम ) विदेश डाक भवन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं ० ] मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी-37/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल- 40011/32/2003- आई आर ( डीयू ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi the, 15th December, 2005 S.O. 156. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 37/2003 ) of the Central Govenment Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Post Master General (BM&FM) Videsh Dak Bhavan and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 15-12-2005 .

[No- L- 40011/32/2003 - IR(DU) ] KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, MUMBAI PRESENT : JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer.

REFERENCE NO . CGIT-37 OF 2003 .

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Videsh Dak Bhavan,

AND Theirworkmen [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

APPEARANCES :

Shri V.Narayanan, Advocate.

For the Management :

Forthe Union

: Mr. J.P. Sawant, Advocate.

: Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 29th day of November, 2005.

AWARD

filed the written statement mentioning certain facts totheeffect that the workmen in question were caught by the C.B.I. Mumbai and criminal case was registered against them . The workmen were not honourably acquitted by the Special Judge .Being acquittedunder benefit of doubt, the Post Master General (Foreign Mail) revoked the suspension order considering the acquittal but the period of suspension was not treated as a period of duty in view of the provisions of Fundamental Rules 54. It is alleged that the Union has no right to represent the workmen. The reference isliable to be dismissed .

This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 (the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , order No. L -40011 / 32/2003-1R(DU ) dated 31-7-2003. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

The only question for consideration in this reference is as to whether the management is right under the provisions of Fundamental Rules 54 in not treating the period of suspension on duty. As mentioned above, the management did not conduct any domestic enquiry. The acquittal of the workman was passed by the Special Judge and the Honourable High Court of Bombay did not consider it proper to interfere with the order of acquittal .

"Whether action of the management of Post Master General (BM & FM) Videsh Dak Bhavan , Mumbai in not treating the period of suspension from 9-9-75 to 16-11-81 in respect of S / Sh . C.A. Kamble , Ex . Asstt. Supdt . Pravinchandra Mohanlal Shah, Ex- Supervisor and Rajaram Somaji Mhaske . Postal Asstt . as period for all the purposes and not paying these workmen their full wages for the said periodwith all consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not , what relief these three workmen are entitled to?"

1. The undisputed facts are that the workmen Shri . Chandramohan A. Kamble , Ex. Asstt . Supdt . Pravinchandra Mohanlal Shah , Ex- Supervisor and Rajaram Somaji Mhaske . Postal Asstt . Business Development and Forcign Mails Department of Post Master General , Mumbai were laced under suspension w.c.f. 109-9-1975 by the Superintendent. Foreign Posts . Mumbai vide order dated 09-9-1975 on the ground that disciplinary proceedings against them were contemplated . No disciplinary proceedings were ever held. The suspension order was revoked vide order dated 16-11-1981 which was implemented w.c.f. 17-11-1981 . In the meantime, the aforesaidworkmen have been acquitted by the Special Judge . Mumbai vide order dated 03-10-1981 and the appeal preferred against the acquittal has been rejected by the Honourable High Court of Bombay. The management did not treat the period of suspension as a period on duty for all the purposes nor paid the wages thereof. Instead, a sum of Rs . 89,639 was recovered from Mr. C. A. Kamble being paidcarlier.

2. The statement of claim has been fi led by Nhava Sheva Port and General Workers Union for the aforesaid workmen.

The controversy appears to have been set at rest in view ofthe judgement ofHonourable Supreme Court reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 240 M. Gopalkrishna Naidu V/s . State of M.P. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that " It is true that the order under Fundamental Rules 54 is in a sense a consequential order in that it wouldbe passed after an order of reinstatement is made. But the fact that it is a consequential order does not determine the question whether the government servant has to be given an opportunity to show cause or not. It is also true that in a case where reinstatement is ordered after a departmental enquiry the government servant would ordinarily have had an opportunity to show cause. But there are three classes of cases as laid down by the proviso in Art . 311 of the Constitution of India , where a departmental inquiry would not be held . Since there would be no inquiry in these classes of cases the authoritywould not have before him any explanation by the government servant . The authority in such cases would have to consider and pass the order merely on such facts which might be placed before him by the department concerned. The order in such acasewould be exparte without the authority in such cases would have to consider and pass the order merely on such facts which might be placed before him by the department concerned. The order in such a case would be ex -parte without the authority having the other side of the picture. In such cases the order that such authority would pass would not be a consequential order as where a departmental inquiry has been held . Therefore, an order passed 3. The management of Videsh Dak Bhavan , Ballard Estate, ( hereinafter referred to as the " management" ) 373 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

under F.R. 54 is not always a consequential order nor is such order a continuation of the departmental proceeding taken against the employee (Para 6).

as a period spent on duty. There appears to be no reason for which it can be said for a moment that the period of suspension is not to be treated as a period spent on duty under F.R. 54 as contended by the management. The contention of the management. does not have any legal force . The act of the management appears to be whimsical . It cannot be upheld.

9. The contention that the Union does not have the authority to represent the workmen is again deviod of merits . I do not find any ground in holding the action of the management in this case as legal and justified.

10. Hence, I conclude that the action of the management ofPost Master General (BM & FM) Videsh Dak Bhavan , Mumbai in not treating the period of suspension from 9-9-75 to 16-11-81 in respect of S/Sh. C. A. Kamble , Ex. Asstt. Supdt. Pravinchandra Mohanlal Shah, Ex -Supervisor and Rajaram Somaji Mhaske , Postal Asstt. as period for all the purposes and not paying these workmen their full wages for the said period with all consequential benefits is illegal and not justified . The workmen are entitled to full backwages.

The order as to whether a given case falls under Cl . or 2 Cl . .5 of the Fundamental Rule 54 must depend on the examination by the authority of allthe facts and circumstances of the case and his forming @page-SC241 the opinion there from of two factual finding whether the employee was fully exonerated and in case of suspension whether it was wholly unjustified. Besides , an order passed under this rule would obviously affect the government servant adversely if It one made under Cls. 3 and 5. Consideration under this rule depending as itdoes onfacts and circumstances in their entirely, passing an order on the basis of factual finding arrived at from such facts and circumstances and such an order resulting in pecunlary loss to the government servant must be held to be an objective rather than a subjective function . The very nature of the function implies the duty to act judicially. In such a case of an opportunityto show cause against the action proposed isnot afforded, the order is liable to be struck down as invalid on the ground that it is one in breach of theprinciples of natural justice. Fundamental Rule 54contemplates a duty to act in accordance with the basic concept of justice and fair play. "

11. The reference is accordingly answered. Justice GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

6. In another case reported in AIR 1984. Supreme Court 380 Brahma Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India, the Honourable Supreme Court held that the employee was entitled to full amount of salary for the period of suspension on his reinstatement after the judgment of acquittal by the Criminal Court .

का. आ. 157.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑर्डनैन्सफैक्ट्री के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/एल सी/आर/ 204/ 93) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल- 14012/23/92- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 7. Lastly, the Honourable Delhi High Court in the case reported in 1982 LAB IC 594 interpreted the words " Fully exonerated" under fundamental rules 54 (3 & 4) and held that government servant acquitted in criminal case on benefit of doubt is to be treated asfully exonerated. The order passed under rule 54 (3 & 4) for treating the period of suspension as a period not spent on duty was set aside .

S.O 157. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/204/93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Ordnance Factory and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

8. Keeping in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and Delhi High Court (Supra) the clear picture emerges that the workmen under reference who were acquitted by the Special Judge under benefit of doubt are to be treated as " fully exonerated" . The workmen have been acquitted by the Competer.t Court . No departmental enquirywas ever held in this case . Acquittal order gives entitlement to the workmen for full wages for the period of suspension and the same is to be treated

[No- L- 14012/23/92 -IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

374

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/204/93

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

Shri Munnalal , c/o The Secretary,

का. आ. 158.- 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 , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/एल सी/आर/ 13/ 91)को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Council of Trade Union ,

Workman/Union

1123 Wright Town, Jabalpur -482001

[सं० एल-40011/13/90- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी Versus

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 The General Manager,

Ordnance Factory, Khamaria,

Management

Jabalpur(MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of November, 2005

S.O. 158. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 13 /91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L - 14012/23/92- IR (DU) dated 30-9-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

[No. L- 40011/ 13/90 - IR(DU) ]

KULDEEP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Munnalal, Ex -Messenger Boyw.e.f. 25-2-92 is justified ? If not, what relief he is entitled to?"

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOURCOURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/ LC/R/13 /91

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

Shri Trilochan Prasad Pandey,

Branch Secretary.

Akhil Bhartiya Doorsanchar Karmachari Sangh.

Line Staff and Group -D, Jabalpur

Workman/Union

C.T.O. Compound, Jabalpur

Versus

Assistant Engineer , Long Distance ,

2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 7-10-93 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim. In response thereof, the workman filed his statement of claim. Thereafter the parties absented themselves on several dated fixed. Therefore fresh notices were issued to the parties by registered AD post . Inspite of sufficient service of notice, the workman did not put in appearance of the date fixed and therefore the case proceeded exparte against him. On the date fixed for exparte proceeding , no body put in appearance for the management inspite ofsufficient service ofnotice the management. Therefore this tribunal is left with no alternative except to close the reference for Award.

Telecommunication , C.T.O Compound,

Jabalpur

The District Engineer,

Telecommunication ,

Management

Wright Town , Jabalpur

AWARD

3. It is clear from the above that inspite of sufficient service ofnotice , the parties did not put in appearance for prosecuting the reference , it clearly means that they are not interested in prosecuting the reference . Under the circumstances , I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case for passing no dispute award. Accordingly no dispute award is passed without any orders as to costs .

Passed on this 24th day of November, 2005 4. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-40011/ 13/90- IR (DU) dated 31-1-91/ C.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

375

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौय 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2005 4-2-91 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythis Tribunal:-

"Whether the action ofDistt. Engineer, Telecom and Asstt. Engineer Long Distance, Telecom, Jabalpur in terminatingthe services of S/Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Sh. Raj Kumar, Basant Kumar , Mitthu Lal , Dindayal , Yashwant Rao and Shri Ishak Mohd. w.e.f. 2-3-90 is justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe concernedworkmen are entitled to?"

S.0: 159. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 103/2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecomand their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L-40012/80/2000-IR(DU)]

KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/103/2000

PresidingOfficer : Shri C.M. Singh

Shri Jagadish S/o Shri Tej Karan

R/oVillage-Sulthalia,

Workman

The.Biaora, Distt. Rajgarh (MP)

Versus

The ChiefGeneral Manager,

Deptt. ofTelecommunication,

Hoshangabad Road,

MPCircle,Bhopal (MP)-462001

2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 11-2-91 and notices were issued tothe parties to file their respective statements ofclaim. In response to the said notice, the workmen/Union filed their statement of claim. Thereafter the management also filed their statement ofclaim in the year 1991. The reference proceeded further according to law. On 25-3-04 the date fixed in the reference both the parties absented themselves and did not appear before this tribunal. On 7-12-04 the date fixed in the reference , no body appeared for the workman but Shri D.S. Thakur , SDO Telephones appeared for the management. Thereafter fresh notices by registered AD post was issued for the appearance of union/workman . Inspite ofsufficient service of notice on the workmen/Union, no bodyput in appearance for Union/workmen . And therefore on 24-8-05 the date fixed in the reference , it was ordered that the reference shall proceed exparte .On the next date 23-11-05 fixed in the reference , no body appeared for both the parties and under the circumstances , this tribunal was left with no option but to close the reference for award and therefore the reference was closed for award.

Telecom Distt. Engineer,

Rajgarh, At : Biaora

Management

Rajgarh(MP)-465674

AWARD

3. It is very clear from the above that both the parties tothis reference are not at all interested in prosecuting the reference and it appears that perhaps no dispute is left between the parties . Consequently no dispute award is passed in this reference without any order as to costs.

Passed on this 24th day of November, 2005 4.Copyof the award be sent to theGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour as per rules.

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No. L -40012 /80/ 2000 - IR (DU) dated 31-5-2000 has referred the following dispute for adjudication bythisTribunal :-

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether the action of the management of Chief GeneralManager Telecom in terminating the services ofShri Jagdish S/o Shri Tej Karan w.e.f. Dec - 95 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

का. आ. 159.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/एल सी/आर/103/ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2.After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 31-7-2000 and notices were issued to the parties for filing their respective statements of claim . In response to the notice , the workman filed his statement of claim . On 15-2-05 the date fixed in the reference, the learned counsel for both the parties remained present before this [सं ० एल- 40012/80/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

management of Deptt. of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

[No- L- 40025/ 10/2005 - IR (DU) ]

KULDEEP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Shri T. Ramachandra Reddy, Presiding Officer

Dated, the 9th November, 2005

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 125/2003

BETWEEN:

Sri G. Ramulu, S/o G. Ganganna,

Petitioner

R/oBakrapuram, Pulivendla

AND

tribunal . On this day, the learned counsel for the management requested that last opportunity be given to the management for filing Written Statement. In view ofthe above request, the management was directed to file written statement on 19-5-05 . On 19-5-05, the date fixed in the reference , nobody responded for parties and no WS was filed on behalf of the management . Therefore it was ordered that the reference shall proceed exparte against the management and date 18-8-05 was fixed for exparte evidence ofworkman. Later on the aforesaid date Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate the learned counsel for workman came present and noted the date fixed. On 18-8-05 the date fixed in the reference Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate the learned counsel for the workman was present before this tribunal and no- body responded for the management. On this date , Shri Gupta requested for time to adduce exparte evidence.` Therefore it was ordered that exparte evidence be filed on 23-11-05. On 23-11-05, nobody responded for the parties meaning thereby nobody appeared for the parties for prosecuting the reference and under the above circumstances , this tribunal was left with no alternative but to close the reference for Award and accordingly the reference was closed for award.

I. TheAssistantDirector, O/o CGM, Telecommunications, A.P. , Hyderabad- 500001.

2 The Telecom District Manager , Office of the TDM, Ananthapur- 515050.

3.It is very clear from the above that both the parties to this reference are not at all interested in prosecuting the reference and it appears that perhaps no dispute is left between the parties . Consequently no dispute award is passed in this reference without any order as to costs.

3. The SDO, Telecom, Guntakal-515801 .

......Respondents

APPEARANCES :

4. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules.

Forthe Petitioner

C.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

R.Yogendar Singh, Advocate नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

For the Respondent

R.S. Murthy, Advocate .

AWARD

का. आ. 160.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार विभाग 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 125/2003.) को प्रकाशित करती है, जओ केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल- 40025/10/ 2005- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

This is a petition filed by Sri G. Ramulu under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 against the Assistant Director, CGM Telecommunications , Telecom District Manager, Ananthapur and SDO , Telecom , Guntakal and the same was taken on file in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa andM/s Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

2. The averments made by the petitioner are that he was engaged by the second respondent office upon the selection from the employment exchange on 3-1-1985 anc that the petitioner workman worked at AE TAX GN from 3-1-1985 to 31-11-1986 for a period of606 days without any break completing more than 240 days in a year. The S.O 160. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 125/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the 377

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

petitioner was disengaged from 1-12-1986 instead of grantingtemporary status and regularisation. Thejuniors of the petitioner were continued in the service and subsequently regularized. It is further submitted that even aftertermination of the petitioner, he was allowed to work under civil contract who is doing the work of cable lying and that he was engaged by the civil contractor on the request of the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Ananthapur and requested to grant temporary status by reinstating with continuity ofthe service.

officer stating that the petitioner was selected as a casual labour from 3-1-1985 though he was registered his name in theexchange on 2-9-1985. Ex. W2 is the Zeroxcopyofthe letter dated nil alleged to have been filed by the petitioner for his regularization. Ex. W3 is the Zeros copy of the letter dated 21-4-1992 written by G. Suryanarayana Assistant Director (RandE), office ofthe CGM Telecommunications, Hyderabadto the Telecom District Manager, Anathapur, asking him to submit the details regarding representation ofthe petitioner. Ex. W4 is the Zerox copy of the certificate dated nil alleged to have been issued by the Accounts Officer, Telecom District Manager, Ananthapur that the petitioner has worked for 606 days from 3-1-1985 to 30-11-1986 . Εx. W5 is the certificate dated 28-10-2002 allegedtohave been issued by the civil contractor stating that the petitioner was engaged in his firm as per the request oftheDivisional Engineer.

3. The respondent filed the counter affidavit of SDE (Admn. ) , Ananthapur and denied the averments made in the petition and pleaded that the respondents are entrusted with the responsibility of setting up and maintenance of telephones and telegraphs through the control of Ministry ofTelecommunications under the Government of India allocation of business rules 1961. It is further submitted that for the purpose of lying down cable , huge manual work force is required which is intermittent and seasonal. The regular staff is not adequate to meet several exigencies and arising out of natural calamities and other unforeseen circumstances, as such , the respondent engages persons purely on temporary basis as the same could be completed with a regular sanctioned strength.

7. The petitioner has stated in his evidence that he was engaged by the respondent from Jan. 1985 to Nov. 1986. Hewas engaged by the respondent wherein hewas referred by the employment exchange and his services were terminatedwithout any notice or payment in lieu of notice without assigning any reasons w.e.f. December 1986. He was also engaged during 1987 for a period of six months during January to June on ACG- 17 . Since his disengagement as a casual labour, he was asked to work under a contractor. He made a representation during the year 1988 and the same was referred by the R1 and R2 on 21-4-1992.

8. The MW1 has stated that the petitioner was never engaged by the respondent department and there are no records available as the same have been weeded out as per the retention schedule and he has no knowledge about the engagement ofthe petitioner by the contractor . There are banorders right from 30-3-1985 for engaging casual labour except in someproject works.

4. It is denied that the petitioner worked as a casual labour from 3-1-1985 to 31-11-1986 and the records pertaining to the said period have been weeded out by efflex of time as per reterttion schedule stipulated in appendix P and T financial hand book volume- III. It is further submitted that the respondents have stopped engaging casual labour from 1-4-1985 in pursuance ofthe instructions issued in DGP and T letter No. 270/6/84- STN dated 30-3-1985 and there is no scope to engage any casual labour including the petitioner. The daily wager in the absence of sanctioned post could not claim any for permanent employment and that the regular appointment could onlybemade in terms of the recruitment rules subject to the existence of the sanctioned post . It is also denied that the juniors of the petitioner were continued and absorbed by the respondent . The petitioner deemed to havebeen abandoned the mustering roll while seeking the reliefafter 17 years and the Ministry ofLabour also declined to make any reference on the ground of latches in similar cases .

5. The petitioner examined himself as WW1 and got marked the documents as Exs . WI to W5 . As against this evidence, the respondent examined H. Mohan Rao as MW1 .

9. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labour from 3-1-1985 to 31-11-1986 for a period of 606 days and his services were terminated without any notice or assigning any reasons and further contended that the petitioner has completed more than 240 days musters. As such, he is entitled to get temporary status and regularization and further pointed out that the ban order of the respondent discloses that no casual labour should be engaged after 30-3-1985 . But the petitioner was engaged before that date and the circular is silent about the worker engaged before 30-3-1985.

10. On the other hand, the Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that by invoking the State 6. Ex . W1 is the zerox copy of the letter dated 31-12-1985 alleged to have been issued to Assistant Engineer, TAX Installation , Guntakal to the employment [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

378

the contractor and he was engaged by the contract on the request of the official of the respondent. If the petitioner is aworkerunder the contractor , it cannot be said that there is a relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondent.

amendment of ID Act permitting walaman to approach directly has no application with regard to the dispute which was not referred by the Central Government and further contended that the petiitoner has not proved that he workerd for more than 240 days with a satisfactory evidence and further the records pertaining to that period have been weeded out as per the retention schedule. As such, the respondent could not produce the records and further contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent and the petitioner and further there is as ban for engaging casual labour right from the year: 1985.

11. The petitioner's claim that he was terminated from 1-12-1986 but he approached this Tribunal after the latches of17 years . In view of the delay in filing the present petition, the respondent could not file the relevant records as the same have been weeded out as per the retention schedule rules . It has to be seen howfar , the documents relied by the petitioner can be taken in proving the case of the petitioner that he worked as a casual labour for more than 240 days .

13.The documentary evidence filed by the petitioner, does not prove satisfactorily that the petitioner has worked for more than 240 days as a casual labour under the respondent . It should be noted that for argument sake, eventhe petitioner has put in 240 days of service in a year, the same ipso facto would not lead to regularization of his services in view of the decision of the apex court in Madhy- amic Shiksha Parishath Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra AIR 1994 SC 1638. The burden lies on the petitioner to prove that there is relationship of employer and employee exists between the respondent and the petitioner . The petitioner approached this Tribunal at this belated stage . The delay in approaching this Tribunal after 17 years suggests that he has abandoned his claim , if any. It should be noted that an appointment to regular post must be made in terms of the recruitment rules. Ifreally the petitioner has worked for more than 240 as alleged by him, the respodnent could have taken the same into consideration by applying the provisions of casual labour and ( Grant of temporary status and regularization) scheme .

14.On considering the material on record, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought and an award is passed dismissing the petition.

Dictated to Shri P. Kanaka Raju. LDC transcribed by him, corrected by me and givem under my hand and seal of this Court on this the day of 9th November, 2005 .

T. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the the Respondent

MW1 : H. Mohan Rao

WW1 : G. Ramulu

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI: The Xeros copy ofthe letter dated 31-12-1985.

Ex. W2: The Xerox copy of the letter dated nil .

Ex. W3: The Xeros copy of the letter dated 21-4-1992 .

Ex. W4: The Xeros copy of the certificate dated nil .

Ex. W5: The certificate dated 28-10-2002 .

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

12. The letter Ex. W1 dated 31-12-1985 which is a Xerox copy alleged to have been addressed by the Assistant Engineer to the employment exchange stating that the petitioner was selected as a Casual Mazdoor from 3-1-1985 though he got his name registered under the employment exchange, Ananthapur on 2-9-1985 and it is also discloses that the names mentioned in the letter be taken as sponsored through employment exchange . It should be noted that by the time of writing this alleged letter on 31-12-1985, the petitioner was disengaged or terminated as per the admission of the petitioner . The said letter shows that the place ofwork ofthe petitioner and others name therein, is beyond 16 kms radius from employment exchange office, as such, it has to be treated that they are exempted from - being sponsored directly by the employment exchange. If the version ofthe petitioner that he was terminated on the firstofDecember 1985 is true, the question of writing the said letterto the employment exchange does not arise . The representation Ex. W2 does not show that the petitioner has put up musstens:ufi606 days and further Ex . W2 does not bear any date. Itris evident that it was written in the year 1991. after lapsexofconsiderable period. It is significant to note in Ex. W2 that the petitioner has claimed that he was recruitedasiboloyed as a casual labour w.e.f.17-12- 1984 whichissantalistory to the avernments made in the claimappliontion: homertificate showing the musters Ex . W4 allegeiitollomidby the Accounts Officer, does not bear anytlate. It is not known when it was given whether itwas givembeforeorafter destroying the relevant records. The petitioner claimed that he was working with भारत का जिपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 161.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बदरपुर थर्मल पॉवर स्टेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल- 42012 /178/87- आई आर ( डीयू )] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi the , 15th December, 2005 S.O 161. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 127/ 97) 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 Badarpur Thermal Power Station and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No- L- 42012/ 178/87 - IR(DU) KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-IL, NEW DELHI

379 justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Theworkman applicant has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the above named Shri Subal Sil is the workman concerned in the present industrial dispute which is pending before this learned Tribunal for adjudicatioft and the workman conceffted is an employee of the M/s National Thermal Power Corporation Limited ( N.T.P.C ) ( hereinafter to be referred as the Management ) where the workmen concernedworked as Helper w.e.f. 2-2-1974 and thereafter as Tohnical Helper on daily rated basis following which the workman concerned was regularized and confirmed as Mazdoor w.e. f. 7-2-1980 .

That the services of the workman concerned have been terminated by the management vide dismissal order dated 20-7-85 against which the workman concerned has raised an industrial dispute by giving a demand notice prior to filing of statement of claim before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) New Delhi .

That the industrial dispute as raised was not referred for adjudication on the basis that criminal case as made and registered against the workman concerned is pending before the Court .

That the alleged criminal charges have not been proved before the learned Court ofMetropolitanMagistrate as such the workmen concerned along with other workmen has been discharged by the Court vide orders dated 14-3-91 & 31-10-94.

L. D. No. 127/1997

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

IN MATTER OF :-

Sh. Subal Sil, Mazdoor, Qtr. No. 17, Gali No.4-A, MolarBund Extension, Badarpur, NewDelhi- 110044.

VERSUS

TheGeneralManager,

National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. , Badarpur Thermal Power Station, Badarpur,

New Delhi- 110044.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42012/ 178/87 - IR (DU) Central Government dt . 01-09-1997 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Badarpur Thermal Power Station, in terminating the service of Sh . Subal Sil, Mazdoor is legal and 2 G1/06-14

That prior to it during the pendency of such case theworkman concerned has filed a civil writ petition before theHigh Court ofDelhi at New Delhi against the order of the Secretary (Labour ) whereby industrial dipute as raised was refusedto be referred by the appropriate Government .

That the workmen's work as Mazdoor remained satisfactory and as such no memo or chargesheet of any nature whatsoever has been served upon the workman concerned.

That the workman concerned has been participating in the peaceful activities of the Union due to which the management got irked and implicated the workman concerned in an incident which alleged to have taken place on19-9-1984 wherein an assault was alleged to have been made on the General Manager (Badarpur ) N.T.P.C. That the workman concerned has never been involved in the alleged incident since the workman concerned resumed his duty in time after punching his card on 19-9-1984.

That despite this the workman concerned has been charge sheeted vide chargesheet dated 30-1-1985 to which the workman concerned has replied to vide reply dated 14-2-85.

380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

That the said reply of the workman concerned has been stated by the management to be unsatisfactory and as such an enquiry was constituted vide letter dated 28-2-1985 to enquire into the alleged charges as levelled against the workman concerned .

That the workman concerned has also made an appeal against the dismissal order vide appeal dated 9-8-1985 which was also turned down vide management's letter dated 20-8-1985 ..

That the workman concerned vide letter dated 12-5-1987 demanded for the withdrawal of the dismissal order and reinstatement in service along with back wages and consequential benefits in view of the dismissal order being wrong , malafide , illegal as such unfair and unjustified.

That following this a legal notice dated 21-5-1989 was also served upon the management so as to avoid litigation but the same has not been replied by the management .

That following this a statement of claim was filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide statement ofclaim dated 24-6-1987 in pursuance of which the present industrial dispute has been referred for adjudication.

That the management has held and ex -parte enquiry in violation of principles of natural justice and further the enquiry soheld against the workman concerned is malafide , wrong and illegal .

That the said enquiry has been held in a biased and prejudicial manner as such the findings of the same cannot be relied upon . Moreover the copy of the said enquiry report has also not given to the workman concerned .

That the finding of the enquiry officer are perverse and the same cannot be relied upon as such the punishment of dismissal as made out on basis of the said enquiry officer's report is wholly unjustified and the same has no basis whatsoever .

That the said enquiry has also been held in a mechanical manner only with a view to hold the alleged charges as proved and there has also been a collusion between the enquiry officer and the management ..

That it is evident from the fact that the workman concerned has not been informed of the dates of the enquiry as and when the same has taken place .

That it is correct that the workman concerned has not been given any opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry as neither notice of the enquiry nor the date as fixed therein has been informed to the workman concerned .

That the workman concerned at no stage has stated that the enquiry proceedings will be boycotted . It is wrong to allege that the workman concerned has not participated in the enquiry on his own.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] It is a matter of fact that the workman concerned was on leave from 8-4-1985 to 13-4-1985 and thereafter he remained on medical leave when the said enquiry has been held.

Thatwhen the workman concerned reported for duty he was not informed of any such enquiry as such the workman concerned has worked till 12-7-1985 and got further leave sanctioned from 13-7-1985 to 19-7-85 .

That it is a matter of fact that the workman concerned was on duly sanctioned leave from 8-4-1985 to 15-4-1985 andwas on Half Pay Leave from 16-4-1985 to 23-4-1985 .

That the workman concerned was arrested by the Police on account of false and fabricated case as madoon 16-7-1985 and the workman concerned came to know of the dismissal of his service only in jail vide letter dated 20-7-1985.

That it is also a matter of fact that the workman concerned was arrested when he was holding a dharna in support ofdemand for withdrawal of the chargesheet date 30-1-1985 as made against the workman concerned.

That the workman concerned has appealed agianst his dismissal order vide appeal dated 9-8-85 response to which the workman concerned was called on 26-12-1985 vide management's letter dated 18-12-1985 on which day theOfficer In Charge agreed that the action as taken against the workman concerned is wrong and illegal .

That as such the workman concerned has not proceeded further under the hope that the management will take favourable action on account of the opinion of theOfficer Incharge to whom the workman concemed has met on 26-12-1985 in terms of letter dated 18-12-1985 .

That as the management did not sentby communi- cations to the workman concerned till April, 1987 the workman concerned made a representation dated 12-5-87 requesting the management to withdraw its wrong, malafide and illegal dismissal order and reinstate him in service with full back wages along with other consequential benefits arising there from to which the management has not replied to.

That it is also a matter of fact that the workman concerned has been victimized on account of his confide and peaceful trade union activities .

That while dismissing the workman concerned from service the management has neither given any notice nor paid any amount of compensation or any wages in lieu notice.

That the workman concerned at no point oftime has ever refused to accept the notice of the enquiry. In fact the same has not been served upon the workman concerned as required .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

381 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

That the appellate authority has also erred in law by dismissing the appeal ofthe workman concerned following which the industrial dispsute has been raised. That the workman concerned has not been given due notice or wages in lieu thereof prior to his dismissal from service. That the workmen concerned has also not been paid suspension allowance or any other amount during the suspension period and after dismissal .

That the workman concerned has been unemployed since the day of dismissal from service and his day -to -day expenses has been met by his wife and school going son who had to work on piece rate basis so as to meet the household expenses .

Accordingly in the interest of discipline and healthy administration the basis of fact finding report dt . 1-10-84 given by Shri J.C. Kalra , the then Executive Director (NR) pursuant to the officer orderdt . 21-9-84 (copies ofwhich are attached and marked as Annexure M -1 and M-2 respectively) qua the misconduct as per clause 14(3 ) (c) and (h ) of the Model Standing Orders which are ipso- facto applicable (in the absence of certified standing orders as detailed by the management in communication dt. 30-1-85 of course- first by calling their explanation which was not adjusted satisfactory. Furtherin reply to chargesheet the Badarpur Karamchari Sanyukt . Morcha vide their letter dt . 2-2-85 (copy of which is attached and marked as Annex M - 3 ) informed the management that they had been authorized by the chargesheeted employees including Sh . Subal Sil claimant as per their signatures on the said letter to represent them in the case.

That the dismissal so made has led to serious problem to the workmen concerned who is family man having marriageable daughter and school going sons who had to discontinue their studies on account of unemployment of the workman concerned.

That the workman concerned himself has become veryweak and is merely surviving on account of only God grace. It is, therefore , most respectfully prayed that this learned Tribunal may be pleased to hold the dismissal order as made wrong, malafide and illegal and be further pleased to grant reinstatement of the workman coricerned in service with all the consequential benefits arising there from. It is also prayed that during the pendency of the industrial dispute the workman concerned may also be granted certain amount as interim relief.

The management accordingly issued a chargesheet dated 30-1-1985 to the erring employees namely Shri Subal Sil besides his other two erring employees namely Shri Nakchand and Shri Surinder K. Kaushik submitted his explanation dated 14-2-85 to the chargesheet dated 30-1-85 which was not adudged satisfactory and in the light of preliminary/facts finding inquiry report dated 1-10-84 as aforesaid more so in the interest ofjustice and fairplay the management decided to conduct the departmental enquiry by appointing Sh. Venkataraman the thenDy. General Manager (PS ) as the enquiry officer vide office order dated 28-2-85 Presenting Officer . A copy of the said order dated 28-2-1985 issued by Shri M.K. Sarkar the then ED ( NCR) is attached with the statement ofclaim. The Badarpur Karamchari Sanyakt Morcha vide their letters dated 5-3-85 and6-3-85 ( copies of which are attached and marked as Annexure M - 4 and M -5 respectively) informed the management and Shri G. Venkataraman, the enquiry officer, that the enquiry would beboycotted at all stage and no chargesheeted employee would attend the enquiry. The said letter dated 6-3-85 had been signed by the erring delinquent employees including Shri Subal Sil the claimant .

That the aforesaid enquiry officer of the rank or DGM (PS) started the proceedings by giving due notices to the concerned workers including Shri Subal Sil the claimant herein:-

The Management has filed written reply. In the written reply it has been stated that the three workers S/Shri Surinder , K.Kaushik, Nakchad and Subal Sil amongst others had instigated and /or incited the workers to indulge in rioteous and/or disorderly behaviour and in furtherance thereofwere directly involved in GHERAO AND ASSAULT OF SHRI V. SUNDERARAJAN the then GENERAL MANAGER. Badarpur Thermal Power Station and other officers of the respondent management on 19-9-84 when there was an unfortunate accident of the Haryana Roadways bus at Mathura Road in front of the gate No.1 ofBTPS. The aforesaid persons involved in committing the aforesaid misconducts and/or criminal offence also caused damages by standing on the dickey and the roof of the General Manager's car No. DHD 467 of the Company/Management and thereby caused damage to the property of the company as well . Not only that the said persons including Shri Subal Sil claimant herein had jumped on the aforesaid, the then General Manger (B) Shri V. Sunderarajan and tore off the collar of his shirt and started beating him alongwith Shri Surinder K. Kaushik, Timekeeper.

That the aforesaid acts besides constituting criminal offence also constitute serious misconducts and to say the least being subversive of discipline as well .

The first notice dated 19-3-85 was issued for commencement of proceedings on 30-3-85 (copy of the said notice is attached herewith as Annexure M- 6) . But the claimant and his other two colleagues despite service of the notice one by the Registered post did not participate in the enquiry on the said date . That significantly the claimant through their union/association namely "Badarpur Karamchari Sanyukt Morcha " vide their communication dated 23-3-85 ( copy attached herewith as Annexure M- 7 clearly wrote to the enquiry officer that (they)/ no employee would attend the enquiry and that the [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA; JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

382

to conclude the enquiry exparte as aforesaid cluminating into findings of the enquiry officer as per report dated 27-5-85 with the following conclusions in the penaltimate para 18 of the findings by holding delinquent employees guilty of the misconduct with the following pertient observations :

enquiry will be boycotted At All Stage : It was also mentioned that they had already stated that no employee would attend the enquiry and the enquiry would be boycotted at all stages . It was also stated not to serve any notice of enquiry again and again to harass the employee. However, in the interest justice the enquiry officer after recording the enquiry proceeding adjuorned the enquiry to 13-4-85 with due notice dated 30-3-85 to the claimant herein (copy of notice dated 30-3-85 is attached herewith as Annexure M -8 ) .

"18-in view of the foregoing 1 , as the enquiry officer hereby state that I based on the evidence and documents presented to me come to the conclusion that the 3 charged employees mentioned above have been directly involved in the assault of General Manager (B ) NTPC and hence the charge of assault on them is proved beyond doubt . "

Acopy of the enquiry report is attached herewith as Annexure M - 11 which from part of this reply.

Right of Appeal. Exercised by the delinquent employees including Shri Subal Sil herein

That evern on the adjourned date of enquiry i.e. 13-4-85 and despite the service of notice as before the cliamant Shri Subal Sil like his other two colleagues absented from the enquiry as per boycott referred vide Annexure M -4 , M- 5 , M -7 referreed above . The enquiry officer as such held the proceeding ex -parte on 13-4-85 . It is submitted that despite the facts that enquiry officer had already given tow opportunities still in the interest ofjustice and fair play he gave yet another chance by way of final opportunity to the delinquent employees including Shri Subil Sil per notice dated 20-4-85 fixing the enquiry for 4-5-85 (copy of notice dated 20-4-85 is attached and marked as Annexure M-9).

In the circumstances the enquiry officer had no option but to proceed with the enquiry ex-parte as Shri Subal Sil the claimant refused to accept the enquiry notice while on duty. The enquiry had also been completely boycotted as referred to above earlier.

That pursuantto the above findings of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority in the high rank ofGeneral Manager (acting Executive Director ) Shri D.K. Shukla applied his mind and accepting the findings of the enquiry officer issued a show cause notice dated 16-7-85 (accompanied by the findings of enquiry officer dated 27-5-85 ) with the following pertinent observations: -" I am therefore convinced that end ofjustice will not be met unless you were dismissed from the service of the company. However, I allow the final opportunity to let me know in writing within48 hours why you should not be dismissed from the services of the company with immediate effect .

In case you fail to offer any explanation within the time stipulated it will be presumed that you have nothing to say and necessary orders will be passed without waiting any further. A copy of the enquiry report together with annexure is attached . "

Significantly on this date too i.e. 4-5-85 the witnesses of the management whose evidence had been recorded exparte were present for cross examination by the delinquent employees who again choose to stay away from the enquiry as before . As such the presenting officer ofthe management made his submission dated 13-4-85 followed by arguments in writing on behalf of the management to the enquiry officer vide his note dated 4-5-85 copy of which is attached herewith as . Annexure M-10.

That despite the service of the show cause notice dated 16-7-85 as aforesaid to delinquent employees including Shri Subal Sil they failed to submit any reply thereto. In the circumstances the disciplinary authority passed the order or dismissal dated 20-7-85 with immediate effect (copy attached herewith as Annexure M - 12 ) .

That it is pertinent to state that even on the date of last hearing i.e. 4-5-85 the presenting officer had kept eight witnesses whose evidence had been recorded duly present in the officer of the enquiry officer for cross examination by the delienquent employees if they so desired as is evident from the enquiry report .

The enquiry officer in the light of the evidence led by the management witnesses duly supported by the documents submitted his report dated 27-5-85 .

Thatthe workers i.e. the three delinquent employees were provided with all reasonable opportunities and as neither the charge sheeted delinquent employee nor their Defence Assistant were present on any of the date of enquiry of repeated opportunities the enquiry officer had

That significanlty all the deliquent employees including Shri Subal Sil exercised their right or appeal against the aforesaid order of dismissal dated 20-7-85 and pursuant thereto filed a petition of appeal dated 8-8-85 . The Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent corporation appointed Shri P. S. Bami the then Director (Finance) NTPC as the appellate authority vide his officer order dated 10-12-85 who in turn issued the notice dated 18-12-1985 ( copy of which is attached herewith as Annexure M- 14) separatelyto each of the delinquent employee including Shri Subal Sil herein and also accompanied by the copy of the preliminary report ( facts finding report) as desired.

383 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौप 24, 1927

In furtherance of natural justice the appellate authority also invited the additional points if any which the appellant would like to make for consideration oftheir appeal as is evident from the aforesaid notice dated 18-12.85 (M- 14).

That the appellate authority after rejecting their own contention had also rejected the contentions of the appellant including Shri Subalsil that they were not present on the spot. That after discussing documentary evidence duly supported by the witnesses-

Shri V. Sundrarajan GM(B) the complainant and the victim of assault.

That all the appellants including Shri Subalsil submitted their additional points besides the original appeal which were duly recorded by the appellate authority.

Shri V.K. Kapoor , Inspector who was present at the spot of incident and had seen these three present. assaulting the complainant .

That all the appellate authority also allowed the Defence assistance to present their case before him i.e. the appellate authority which request of the delinquent employees including Shri Subalsil I was acceded to and the delinquent employees were represented by the following Defence assistance :

Shri R. K. Behal . Sr. Inspector (Security ) who was present at the incident spot had deposed having seen Shri Subalsil and Sh . Surinder K. Kaushik as prominent persons assaulting the complainant.

Name of the appellant Represented by

Sh . Subalsil

Sh . M.P. Tewari

Sh. R. Thiruvengadaswamy, Superintendent (O&M ) who had also witnessed the assault had identified the three appellants to have assaulted the complainant .

Sh . Surinder K. Kaushik Sh . Om Prakash

Sh . B. D. Kathuria , Sr. Administrative Officer Sh . Nakohed

Sh . M.P. Tewari

Sh . Hem Chand, Security Inspector

Sh . K. S. Rawat , Security Guard

Sh. Desh Raj , Security Guard

Sh . W. Singh, Sr. Inspector

That all the deliquent employees including Shri Subalsil were given personal hearings and duly represented by the respective Defence assistants as is evident from the decision dated 4-6-86 of the appellate authority (copy ofwhich is attached herewith as Annexure M - 15 ) . A copy ofthe said decision has already been filed in the statement or claims but relevant statement showing service of enquiry notice had not been enclosed.

That significantly Shri Subalsil had also raise the contention of alibi which having not been supported by any documentary evidence had been rejected by the appellate authority at page 10 of decision stating .

" NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE SAID APPELLANT BEFORE THE ENQUIRY OFFICER OR BEFORE ME AND HENCE HIS CONTENTION OF ALIBI HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED "

The appellant authority further held that- That the submission of Shri Subalsil as made before the appcllate authority i.e. the then Director (Finance ) NTPC are dealt at page 4 onwards . The appellate authority by a self speaking orders dated 4-6-86 ( forming part ofhis reply) after giving due opportunity including that of personal hearing to the appellants including Shri Subalsil rejected the appeals, discussed the evidence including on aspect of documents and the opportunity provided and came to the conclusion which is summed us as under :-

"ALL THEWITNESSED FROM VARIOUS RANKS PRODUCED BY THE MANAGEMENT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAVE DEPOSED THAT THESE THREE APPELLANTS WERE PRESENT AT THE PLACE OF INCIDENT AND WERE INVOLVED IN THE ASSSULT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER ( BADARPUR STATION) "

contraryto this the three appellants when provided opportunity had not presented any evidence of their alibi .

"The enquiry officer has given all reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employees in view of their refusal to accent the notice added by clear intimation on the part of their union/association that they would not participate in the enquiry, the enquiry officer as such had to proceed exparte vide page 7 ( para 6,1,2 of the decision of the appellate authority with the following pertinent observation-

"From the above it is evident that the three charge shceted employees ( i.e.. including Sh. Subalsil the claimant herein) has been GIVEN AMPLEA AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO DEFINED THEIR CASES having cxamination of the witnesses /evidences from their side. "

Even in personal hearing before me they have not mentioned any detail or any evidence to SUBSTANTIATE THEIR PLEA OF ALIBI . FROM THE ABOVE IT IS SEEN "THAT THE DEFENCE OF ALIBI PLEADED BY THE APPELLANTS DOES NOT HOLD GOOD AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE HENCE REJECTED .

Brackets Added-Emphasis supplied.

Thereby rejected the contentions of the appellants .

Thatsignificantly on the aspect of misconduct of assualt the appellant authority after discussing the same 384

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

in his decision at page 11 ( annexure M - 14 ) has observed that-

against the rules and regulations as the appellants were not given the show cause before awarding punishment on the ground that they were arrested under ESMA on 16-7-85 and thereafter released on 24-7-85 . It is stated that the appellate authority has rejected this contention of the appellant as untenable duly supported by the records as such as discussed in para 6.1.12 at page 13 of order viz-

"Besides it is relevant to state/point that the incident of assault is not denied by defence but what denies is their presence there. The eve witness present at the incident have identified them and proved their involvement . The case has been established fully on the material particulars by the Management Evidence. "

And thereby the appellate authority rejected the contentions of the appellants including Shri Subalsil claimant therein qua so called bias and/ or victimization .

That thereafter the appellate authority also rejected the untenable contentions qua the preliminary hearings with an emphasis on the aspect of identification (inclusive ofmalafide and victimization ) with the following emphasis atpage 12 in Para 6.1.10 as under:

That as per the record the second show cause notice dt . 16-7-85 was issud to these three employees including Shri Subalsil herein duly accompanied by the documents i.e. the enquiry report etc. and thereby asking them to show cause as to why for charges established in the enquiry which were or very grave nature they should not be dismissed from the service of the company with an emphasis that these show cause notices were served on the appellants through Superintendent (Jail ) as per the records.

"As is clear form the position from the above the identification of delinquent and guilty workman was not malafide . Hence this contention of the appellants has ground and is rejected. "

That the other contentions raised as detailed in para 6.1.11 was the enquiry report is preserve and vitiated for want of service of notice which in the light of discussions made by the appellate authority hearin above and duly supported by the documentary evidence has to be rejected as without force.

That likewise the prayer as made by the appellant for modification of the punishment has been rejected under Para 6.1.12 by the appellate authority at page 12 with an emphasis that the misconduct proved at the enquiry being grave and serious in nature there are no extenuating circumstances to justify the modification of the order passed by the disciplinary authouity. That the appellate authority has also rejected the contention raised by the appellants vide their letter dt . 12-4-85 to the effect that they were not involved in the incident of 19-9-84 subject matter of enquiry which has been rejected by the appellate authority within emphasis that it is not supported by any evidence despite appellants have been provided personal hearing as discussed ( Para 6.2.1 ) .

That in the following sub para of 6.2 , the appellate authority has also rejected the contentions of the appellant qua the preliminary enquiry with an emphasis that the preliminary enquiry comprised of facts case was adjudged that the incident was of violence mass indiscipline and vandalism and that the management has taken police action immediately coupled with an FIR in this behalf dated 20-9-84 with an emphasis in this behalf in Para 6.2.5, in the following words-

That yet an other contentions raised by the appellants including Shri Subalsil herein was that the decision to take the disciplinary action has been taken at the instance of the then CMD which directly opposed to the alleged assurance given by the management that no action will be taken against the erring employees which too has been rejected by the appellate authority with emphasis that there was no commitment for not taking any action against the employees for the incident of 19-9-84 with an emphasis that this contention is against the evidence on reserdiled before the enquiry officer and likewise theplea of the victimization has also been rejected as without forcezasėdiscussed by the appellate authority at page 13 impara 6.1.11 of his order with the following pertinent observations-

"From whatever has been discussed above and whatever has been established in the enquiry it is evident that there was vandalism indiscipline and assault onGeneral Manager (Badarpur ) and it was not a creation and after. "

IN RE: PERSONAL HEARING DURING THE APPEAL:

The appellants have not been able to produce any Material Evidence to establish their contention that there was an agreement that no disciplinary action will be taken against the workers who had physically assaulted the ChiefExecutive ofthe Project . Hence this contention does not also hold good.

The appellate authority has dealt with the contentions raised by the appellants before him about the personal hearing at page 16, 17 and 18 (from paras 6 , 3.1 sub -paras ( a ) and while rejecting the contention of the appellant the appellate authority has come to the following That still yet another contention raised by the apellant that the decision of the disciplinary authority is 385

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग -11-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

conclusions thereby upholding the actions of the disciplinary authority with an emphasis in para 7 which being relevant is reproduced hereunder for your honour's ready reference and convenience .

That the matter is delayed by laches as well .

Without prejudice to each and every contention raised in the salient features of the case and the preliminary objections has to submit as under by way of parawise reply to the statement of claim.

It is submitted that the nature of disciplinary and criminal proceedings is not the same . Enquiry proceedings are based on preponderance of evidence and criminal case based on the principal of doubt has no bearing on a proper enquiry in compliance with the principles of naturaljustice. The contents of para 2 and 3 above are reiterated in the matter. It is also relevant to submit that claimant and other accused persons had been acquired in the crinunal case due to lack of evidence forthcoming and complainant having not been produced/ having appeared. In this regard relevant is affliction dated 3-8-93 ( copy enclosed herewith as annexure M - 17 ) the complainant has stated that the persons prosecuted in the case being employees / re -employces ( including Shri Subalsil ) most of whom had at some stage or the other have expressed regrets for the joint incident and behaviour and that in his personal capacity he had long back forgiven them . Also relevant are observations in the criminal case judgement dated 31-10-94 ( copy already filed in the statement of claim ) that in the present case punishment for offence committed by the accused persons are not more than 3 ycars and the accused persons have already faced trial for about 11 ycars and there is no reasons for giving further adjournment. It is further submitted that in the enquiry case the misconduct is fully established by the witnesses as discussed above and relevant in the matter are annexure M- 14 and M- 15 . It is also submitted that the scope of domestic enquiry is otherwise also wider and a criminal case finding has no bearing on punishment awarded consequent to a proper enquiry and decision of the appellate authority complying with the principles of natural justice .

It is a matter of fact that the claimant participated in the assault of the then General Manager for which he was chargesheeted and enquiry conducted which heboycotted consistently. The punishment awarded to the claimant is onbasis of a proper enquiry and decision of the appellate authority as referred in reply to para 4 above.

It issubmitted that the claimant was present at the place ofincident of assault of General Manager on 19-9-84 aschargesheeted and this is fully established on the basis of evidence at the enquiry.

It isfurther submitted that as the climant had refused toaccept the show cause notice dated 16-7-85 for dismissal the same hadbeen served on him through Supdt . (Jail) alongwith the copy of the enquiry report and Annexures thereto . Relevant in this regard is the acknowledgement dated 17-7-85 endorsed by the Assistant Superintendent Distt . Jail , New Delhi ( copy enclosed herewith and marked as annexure M - 18) hereto. 18-19 that the contents of Para 18 and 19 are incorrect and denied . In this regard the contents of Para 2 and 3 above are re - iterated. It is further denied that there was ever any collusion between the enquiry officer and the management as alleged. The enquiry had been conducted impartially and as per principle of natural justice.

It is submitted that the first hearing of the enquiry had been fixed for 30-3-85 and communication to this effect was give to the claimant under enquiry notice dated 19-3-85 . The claimant had refused the dais notice.on 21-3-85 while on duty. As the chargesheeted employee including Sliri Subalsil claimant had not participated in the enquiry the same was adjourned to 13-4-85 to provide another opportunity for Defence vide enquiry notice dated 30-3-85 which was again refusedby the claimant when it was personally served on him while on duty on 5-4-85 . In case the claimant was to proceed on leave as contended he should have approached the enquiry officer for an adjourned otherwise also no prejudice was caused as only the examination - in - chief of the management witnesses was recorded and the enquiry adjourned vide enquiry a final opportunity for participation and Defence . Registered postal service of this notice was also refused by the claimant on 25-4-85 . Copies of the enquiry notices have already been produced herein above as annexure M - 7 . M-8 and M- 9 also enclosed is copyopy of refusal endorsed by the postal authorities as annexure M - 23 . The contents ofPara 20 to 22 above are also reiterated in the matter .

The workman has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he hasreitereated the averments of his claim statement and hasdenied most of the paras of the written statement . The managementhas also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence of both the partics has been taken.

The management has not pressed for decision of the fairness of the inquiry as preliminary issue. Heard arguments from both the sides It seems essential to narrate in brief the incident and the proceedings of the inquiry. The incident took place on 19-09-1984 and two childrens of the employces and a relative of an employee were curshed to death by a bus on 19-09-1984 and this sparked off riotous mob . The employees of the respondents assembled at one place and they started slogan shouting and instigated the work men to beat the General Manager as he was allegedly responsible for the unfortunate.and tragic killing of two childrens of the employeessand.a relative of an employcc . Subsequent to the ineidontan inquiry was constituted and notices were issueddated 386

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

do so but the circumstances of the case warrants that sufficient opportunity should be given to the workman . The workman has been found guilty of misconduct . The workman has replied to the chargesheet but he did not appear on 30-03-1985 , 13-04-1985 and 04-05-1985 in the inquiry proceedings .

19-03-1985 for the first date of inquiry on 30-03-1985 but despite the services of the notice by registered post and by personal service the workman did not participate in the inquiry on 13-04-1985 . The Union of the workman by letter dated 23-03-1985 addressed to the Inquiry Officer stated that no employee would attend the inquiry and that the inquiry will be boycotted at all the stages so none appeared on 13-04-1985 . However, the InquiryOfficer in the interest ofjustice adjourned the inquiry to 04-05-1985 and notice dated 20-04-1985 was issued to the workman but the workman did not appear on that date and the inquiry proceeded ex-parte and the inquiry was concluded on 04-05-1985 by taking ex- parte evidence of the witnesses and the Inquiry Officer gave his findings on 27-05-1985 . From the admitted facts it becomes quite obvious that inquiry was held on two dates i.e. on 13-04-1985 and 04-05-1985 and ex-parte evidence was taken on 04-05-1985.

It was further submitted from the side of the workman that an officer was appointed to give a report regarding the circumstances which sparked off mob behaviour and slogan shouting. The GM has decided for converting the root of the bus but his decision was not implemented urgently. Excess time was taken . The fact finding officer has stated in his report that the decision to change the root of the bus proceeded in routine manner. In case the bus would have started plying as decided by the GM the cause of provocation may not have occurred at all . After the event everyone is wise. He has further stated that there are lapses on the part of the management which led to the unfortunate incident . So there is representation from the side of the employee to divert the root of the bus to avert the incident and in case the decision of the GM hás beenimplemented by the officers the incident could have been averted : There were lapses on the part of the management and this led to the unfortunate incident of killing of two children of the employees and one relative ofan employee.

The fact finding officer has further mentioned that the GM tried to explain to the people that he had recently passed orders for bus to start from temporary colony but nobody was in mood to listen to him . This was the immediate cause of the incident . The Preliminary Investigation Officer has reported that the persons who directly took part in inciting are Shri Subal Sil , Shri Kaushik, Shri Nakched, Shri Ram Avtar, Shri , Manour Ali , Shri N.B. Rao Choudhary and the persons who incited are Shri Kisan Chand, Shri Inder Singh , Shri Balder Singh, Shri Subhash Sharma . According to the Preliminary Investigation 10 employees of the respondents were involved in inciting and subsequent action but the three workmen Subsil , Kaushik and Nackhed have been picked out and the others have been let off.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the management was predetermined to punish the workman sothe inquirywas completed on 04-05-1985 . It was further submitted from the side of the workman that there was no need of such hottest haste . It is true that the Union has written letter dated 23-03-1985 to the effect that the inquiry willbe boycotted at all the stages . It is also true that the workman has authorized the union to represent him in the inquiry proceedings . The case of the management is that two notices were sent to the workman one on 30-03-1985 and other on 20-04-1985. The notices were sent by registered post and they were also served personally. On the inquiry proceedings there is no proof that notices have been sent by registered post. There is no receipt of the registered posting of the notices . The workman refused to receive the notices and put his signature before the witness as alleged by the management . The management was duty bound to serve workman by registered post regarding the two hearings of the inquiry proceedings but there is no receipt of sending the notices dated 30-03-1985 and 20-04-1985 on the proceedings of the inquiry. The Union hasdecided to boycott the inquiry at all the stages but the chargesheet has not been served on the Union . The workman is admittedly a Mazdoor. The union was bent upon inciting the innocent mazdoor.

FIR has been registered against 10 persons and all the 10 persons have been acquitted as none supported the case of the prosecution . The two witnesses who have deposed in the inquiry proceedings stated in Court that they had no knowledge of the case . TheGM the complainant did not appear during the trial however, he sent a letter that incident was unfortunate but he did not like to give evidence in the criminal case as such the Court acquitted all the chargesheeted employees as there was no evidence worth the name ,

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that the GM was the victim of the incident but he did no appear in Court thinking that he was assaulted due to employees.

In the circumstances it was justified that the management should send registered notice to the workman. The first date of inquiry was 30-03-1985 . The second date was 13-04-1985 and the third date was 04-05-1985 . The entire inquiry was concluded between 30-03-1985 and 04-05-1985 so exactly 35 days for the entire inquiry was given and within these 35 days the inquiry was concluded and the Inquiry Officer gave his findings on 27-05-1985. There is indeed the fault of the Union and the workman was unduly influenced by the Union not to participate in the inquiry. Nevertheless registered notice to the workman should be sent . There is no bar for concluding the entire inquiry proceedings within 35 days. The management can भारत काराजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौप 24 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

It was further submitted from the side of the management that principles of naturaljustice are incapable of any exact definition . They are to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of the case . The Union leaders instigated the innocent mazdoor to retaliate against the killings of two childrens and one relative by bus . The GM has also admitted that he has ordered for diversion ofthe bus . Had his order been implemented within time this incident would not have occurred? So the workmen thought that these three killings are due to inaction ofthe GM and the angry mob attacked the GM. The behaviour ofthe 10 chargesheeted employees is no doubt subversive of discipline and constituted grave misconduct and a criminal offence as well . The management should have initiated inquiry against all the 10 employees who have been accused on the basis of the FIR lodged by the management but the management had recourse to pick and choose policy and to make discrimination. The Union leaders are mainly responsible for provocating the innocent mazdoors but they have got scot free . The management did not initiate inquiries against them as they would resort to further strike and demonstrations . If the principal criminals are let loose then the innocent should not be picked up and punished.

who has been instigated by the union leaders for discriminal offence .

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe workman that . though proceedings in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas . The standard of proof in departmental proceedings are different from the criminal proceedings but the case is quite different . If both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings are common without there being any variance . In the instant case the evidence in the departmental inquiry was the same as in the criminal proceedings. The facts are also the same i.e. assaultby the workman on the GM. The witnesses who supported the chargesheet against the workman resiled in the criminal court. The complainant thought it better not to appear in evidence. In the circumstances it has been held in JT 1999 (2 ) SC 456- if departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are on the same set of facts and if the employee is acquitted in a criminal trial itwould be unfair and unjust to allow the findings of the inquiry proceedings to stand.

There are two aspects of this case, principles of natural justice have not been observed and the inquiry has been concluded in the hottest haste. So the principles of natural justice have not been followed and if the case is taken at its worst side and if the inquiry is held fair the punishment is shockingly disproportionate and the workman should not be given their full wages as they have been indulged in serious misconduct and they have subvertive of discipline but they are innocent mazdoors and labourers and they have agitated on the instigation of the union leaders so he should be reinstated on only 50% wages in view of his misconduct . The law cited by the management are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Badarpur Thermal Power Station in terminating the services of Shri Subal Sil, Mazdoor is neither absolutely legal nor justified. The workman applicant is entitled to be reinstated in service with50% backwages . The management should reinstate theworkman and pay him the arrears of wages as aforesaid within two months from the date of publication of the award.

Award is given accordingly.

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer Date: 22-11-2005

It was further submitted from side of the workman that there was grave and sudden provocation and the workman lost their power of self control though their behaviour is condemnable and depricatable but none the less it has been caused by grave and sudden provocation . Even in criminal offence where an act is caused in grave and sudden provocation minimum punishment is given. The sudden fights or sudden quarrels are occasioned by sudden and grave provocation. The disciplinary authority should have taken into account this aspect of the case but it has not been dealt with as is evident from the order ofimposition of punishment of dismissal on the workman . To conclude the inquiry was conducted in the hottest haste and in the circumstances bias is inferred. Sufficient opportunity also implies that proper time should be given for a person to cool down . In that case the workman would have participated in the inquiry but the entire inquiry has been concluded on only three dates . It was further submitted from the side of the workman that the witnesses who gave statement before the inquiry committee resiled in the criminal court and they did not support the prosecution case. The trial was held at the same set of charges on which domestic inquiry has been conducted . The sophisticated rules of the evidence act are not applicable in departmental inquiries and even the workman can be held guilty of misconduct on preponderance of probability. In the instant case the workman caused hurt to the GM under grave and sudden provocation . This aspect should have been considered by the disciplinary authority and particularly in view of a layman or mazdoor 2 G1/06-15

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 162.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीब, 388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

equal work is fair, legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?" अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 19/2000 )को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं० एल -42011/72/1999- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

The workmen applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that Shri Antu Dass S/o . Shri Dukhan Das and Shri Kartar Singh S/ o . Late Shri Ramdiay were initially engaged as Muster Roll Beldars on 1-8-84 and 1-4-85 respectively by the above management .

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

The services of Shri Antu Dass were terminated w.e.f. 4-8-87 and he was reinstated w.e.f. 24-6-93 by the order of CAT dated 17-1-92 .

That similarly Shri Kartar Singh was also reinstated w.e.f. 14-5-93 by the order of CAT dated 27-11-92.

S.O. 162. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 19/ 2000 ) 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 All India Radio and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

That the management of All India Radio have regularized the services of Juniors S/Shri Chander Singh Negi , Shiv Kumar Rawat and Smt . Omwati w.e.f. 31-7-91 and 25-1-94 respectively.

[No- L- 42011 /72/ 1999 - IR(DU) KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

That Shri Chander Singh Negi and Shiv Kumar Rawat were appointed as Muster Roll Beldars in the year 1987 and Smt . Omwati was engaged in the year 1988 as Muster Roll Beldar and the above workmen are juniors to S/ Shri Antu Das as well as Kartar Singh, whose services have been regularized by the management in the proper time scale without following the provision of principals of naturaljustice.

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

I. D. No. 19/2000

IN THE MATTEROF :-

That the workmen Antu Das and Kartar Singh were getting their wages only in the time scale without increment .

Shri Antu Dass and Kartar Singh As represented by The President .

Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union, E-26. (Old Qtr . ), Raja Bazar, Baba Kharak Singh Marg. New Delhi - 110001

VERSUS

Executive Engineer.

That as per the policy of the Government of India Department of Personnel & Training vide their O.M. No. 49014/2/86- Estt. ( C) dated 7-6-88 , the daily rated workers performing same and similar duties as regular work men were allowed to receive the wages in the time scale w.e.f. 7-6-88 but these workmen have been getting their wages in the time seale of Rs . 750-940 and subsequently revised w.e.f. 1-1-96 with all allowance except increment revised w.e.f. 1-1-96 with all allowance except inerement which is against the policy of the Government . Copy of the said O.M. dated 7-6-88 is enclosed and marked as Annexure -A .

All India Radio. Division 3 , Lodi Road Complex, Soochana Bhavan. New Delhi - 110003

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42011 /72/ 99 - IR ( DU ) Central Government dt . 27-1-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as under :-

That further the Department of personnel and Training vide their O.M. No. 51016/2/90- Estt . (C) dated 10th Sept. , 1993 have also granted tempórary status and regularization of casual workers so these workmen are also entitled to receive wages along with increment , casual Icave w.c.f. 1. - 9-93 but the management also violated the said O.M. Copy of the said O.M. dated 10th Sept. , 1993 is enclosed and marked as Annexure-B .

"Whether the action of the Executive Engineer , CivilConstruction Wing, All India Radio, Division No. 3 New Delhi in not regularizing services of Sh . Antu Dass and Sh . Kartar Singh as Beldar w.c.f. 31-7-91 and not paying them cqual pay for

That as per Deptt . of Personnel & Training vide theirO.M. dated 10th Sept. , 93 that the workmen are entitled to additional benefits as para- 9 of the said O.M. as the All India Radio being an industrial establishment .

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

That the workmen are entitled to be regularized from the date when their juniors were regularized i.e.w.e.f. 31-7-91 .

That the services of the workmen have not been regularized by the management with a view to deny them the regular and permanent status so the management is indulging in unfair labour practice as envisaged in item 10 of unfair Labour practice under Section 2 ( ra ) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the same is reproduced as under:

"To employ workmen as badlis casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years, with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges ofpermanent workmen. "

That the workmen have been doing same duties as their counterparts have been performing their duties as Beldar and their nature of duty and duty hours are same so the workmeri connected with the dispute are also entitled to receive the wages from the date of their initial employment in the time scale as per the policy for equal pay for equal work.

That the workmen are entitled to be regularized in the time scale from the date of their juniors were regularized as Beldar i.e. w.e.f. 31-7-91 .

The Management has filed written reply. In the written reply it has been stated that the appointment and regularization of service of the workmen quoted by the applicants , were done by some other Division of this organization i.e. , Division - I , CCW, AIR, New Delhi on the basis of seniority list prepared and considered for the period upto 1987 & 1988. As the applicant's cases were in court proceedings and their names were not in service roll , they were not considered for regularization (Enclosed Annexure) B - 1 to B-20.

The workmen are not under regular establishement , the matter of which is in dispute hence increment not granted. However, temporary status has been granted & since 10-9-93 increments have been released.

D.O. P & T OM No. 51016/2/90 -Estt . dated 10-9-93 has been implemented and temporary status to the workmen has been granted w.e.f. their eligible dated (Enclosed Annexure) A- 1 toA -3.

Para No. 9 of D.O. P & T dated 10-9-93 is about instruction after regularization the matter of which is yet to be decided by the Court CAT. As regard to benefits admissible under above OM dated 10-9-93 these are being provided to the workmen .

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written

389 statement. The management has also denied most of the paras ofthe claim statement.

Evidence of the both the parties has been taken.

Heard argruments from both the sides and perusd the papers on the record.

It is admitted case ofboth the parties that Shri Antu Dasswas initially engaged on muster roll as Beldar on 1-8- 1984 and Shri Kartar singh was initially engaged on muster roll as Beldar on 1-4-1985 . It is also admitted to both the sides that the services of Shri Antu Dass was terminated on4-8-1987 but he was reinstated on 24-6-1993 by order of the CAT dated 17-1-1993 . The services of Shri Kartar Singh were terminated on 31-3-1987 and he was also reinstated w.e.f. 24-5-1993 by order of the CAT dated 27-11-1992 It is also admitted case to both the parties that Shri Negi and Shri Shiv Kumar Rawat were appointed as muster roll beldars in 1987 and Smt . Umawati was engaged in 1988. lt . isalso admitted case that the services of Shri C.S. Negi and Shri Shiv Kumar Rawat were regularized in time scale w.e.f. 31-7-1991 and services of Smt. Umawati was regularized w.e.f. 25-01-1994. It is also the admitted case of the management that Shri Antu Dass and Shri Kartar Singh were not regularized because they were not on the roll . It isalso admitted by the management that the services of the workman were not considered for regularization from the date when their juniors were regularized after reinstatement of these workmen. It has been also admitted by the management that rules and regulations of the muster roll workmen are adopted by the management so the management has admitted that Shri C.S. Negi and Shri Shiv Kumar Rawat and Smt . Umawati engaged as nauster roll Beldar in 1987 and 1988 respectively and their services have been regularized in time scale w.e.f. 31-7-1991 and 25-01-1994 respectively.

It was submitted from the side of the workmen that discrimination has been made against them for simple reason that they were reinstated by order of the Hon'ble CAT. It is settled law that that after reinstatement an employee is deemed to be serving continuously from the of date his reinstatement and any break in service cannot even be assumed.. The workmen joined service in 1984 and 1985 but they have not been regularized in time scale w.e.f. 31-7-1991 . Shri C.S. Negi and Shri Shiv Kumar Rawat and Smt. Umawati are doubtedless juniors to these muster roll Beldar but the management has not considered the case of the workmen as they were reinstated from the order ofthe CAT. The management witness has admitted that the case of these workmen was not considered as they were not on the rolls at that time . They joined services after the order ofthe CAT. The management should have considered their cases after reinstatement and they should have been similarly placed and their services should have beenregularized at least from 31-7-1991 but the management has followed the policy of discrimination in order to 390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 32/2000

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

IN THE MATTER OF :

penalize the workman for taking the shelter ofthe CAT for reinstatement. Such discrimination is not warranted in the fact and circumstances of the case . After reinstatement these workmen should be deemed engaged from 1-8-1984 and 1-4-1985 respectively and their cases for regularization in time scale should also be considered. The management has followed discriminatory policy. The workmen applicant deserve to be regularized in time scale w.e.f. 31-7-1991 and they shouldbe paid equal pay for equal work and they are entitled to get all the arrears which accrue in view of regularization w.e.f. 31-7-1991 .

The reference is replied thus :-

Shri Radhey Shyam . C/ oThe President . Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union, C/o E-26, Raja Bazar, (Old Qtrs .) , Baba Kharak Singh Marg . New Delhi - 110001

VERSUS

The Executive Engincer. CivilConstruction Wing. Division 3. Lodi Road Complex , New Delhi - 110001 .

AWARD

The action of the Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Wing , All India Radio , Division No. 3 , New Delhi in not regularizing the services of Shri Antu Dass and Shri Kartar Singh as Beldar w.e.f. 31-7-1991 and not paying them equal pay for equal work is neither fair nor legal and nor justified. The workman should be regulairsed intime scale from 31-7-1991 and they should be paid their entire arrears within two months from the publication of the award.

Award is given accordingly.

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L-42011 /87/ 99 - IR ( DU) Central Government dt . 18-2-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication .

Date 16-11-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

The point runs as hereunder :-

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

"Whether the action of the management of the Executive Engineer, Civil Construction Wing . All India Radio , Division No. 3 , New Delhi in not regularizing the services of Sh . Radhey Shyam, Beldarw.c.f. 1-7-89 and not paying his equal pay for equal work is fair, legal andjustified ? If not ,to what relief the workman entitled ?"

का. आ. 163.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं ० II . नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल- 42011/87/1999- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

The workman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that Shri Radhcy Shyam workman was intitially employed as Muster Roll Beldar under Executive Engineer, Division - 3 , All India Radio, Soochana Bhavan, Lodi Road Complex , New Delhi w.c.f. 12-1-1998 .

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005,

That the services of the workman were terminated w.c.f. 30-3-1985 and the Presiding Officer, Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal , New Delhi in ID No. 31/97 have awarded reinstatement with continuity in service and full back wages . Copy of the said award is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure -A with this application .

S.O. 163.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.32/ 2000 ) of the Central Govenment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court . No. II . New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of All India Radio and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No- L- 42011 / 1999 - IR(DU ) KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

That in pursuance of the Award of Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal , the workman was taken on Job on 9-4- 1996 and was also paid wages (back wages) amountingto Rs . 1,06,127/- and deducted unlawfully Rs . 19,269/- as income tax for which the complaint is pending before Hon'ble Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) , New Delhi.

391

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

That as per the award , the whole services of the workman is treated as on duty and for that back wages were also granted by the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal , New Delhi .

the IncomeTax Officer vide this office letter No. 29 ( 1 )98 - S/ Div. III/2132 dated 29-10-97 & No. 29( 1 )-S/Div. III/ 126 dated 24-4-98 for release ofthe said amount, if it should not have beendeducted under any provision of Income Tax Rules. as Income Tax once deducted at source is credited under Revenue Head & only I.T.O is empowered to initiate necessary action to make refund/ release of the deducted amount . The advice from I.T.O. is awaited and the workman has also been apprised of the situation ( Annexure Al to A3).

That the management appointed the workman while implementing the award of Hon'ble Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal vide management order dated 19-4-1996 and the workmanwas placed in the minimum basic pay ofRs. 750/- in the pay scale of Rs . 750-940 plus usual allowance . Copy of the same is enclosed herewith and makes as Annexure- Bwith this application .

Asper the CGIT Award the workman was reinstated into service in Muster Roll and all the back wages have been paid to him. As regard continuity of service from the back period, it can be regularized only on the basis of availability of work & vacancy.

Thatwhen the workman was terminated from service, the Junior Workman Shri Dara Singh was appointed as daily rated Beldar on 7-5-84 and Shri Udai Pal who was also appointed as daily rated Beldar on 1-2-84 , their services were regularized w.e.f. 4-7-89 and 1-7-89 respectively.

That had the services of the workman Shri Radhey Shyam workman had not been terminated then his services would have also been regularized from the same datew.e.f. 1-7-89 in the scale of Rs . 750-940 and subsequently revised to Rs . 2550-3050 with all allowance.

The workman was placed in the Muster Roll in the scale ofRs. 750-940 plus other admissible allowances . The appointment and regularization of services of the workmen, quoted by the applicant, were done by some other Division ofthis organization i.e. Division- 1 , CCW, AIR, New Delhi on the basis of seniority list prepared for the period upto 1987 & 1988. As the applicant's case was in court proceeings and his name was not in the service roll , he was not considered for regularization Annexure Bi to B(20).

That the appointment letter of Shri Dara Singh and Officer order dated July, 1998 in which the date of appointment was indicated in the chart are also enclosed as Annexure - ' C ' &' D ' respectively.

The workman was placed in the scale of Rs. 750- 940/- and subsequently in the revised scale of Rs . 2500- 3050 with admissible allowance. Further ,the workman has alsobeen conferred with Temporary Status w.e.f. 10-9-93 with other admissible benefits . ( Annexure C1 to C3 ) .

That the workman Shri Radhey Shyam was also discriminated in the payment of equal pay for equal work after reinstatement w.e.f. 7-6-88 as per O.M. No.

That the workman Shri Radhey Shyam is entitled to be regularized from the date when his juniors were regularized i.e. w.e.f. 1-7-89.

The annexure C & D enclosed by the representative ofthe workman is neither an appointment letter nor there isany order dated July, 1998. The annexure C & D received by this officer is regarding confirmation of Work Charged Staff ( i.e. letter dated 2-12-92 & 25-8-93) .

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

That the services of the workmen have not been regularized by the management with a view to deny him the regular and permanent status so the management is indulging in unfair labour practice as envisaged in item 10 of the unfair labour practice under section 2 ( ra ) of the Industrial Disputes Act .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken .

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

That the workman has been doing same duties as his counterparts have been performing their duties as Beldar and their nature of duty and duty hours are same so the workman connected with the dispute is also entitled to receive the wages from the date ofhis initial employment in the time scale as per the policy for equal pay for equal work. That the workman is entitled to be regularized in the time scale from the date his juniors were regularized i.e. w.e.f. 1-7-89 .

Itwas submitted that he was initially employed with the management w.e.f. 12-01-1983 and his service were terminated w.e.f. 30-03-1985 . He raison dispute and the same was decided by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, New Delhi in ID No. 31/97. The workman was awarded reinstatement with full back wagesand continuity of service .

The management has filed written reply. In the written reply it has been stated that as regards to Income Tax Deduction of Rs . 19,269/- advice has been sought from

It was further submitted that the management has admitted all these facts subsequently. In compliance of 392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3( ii )]

No. 2/97 connected with I.D. No. 54/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-42011/13/1993- आई आर ( डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December 2005,

S.O. 164. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. Misc . Appln . No. 2/97 connected with I.D. No. 54/93 ) 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 ofBadarpur Thermal Power Station and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 15- 12-2005 .

[No- L- 42011/13/ 1993 -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 Mis .App . No. 2/1997 Connected with I. D. No. 54/1993 .

the same award the workman was reinstated on job on 9-04-1996 and full back wages was disbursed to him from the date of his termination i.e. w.e.f. 30-03-1985 . These facts have also been admitted by the management but as has been stated by the management the service of Shri Radhey Shyam was of temporary status , Muster Roll Beldars have been regularized vide CAT order dated 27-10-2004 as per departmental procedure. I have perused the award of the Hon'ble CAT, New Delhi. It has been specifically mentioned that the workmen is reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages . As such the workman should be deemed to be serving the management continuously w.e.f. 12-01-1993 the day ofhis appointment . It has also been admitted that juniors to the workman applicant have been given higher pay scale than the workman . The management has not treated his service regular despite the award of the Tribunal . The management is expected tobe fair and award should be implemented in toto. The workman should have been granted temporary status recogning his service from 12-01-1983 but it has notbeen done so. Shri Dara Singh and Shri Uday Pal joined in 1984 and their services were regularized w.e.f. 1989. The workman is also entitled to get all the benefits at par with his juniors . He shall be deemed to be serving the management without any back from 12-10-1983 in view of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) . The workman is entitled to be placed similarly in the matters of all the benefits which has been given to his juniors Shri Dara Singh and Shri Uday Pal .

IN THE MATTER OF :- TheGeneral Secretary, Badarpur Power Engineers & Workers Union , S.O. 305-BIW Colony, BPTS , Badarpur, NewDelhi -110044

The reference is replied thus:-

VERSUS

The General Manager,

Badarpur Thermal Power Station , Badarpur, New Delhi - 110044.

MISC . APPLICATION NO . 2/1997 CONNECTED WITH ID NO. 54 OF 1993

Application for permiossion under sub - section 3 of Section 33 of the ID Act, 1947 ( 14/1997)

The action of the Executive Engineer , Civil ConstructionWing, All india Radio, Division-3 , New Delhi in not regularizing the services of Shri Radhey Shyam, Beldar w.e.f. I -07-1989 and not paying him equal pay for equal work is neither fair nor legal nor justified . The workman applicant should be regularized w.e.f. 1-07-1989 and he is entitled to get all the benefits accoruing as a result of his regularization. The management is directed to regularise the workman applicant from 1-07-1989 and pay him all the arrears within two months from publication of theaward.

Award is given accordingly.

Dated 14-11-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

The respondents have filed application for permission totake action against the applicant . ID. No. 54/ 93 has already been decided and the award was published in 2004. This application for permission has become infructuous . The application for permission or approval for awarding punishment is entertainable till the pendency of the reference . The reference has already been adjudicated upon in 2004 and the award has been accordingly sent and publishedby the Ministry of Labour , Government of India. This application deserves to be rejecterd being infructuous .

ORDER

The application is rejected .

Dated: 12-12-2005

का. आ. 164.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बदरपुर थर्मल पावर स्टेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या Misc. Appln.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

393

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

Theworkman has filed claim statement. The claim statement it has been stated that the workman was engaged/appointed by the Management as a clerk on 24-4-1998 on daily wages basis on payment of Rs . 134 perday.

का. आ. 165.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. बाल भवन सोसाइटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं ० II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 111/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-42012/ 171/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

That initially the applicant worked as a clerk with the management for 67 days from 24-4-1998 to 30-6-1998 . Subsequently the applicant was again engaged/ appointed by the management for 89 days from 7-7-1998 to 13-10-1998 , thereafter the applicant was again engaged by themanagement for 85 days from 16-10-1998 to 9-1-1999.

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

S.O. 165. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 111 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 11 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Bal Bhawan Society of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005

It is submitted that after a gap of four days the management again re -engaged the applicant for 31 days from 14-1-1999 to 13-2-1999. Thereafter the management againre-engaged the applicant for 58days from 14-2-1999. Thereafter the management re -engaged the applicant for 58days from 14-2-1999 to 12-4-1999. After giving a one day gap break , the management further engaged the applicant from 14-4-1999 to 29-4-1999 . Again after a break of one day, the management again re -engaged the applicant 1-5-1999 to 30-6-1999 for 61 days and finally the applicant was re- engaged from 14-7-1999 to 10-10-1999 for 89 days . As such the applicant has worked for 495 days with the management from 24-4-1999 till 10-10-1999.

[No. L -42012/ 171 /2000- IR(DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

That as such the applicant was engaged or given one day or two days break and then re -engaged by the managementto the post ofclerk as per its own convenience discretion and capriciousness .

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II , NEW DELHI Presiding Officer, R. N. RAI I.D. No. 111/2000

IN THE MATTER OF :-

That the applicant has performed the duties ofa clerk with the management totalling to 495 days from 24-4-1998 to 10-10-1999 and has performed the duties ofclerk during this period and as such the applicant is a workman within the meaning of Section 2( s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Shri Vipin Joshi , S/ o Shri Prem Pal Joshi , 191/A-4. Railway Colony. Basant Lane , Pahar Ganj , New Delhi - 110055 .

Versus

That as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board Versus A. Rajjappa, 1978 , LIC 467 , 512 (SC), the sovereign functions strictly understood qualify for exception from the definition of ' Industry ' and not welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by the Government or a statutory bodies and as such the management namely Bal Bhawan New Delhi is very much covered by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

The Management, M/s . Bal Bhawan Society India, Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110049 ,

AWARD

That the management in the most arbitrary and capricious manner gave one day or two days break to the continuous services of the applicant or two days break to the continuous services of the applicant and somoto re- engaged the applicant .

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 42012/ 171 / 2000 /1R ( DU ) Central Government Dt . 28-09-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as under :-

As such, the management acted in a most arbitrary and capricious manner flouting all rules and regulations, direction of the Hon'ble High Court , Hon'ble Supreme Court.

"Whether the action of the management of Bal Bhawan Society of India in terminating the services of Shri Vipin Joshi S/o Sh. Premlal Joshi w.e.f 11-10-99 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled and from which date ?"

The lastly the applicant was re-engaged by the management from 14-7-1999 to 10-10-1999 and after 10-10-1999 the management arbitrarily, capriciously and [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

394

Statesare affiliated to National Bal Bhawan . The objectives ofNational Bal Bhawan are:-

without any reasons , whatsoever has refused to abstain the employment and re-engagement has refused to abstain the employment and re-engagement of the applicant .

(a) To provide opportunities to children for Education and Creativity.

(b) To Provide the Children with experiences and activities not otherwise available to them.

(c) To offer certain educational services to the local schools in order to enrich their curricular and extra curricular activities .

Thatit is pertinent to submit that from 24-4-1998 to 10-10-1999 when the applicant was engaged by the management , the applicant has discharged the services to the entire satisfaction of the management and during this entire period not a single memo was issued to neither the applicant nor the performance of applicant was ever held to be unsatisfactorily.

(d) To provide leadership and guidance to teaching towards fostering a creative approach in teaching ofart and science .

(e) To provide training facilities for recreational workers , and Children's Museum personnel .

(f) To offer the Nation a prototype comprehensive Children's Institution , i.e. to establish an ideal BalBhawan.

(g) To develop the personality and talents ofchildren through recreations and Physical activities.

That no notice has been served to the applicant nor any compensation as envisaged under the Industrial Disputes Act has been paid to the applicant dispute Act has been paid to the applicant before removing the applicant from his services nor any enquiry has been conducted or the applicant has been afforded any opportunity of being heard and as such there have been a gross violation the principle of natural justice nor there is any legal reason or justification as to why the applicant has been deprived of his services .

(h) Topromote social and cultural contracts amongst the children of all classes and communities .

(i) To inculcate such values as would help them to develop modern India personality with a scientifictemper.

(j ) To promote the above - mentioned activities as a movement .

That it is pertinent to submit that there are a number of other persons who are similarly circumstance who are similarly circumstances who have also worked along with the applicant and who are also given arbitrary break and subsequently they have been re -engaged but in the case of the applicant the management has acted in a most arbitrary manner flouting all rules and regulations , directions/orders of the High Court and Supreme Court and refused to re -engage the applicant to the said post .

That despite to the fact that there are vaoca existing and a number of similarly circumstance workman has been in a most taken by the management , the management is acting in a most arbitrary manner and has refused to re- engage the applicant to the said post .

To fulfil above objectives , the National Bal Bhawan provides lots of innovative and creative activities to children and institution working for children , throughout the year, children enroll themselves and take part in a number of creative activities like Drama and Music. Art and Craft , Science and Environmental Activities , home Management Activities , Physical Education and Museum Activities . Thousands of children are enrolled in National BalBhawan Kendras to take part in these activities . Apart from these a number of caps , treks workshops , seminars etc.are arranged for children throughout the year .

That the applicant/workman has made several written representations to the management requesting to take the applicant on duty and reinstatement the applicant but the management acting arbitrarily has refused to do so .

That as per various Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, since the applicant has performed the duties for more than 240 days , from 1998 till October, 1999 the applicant is entitled to absorption regularization by the management but the management is refusing to reinstate the applicant to the said post .

Tomanage the affairs of National Bal Bhavan, during the summer session approx, 250 Adhoc Instructors. Adhoc Clerks, Part Time Instructors , Boy Leaders/Girl Leaders and Volunteers are engaged from April to July, every year. In addition to the summer activities , to cope up with in created work load of specific nature and to help in conducting special workshops , National /International Campus and Conferences , some Adhoc Instructors and Clerks are also engaged for specific jobs for a limited period.

OnMerits

That as such the removal of the applicant from the services since 11-10-1999 is absolutely illegal , unauthorized uncalled for, justified and unwarranted.

(1) Para one needs no reply.

(2) Sh. Vipin Joshi was initially engaged an Ad hoc Summer Clerk w.e.f. 24-4-98 up to 30-6-98 on daily wage basis @ Rs . 118/- per day and was paid 51 daysdailywages for this period @ Rs . 118/- per day.

National Bal Bhawan erstwhile known as Bal Bhawan Society India, located at Kolkata Road, a Creative Resource Centre for Children between the age group of 5 to 16 years . It was founded by Late Pt . Jawahar Lal Nehru in 1956. In addition to main Bal Bhawan at Kotla Road, 52 Bal Kendras are there in Delhi also 70 State Bal Bhawans in various 395 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927-

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ] .

(3) In National Bal Bhawans's New Museum Building , various exhibitions were being installed as Sh. Vipin Joshi was again engaged on daily wages @ Rs . 118 per day for 89 days w.e.f. 7-7-98 to 03-10-98 for specific purpose. OfficeOrder No. 215 dated 14-15-7-98 enclosed.

applicant on 27-09-2005. The cross of the management witness was closed as none was present from the side of the workman to cross examine the management witness. On 17-11-2005 the workman was not present . Argument was heard from the side of the management/respondent. The case is being decided on the basis ofentire merits and documents filed on the record. The case of the workman applicant is that he was engaged by the respondents from time to time and he worked during the whole year. The respondents are Industry as has been held in 1978 LIC 467. He has completed 240 days work even then he was not regularized . He discharged his services to the entire satisfaction of the management . The applicant was not paid any compensation as envisaged under the ID Act before his removal . The number of other employees similarly circumstanced have been re -engaged but the services of theworkman was terminated arbitrarily and illegally.

As a number of galleries/exhibitions were being fabricated/installed in the Museum, Sh. Vipin Joshi was again engaged for 89 days w.e.f. 13-10-98 to 6-1-99 @ Rs. 118 for 89 days after the break of 10 days from the earlier engagement. In pursuance of an audit objection assets register was to be reconciled with stock in hand and Sh. Vipir Joshi was engaged after giving 8 days break w.e.f. 14-1-99 to 13-2-99 for one month on daily wages @ Rs . 118 per day vide O. O. No. 24 dated 14-1-99 and the period was extended on the same job from 15-4-99 to 29,4-99 on daily wages @ Rs. 118 per day Officer Order No. 119 dated 13-15-4-99 is enclosed. During the summer session, for engaging Summer Instructors and Summer Clerks an advertisement is issued in the News paper and selection is made through a Committee Sh . Vipin Joshi had given a fresh application for the job of Summer clerk and was engaged on daily wages @ Rs . 134 per day in Accounts Branch w.c.f. 1-5-99 to 30-6-99 along with other Summer Staffvide Officer Order No. 171 dated 7/ 13-5-99 .

As the work in connection with the stock verification could notbe completed due to start of Summer Session. Sh . Vipin Joshi after giving 15 days for the period of 14-7-99 to 10-10-99 vide Officer Order No. 256 dated 17-7- 99. On completion of the specific jobs on 10-10-99 the services of Sh . Vipin Joshi stood expired as mentioned in Office Order No. 256 dated 17-7-99 ,

Itwas submitted from the side of the management thatNational Bal Bhawan is not an Industry. It is a project work and the workman applicant has not performed 240 dayswork cither in 1998 or in 1999. The National Bal Bhawan provides lost of innovative and creative convity ofchildren and institutions to manage affairs during summer season. Adhoc Instructors , adhoc clerks , part time instructor are engaged to cope with the specific load of work so the appointnient is on adhoc basis and the workman was appointed for a temporary period . He has worked for 177 days in 1998 in different assignments and 183 days in 1999. He has never worked for 240 days in any of the years either in 1998 or in 1999. Since he has not completed 240 days work, he is not entitled for regularization . The workman applicant has not completed 240 days work in any of the ycars and he has been appointed on the basis of need . National Bal Bhawan is a project . It is not an Industry. During the summer season innovative and creative work for the childrens are organized and adhoc appointments are made to meet the exigencics of the work . The workman applicant has himself admitted that he was appointed as summer clerk in the Bal Bhawan . The workman applicant has not boen able to establish his case ; therefore , he is not entitledto get any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus:---

It is submitted that no legal claim is made outby Sh . Vipin Joshi as his services were hired on daily wages basis for specific different jobs . Further No Claim for extension /regularization thus arises since Sh. Vipin Joshi was engaged on different specific jobs for specific period on daily wages basis. Sh . Vipin Joshi has worked for 177 days in 1998 in different assignments and 183 days during 1999 and his claim that he was worked for 240 days in ycar is not tenable . A chart for the year 1998 and 1999 showing his period of engagement days of attendance and the job he has worked expired reveal the facts as stated above .

The action of the management ofBal Bhawan Society of India in terminating the services of Shri Vipin Joshi S/o . Shri Premlal Joshi w.c.f. 11-10-1999 isjust and legal. The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for . Award is given accordingly.

Date: 07-12-2005

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

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर , 2005

Heardargument.

का. आ. 166.- 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 The workman applicant has not been turning up from 17th August, 2005. The management witness was present all along but he was not cross examined by the workman

2 Gt/06-16 396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3( ii )]

The Claimant was doing her duties honestly, sincerely and to the utmost satisfaction of her superior officer/officers .

में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं एल-40012/ 56/2002- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

Thattill October 1996 , the claimant was issued the gate passes in her own name but thereafter to the utter surprise of the claimant the department started issuing the gate passes with the different names i.e. gate passes were issued in the name of Pushpa Devi and Chandra Devi . The claimant took objecttion to the same but the official of the department of Telecom Operation assured her that next time the gate passes shall be issued in her name and there is nothing to be worried about . But, again the passes were issued in different name.

S.O. 166. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/2002) 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 ofDeptt. of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

Thattill September, 1996 whenever the claimant was paid the salary her signature was taken on the register maintained by the department but thereafter till the date of her illegal termination from the services no signature were takenon the register though she was being paid the salary.

[No. L-40012/56/2002 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

That it is also important to mention that when the salary of officials of old Coaxial who were on casual / temporary basis was, increased all of them were paid the arrears of increased salary but the claimant was not paid the increased amount though she was on the same footing.

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM LABOUR COURT- H, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER, R. N. RAI

I.D. No. 72/2002

That the claimant approached the higher officials of the department and told them the injustice meted out to her but they all showed their inability to help her in anyways .

IN THE MATTER OF :-

Smt.Maya Devi , S-372/ School Block, Shakarpur, NewDelhi - 110092.

Versus

TheDivisional Engineer,

That to the utter surprise and shock of the claimant she was illegally terminated from the services of the department w.e.f. 15-07-2000 without any notice or communication which is illegal , bad in law and against the norms ofpolices formulated by the Government from time to time for the welfare of the labour class .

MW- 1 , O/o the Dy. General Manager (NTR)

Kidwai Bhawan, NewDelhi .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L -40012/56/ 2002- IR ( DU ) Central Government Dt . 19-09-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication .

That the claimant approached the concerned higher officials of the department and also apprised them the department and also apprised them the fat that the Junior casual/ temporary sweeper who were taken on the services ofthe department are still working and they have not been terminated. But, they refused to help me and taken me back on the services of the department.

The point runs as under:-

That no show Cause Notice or termination letter as such was given to the claimant . She was not allowed to enter the office premised without there being any reason whatsoever.

"Whether the action of the Management of DOT in terminating the services of Smt. Maya Devi , Sweeper w.e.f. 31-01-2000 isjust, fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

The workman applicant has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it has been stated that the claimant had joined the services of the Management , Northern i.e. Department Telecom Operation, Northern Telecom Region, Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi on Ist March, 1987 as casual/ temporary sweeper, for which purposes , gate passes were issued to her by Management/Department from time to time.(Photocopies of the gate passes are attached herewith) .

That the claimant was posted at N.T.R. Old Coaxial Official , Regional Manager, Kidwai Bhawan , New Delhi .

That the issue ofthe illegal termination of the claimant from the service of the department was raised by some of the colleagues of the claimant in a meeting of Bahujan Employees Telecom Association which was held on 02-08-2000 , wherein all the members had raised the issue and supported the case of the claimant . A copy of Minutes ofMeeting is attached herewith . It was also agreed to get verified from records whether she was being paid the salary and to the utter surprise and shock of the claimant Mr. A.K. Kalia, Deputy General Manager, Administration vide letter dated 24-10-2000 written to Shri Ram Parkash 397 भारत का राम्नपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

Saroj stated that there is no evidence to establish that the claimant was engaged in casual/part time labour/ sweeper inNTR at any point oftime.

That the claimant at last approached the Regional Labour Commissioner , Central Government , for reconciliation but due to adamant and callous attitude and approach on the part of the officials of the department reconciliation talks/ proceedings ended in failures and therefore the matter has been referred to this Hon'ble Court foradjudication.

Thatfrom the date of illegal termination ofthe claimant she has not been doing any job anywhere and sitting at home unemployed.

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that the workman made complaints several times for regularization and the management conducted an inquiry and the Inquiry Officer reported that the workman has not worked for any day under the respondents . The respondents have issued gate passes to the workman applicant . The officials records are with the management and the report that the workman has not worked for any day isof no substance as the workman was not contacted and an inquiry was held regarding the position of employment ofthe workman applicant exparte .

That to the knowledge of claimant the casual/ temporary sweepers who were taken in the services along withher and after her have been regularized and they have been given all the benefits.

It was further submitted that the respondents/ management have issued gate passes . These passes prove the fact that the workman has worked right from 1993 up to 1997. So on the basis ofGate Passes an inevitable inference can be drawn that she was engage with the management .

That from the above it is apparent that the services ofthe claimant was terminated illegally and without even issuing any show cause notice or chargesheet.

The management has filed written statement it has been stated that the present dispute is not an Industrial Dispute on the ground that the applicant was never a workman with the respondent.

That the present statement of claim is neither maintainable in law as well as on facts on the ground that the same is not supported by any documentary evidence.

That claimant has never joined the services of the respondent as casual/temporary sweeper. Gate passes were issued by different officers just for entrance . Moreover gate passes does not show that she was engaged casually.

The claimant was never posted at NTR old coaxial official Regional Manager, Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi. The question of doing her duties honestly, sincerely does not arise.

Itwas submitted from the side ofthe management that exhibit CW - 1/A is a gate pass dated 17-03-1993. It has beenissuedby the Divisional Engineer (Tele ) . It has not been issued by the respondents so on the basis of this gate pass the workman cannot be treated as an employee ofthemanagement. Gate pass dated 31-01-1994 has been issued by Asstt . Engineer Coaxial 2003 , Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi . This pass has also not been issued by the Dy. GM, NTR, Kidwai Bhawan. It has been issued by Asstt. Engineer, Coaxial so this gate pass is not related with the respondents .Gate pass dated 05-11-1997 to 29-11-1997 has been issued in the name of Pusinga Devi and Pushpa has put her signature. Smt . Maya Devi has notput her signature so this pass is not related to the workman applicant. My attention was drawn to the other passes but they have been issued by Asstt. Engineer Coaxial Asstt. Engineer, Coaxial is not the department ofthe respondent. The other passes have also been issued by the Asstt. Engineer, Coaxial in the name of Chandra so the case of the applicant is that she was engaged by the management is not proved. She has not filed the gate passes of the respondents .

As per the office record Smt. Maya Devi was never engaged in Northern Telecom Region, Kidwai Bhawan, New Delhi as a temporary casual sweepers so the question of giving her salary and maintaining the register does not arise.

The claimant has never worked with the respondent . There was no occasion to approach the higher officials of thedepartment.

Since the claimant has never worked with respondent as a casual /temporary sweeper the question of illegal termination, not paying her salary or increased arrears as a casual / temporary sweeper the question of illegal termination, not paying her salary or increased arrears not issuing show-cause notice before termination does not arise.

It was further submitted that OM was issued on 07-11-1989 for regularization ofthe temporary employees and another OM dated 25-08-2000 was also issued for regularization. OM dated 29-09-2000 is also for regularization ofthe workmen . The list has been prepared ofthe workman engaged from 1987 to 1995 and they have been given regular status. If the workman was engaged from 1993 her name would automatically have comeunder the list ofthe temporary employees but her name does not figure anywhere. It proves abundantly that the workman applicant was not employed at any point of time from 1991 to1995.

Itwas further submitted that she has procured some gatepasses from Asstt . Engineer , Coaxial but no pass has been issued to the workman applicant by the NTR or DOT.

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

398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii )]

The Sub-Divisonal Officer,

Phones ,

Office ofthe General Manager Doorsanchar,

Industrial Area, Jhalawar Road ,

Kota(Rajasthan)

.... Non -applicant

PRESENT:

Presiding Officer :

Sh. R.C. Sharma.

Forthe applicant:

Sh. Arun Sharma.

Gate passes annexed with the record have not been issued by the respondents . The workman has not filed nay other proofof her service except gate passes and the gate passes do not relate to the department of the respondents . The workman has not proved that she has worked cootinuously for 240 days in any of the years 1993 to 1997. Not even a scrap of paper has been filed as the record except the gate passes . Gate passes can be issued for any purpose. Employment cannot be inferred from the gate passes . The applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for .

None

Forthe non - applicant:

The reference is replied thus :-

Date ofAward:

11-11-2005.

AWARD

The action of the management ofDOT in terminating the services of Smt . Maya Devi , Sweeper w.e.f. 31-01-2000 isjust, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly.

Date:08-12-2005.

R.N. RAI, PresidingOfficer.

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause D of sub - sections I and 2 (A) to Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short, ' the Act' ) has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which runs as under:-

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether the action of the Management of SDO,

Phones - II, Kota in not reinstating Shri Ramlaxman S/o Shri Kanwar Lal w.e.f. January, 1999 is legal and justified? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?" का. आ. 167.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सब डिवीजनल ऑफिसर (फोन्स्) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-80/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं पुल-40012/8/2005- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

2. On 14-10-2005 , none appeared on behalf of the non - applicant and the last opportunity for filing the statement of claim was awarded to the workman . The case was then posted on 9-11-2005 . On this date the workman could notbe able to submit his claim statement . Therefore , the opportunity to file the claim was closed. On this date , too, none appeared on behalf of the non - applicant.

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

3. 1have heard the ld . representative for the workman and perused the record.

S.O. 167. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 80/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Sub - Divisional Officer (Phones) and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005

4. To substantiate his claim , the workman has not even filed his claim statement and it was the bounden duty of the workman to submit his claim statement and to establish his claim by producing the evidence , which he has failedto discharge. There is no material on the record to adjudicate on the reference. The claim, therefore , is liable tobe rejected.

[No. L-40012/8/2005 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

5. In the result, the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and it is held that the action ofthe SDO, Phones in not reinstating the workman w.e.f. January, 1999 is legal and justified. The claim of the workman isdismissed. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

Case No. CGIT-80/2005

Reference No. L- 40012/ 8/2005 IR(DU)

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

S/o Sh. Kanwar Lal ,

R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

General Secretary, Hind Mazdoor Sabha ,

Bengali Colony, Chawani,

Kota ( Rajasthan ) :

.....Applicant

Versus

का.आ. 168.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन केन्द्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 399

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

अधिकरण सं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

recorded on 25-10-05 to this effect. In view ofthe same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . CentralGovt. be informed.

[सं. एल-42012/232/90- आई आर (डी.यू.) ]

Chandigarh

11-11-2005.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

का. आ. 169.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 139/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/582/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] S.O. 168-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी [No. L-42012/232/90- IR (DU)]

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT-L, CHANDIGARH,

Case No. I.D. 49/97

Smt . Krishna

S.O. 169. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 139/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour CourtNo. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement of Deptt . ofTelecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

W/o Sh . Harnam Singh

[No. L -40012/582/2000- IR (DU) ] R/o Vill . Piran Wali ,

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Applicant

P. O. Nyoli Kalan, Distt. Hissar (Haryana)-125001 .

Versus

The Commandant,

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT-1, Equine Breeding Stud ,

CHANDIGARH

Hissar- 125001 .

Respondent

Case No. I.D. 139/2001

APPEARANCES :

Shri Ram Chander,

For the workman:

Shri Darshan Singh .

Ms.Deepali Puri .

For the management:

C/o Shri R. K. Sharma, H. N. 372, Sector-20A,

AWARD

Applicant

Chandigarh.

Versus

Passed on 11-11-2005

( 1) The ChiefGeneral Manager,

Telecom, Punjab Circle ,

Sector 34, Chandigarh - 160001

Central Government vide notification No. L -42012/ 232/90- IR(D.U. ) dated 30-12-1996 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Sector- 18,

Respondent

Chandigarh.

APPEARANCES :

For the workman:

Shri O. P. Singh.

Shri G. C. Babbar.

Forthe management:

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

CentralGovernment vide notification No. L - 40012/ "Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar, constitute to be that of an industry under the I.D. Act , and if so whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar in terminating the services of Smt . Krishna w/o Sh . Harma Singh daily rated worker isjust , fair and legal and whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar in denying equal wages for equal work to the workman is just and fair ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to?" 582/2000 - IR (D.U. ) dated 26-3-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager , Telecom, Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative ofthe workman Shri Darshan Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

400

General Manager , Telecom , Chandigarh district in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Sukhbir Singh, a workman engaged through contractor M/s . R. K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shri O. P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 11-11-05 to this effect . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt.be informed.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer Chandigarh 11-11-2005.

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 170.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन केन्द्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -42012 / 224/90- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi . the 15th December , 2005 S.O. 170. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/97) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No.1 . Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005

[No. L-42012/224/90 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 17/97

Shri Karnail Singh

S/o Sh . Tara Singh , C/ o The President , Gali No. 5, H. No. 123 , Distt. Agriculture Workers Union , Jawahar Nagar, Hissar

Applicant (Haryana) -125001 .

Versus

The Commandant ,

Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar- 125001

Respondent

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

For the workman:

Shri Darshan Singh.

Ms.Deepali Puri .

Forthe management:

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L- 42012/ 224/90- IR (D.U. ) dated 30-12-1996 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding Stud. Hissar, constitute to be that of an industry under the 1.D. Act , and if so whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar in ternunating the services of Sh . Karnail Singh S/o Sh . Zora Singh daily rated worker is just , fair and legal and whether the action of the management ofEquine Breeding Stud, Hissar in denying equal wages for equal work to the workman is just and fair ? If not ,to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?" 2.The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative ofthe workman Shri Darshan Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 25-10-05 to this effect. In view ofthe same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed .

Chandigarh 11-11-2005.

RAJESH KUMAR , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 171.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन केन्द्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -42012/249/90- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005 S.O. 171. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L-42012/249/90-1R (DU ) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT-I , CHANDIGARH 401

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/ पौप 24 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Case No. I.D. 23/97

Shri Bachan Singh

S/o Sh . Kartar Singh ,

C/o The President ,

Distt .Agriculture Workers Union,

Gali No. 5 , H. No. 123 ,

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/97) 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 Equine Breeding Stud and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on15-12-2005.

Jawahar Nagar, Hissar

[No. L-42012/221 /90 - IR (DU)]

.....Applicant

(Haryana)-125001

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer Versus

ANNEXURE

The Commandant,

Equine Breeding Stud,

Hissar- 125001

Respondent

APPEARANCES

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT-I, CHANDIGARH,

For the workman:

Shri Darshan Singh

Case No. I.D. 45/97

Ms.Deepali Puri .

For the management:

Shri Gurdeep Singh

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

S/o Sh . Inder Singh, C/oThe President,

Distt. Agriculture Workers Union, Gali No. 5, H. No. 123 ,

Jawahar Nagar, Hissar

Central Government vide notification No. L-42012 / 249/90- IR (DU) ated 30-12-1996 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Applicant

(Haryana)-125001.

Versus

The Commandant,

EquineBreeding Stud ,

Hissar- 125001.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman:

Shri Darshan Singh

Ms. Deepali Puri .

Forthe management:

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

Central Government vide notification No. L -42012/ 221/90- IR (DU) dated 30-12-1996 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative ofthe workman Shri Darshan Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 25-10-05 to this effect. In view ofthe same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . CentralGovt . be informed..

Chandigarh. 11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether the activities of the Equine Breeding Stud , Hissar, constitute to be that of an industry under the ID Act, and if so whether the action of the management of Equine Breeding Stud, Hissar in terminating the services of Sh . Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Inder Singh daily rated worker is just , fair and legal and whether the action of the management of EquineBreeding Stud, Hissar in denying equal wages for equal work to the workman is just and fair ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?" का. आ. 172.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार अश्व प्रजनन केन्द्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 221/90- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative ofthe workman Shri Darshan Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 25-10-05 to this effect. In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat. Central Govt . be informed .

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

Chandigarh. 11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer S.O. 172. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central 402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 173.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंधमें निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/66/2000- आई आर ( डी यू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

2. Case repeatedly called. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite service through Regd . A.D. The counsel for the management submitted that the workman is not appearing in the court and it appears that he is not interested to pursue with the present reference and seems better employed somewhere . He submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case pending further as AR of the workman also expired . In view of the above, since the workman is not appearing despite several notices even through regd. post, it appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record. Chandigarh.

25-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005 S.O. 173. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 51 / 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

[No. L- 14012/66/2000 -IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का. आ. 174.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 161/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/11/99- आई आर ( डीयू ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 15th December, 2005 BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH.

Case No. I. D. 51/2001

Shri Jagga Singh S/ o Sh . Sahib Singh , C/o Sh . B.R. Prabhakar, Chairman , WCMFW Union , 63 - C , Kailash Nagar, Model Twon, Ambala (Haryana) -133001.

Applicant

Versus

S.O. 174. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 161 / 99 ) 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 Military Farm and their workman . which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

The Officer- in- Charge , Military Farm , Ambala Cantt . (Haryana) 133001 .

No. L- 14012/ 11 /99 - IR (DU) ]

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

[ KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

For the Workman : None

For the Management Sh . K.K. Thakur

AWARD

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH

Passed on 25-11-2005

CASE NO . L. D. 161/99

Central Govt . vide notification No. L - 14012/66/ 2000/IR(DU) dated 17-11-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Shri Ram Nath S/ o Sh . Ram Lotawan C / o Sh . B.R. Prabhakar , 63 - C , Kailash Nagar, Model Twon , Ambala (Haryana)-133001.

Applicant

Versus

1. The Director, Military Farms, Western Command, Head Quarters (Farm Br. ) Chandimandir - 134107

"Whether the action of the management of Military Farn. , Ambala Cantt in terminating the services of Sh . Jagga Singh s/o Sh . Sahib Singh w.e.f. May, 1998 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौय 24, 1927

403 2 The Officer - in-charge , Military Farm , Ambala Cantt. (Haryana) 133001.

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofMilitary Farm and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

For the Workman : None

[No. L- 14012/76/2000- IR (DU)] For the Management Sh. K.K. Thakur

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

AWARD Passed on 25-11-2005

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 14012/ 11 / 1999/IR/(D.U. ) dated 21-7-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH.

Case No. I.D. 93/2001

Shri Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh . Lalta Singh C/o Sh . B.R. Prabhakar , Chairman, WCMFW Union , 63 -C, Kailash Nagar, Model Town, Ambala (Haryana)-133001 .

Applicant "Whether the action of the Director Military Farm . Western Command , Head Quarters , Chandimandir and Officer - in -charge, Military Farm, Ambala Cantt , in terminating the services of Sh . Ram Nath S/ o Sh. Ram Lotawan is legal and justified? If not ,to what relief the workman is entitled?"

Versus

The Officer- in-charge , Military Farm , Bir Dhantauri Distt . Kurukshetra (Haryana )

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : None

For the Management : Sh. K.K. Thakur

AWARD

Passed on 25-11-2005

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 14012/76/ 2000/IR( D.U. ) dated 26-3-2001 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication :

2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite service through Regd. A.D. The counsel for the management, submitted that the workman is not appearing in the court and it appears that he is not interested to persue with the present reference and seems better employed some where. He submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case pending further as AR of the workman also expired. In view of the above , since the workman is not appcaring despite several notices even through regd. post, it appears that workman is not interested to persue with the present reference , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

25-11-20005

"Whether the action of the management of Military Farm , Bir Dhantauri , Distt . Kurukshetra (Haryana) in terminating the services of Sh . Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh . Lalta Singh w.e.f. March , 1999 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 175. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-14012/76/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005

2. Case repeatedly called. None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite service through Regd . A.D. The counsel for the management submitted that the workman is not appcaring in the court and it appears that he is not interested to persue with the present reference and seems better employed some where. He submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case pending further as AR of the workman also expired. In view of the above, since the workman is not appearing despite several notices even through regd . post , it appears that workman is not interested to persue with the present reference , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution . Central Govt. be informed. Filebe consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

25-11-2005

S.O. 175.- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 93/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer 2G1 /06-17 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

404

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 176. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 413/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/56/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite service through Regd. A.D. The counsel for the management submitted that the workman is not appearing in the court and it appears that he is not interested to persue with the present reference and seems better employed some where . He submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case pending further as AR of the workman also expired. In view of the above , since the workman is not appearing despite several notice even through regd . post, it appears that workman is not interested to persue with the present reference , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

25-11-2005

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005 S.O. 176. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 413/ 2000) 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 Military Farm and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

[No. L - 14012/56/2000- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

का. आ. 177.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ न्यायालय नं. 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 239/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । ANNEXURE

[सं. एल-14012/56/99-आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2005 BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT -1, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. L. D. 413/2000

Shri Raj Kumar S/o Sh . B.R. Prabhakar, Chairman , WCMFW Union , 63 - C, Kailash Nagar, Model Twon, Ambala (Haryana)-133001 .

Applicant

Versus

S.O. 177. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 239/ 99) 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 Military Farm and their workman . which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

The Office - in - charge , Military Farm , Ambala Cantt . (Haryana) 13300.1.

[No. L- 14012/56/99 - IR (DU) ]

Respondent

KULDIPRAI VERMA, Desk Officer APPEARANCES :

None

For the Workman

ANNEXURE

For the Management Sh . K.K. Thakur

AWARD

Passed on 25-11-2005

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 239/99

Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 14012/56/ 99/IR/(DU ) dated 30-10-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Shri Lal Bhadur , C/o Sh . B.R. Prabhakar, Chairman , WCMFW Union 63 - C , Kailash Nagar , Model Town . Ambala (Haryana)-133001 .

Applicant

Versus

"Whether the action of the management of Military Farm , Ambala Cantt in terminating the services of Sh . Raj Kumar s/o Sh . Ram Singh w.e.f 21-11-98 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

The Officer - in-Charge, Military Farm , Ambala Cantt (Haryana) 133001 .

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : None

For the Management : Sh . K.K. Thakur

AWARD

Passed on 25-11-2005

Central Govt . vide notification No. L - 14012/56/ 99/IR(D.U . ) dated 29-10-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of Officer- in -charge Military Farm, at Ambala Cantt. in terminating the services of.Sh. Lal Bahadur s/o Sh. Sita Ram w.e.f. 15-9-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

405 which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L- 14012/22/99-IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. L. D. 173/99

Sh . Gurcharan Singh C/o Sh. B.R. Prabhakar, Chairman, WCMF Union ,63 -C . Kailash Nagar, Model Town. Ambala (Haryana) -133001 .

Applicant

Versus

1.The Director. Military Farnis, Western Command, Head Quarters ( Farm Br. ) Chandimandir- 134010.

2. The Officer-in-Charge . Military Farm, Fcrozepúr,

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite service through Regd . A.D. The counsel for the management submitted that the workman is not appearing in the court and it appears that he is not interested to pursue with the present reference and seems better employed somewhere . He submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case pending further as AR of the workman also expired. In view of the above, since the workman is not appearing despite several notices even through regd. post, it appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt .be informed. Filebe consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

25-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer . नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005 का. आ. 178.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 173/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-14012/22/99- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

S.O. 178. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 173/ 99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1 . Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman,

: None

For the Management Sh . K.K. Thakur

AWARD

Passed on 25-11-2005

Central Govt. vide notification No. L- 14012/ 22/ 99/1R(DU) dated 3-8-1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication

"Whether the action of the The Officer - in -charge . Military Farm Ferozepur and Director Military Farms , Western Command, Head Quarters Officer- in-charge Chandimandir in terminating the services of Sh. Gurcharan Singh is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

2. Case repeatedly called . None has put up appearance on behalf of the workman despite service through Regd. A.D. The counsel for the management submitted that the workman is not appearing in the court and it appears that he is not interested to pursue with the present reference and seems better employed somewhere . He submitted that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this case pending further as authorised representative of the workman also cxpired. In view of the above , since the workman is not appearing despite several notices even through Regd . post, it appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt. for want of prosecution. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

25-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

406

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement record on 11-11-05 to this effect . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed. Chandigarh.

11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005 का. आ. 179.- 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- I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 135/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/32/2002- आई आर (डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

का. आ. 180.- 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 न. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/220/2002- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 S.O. 179. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 135/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L-40012/32/2002- IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

S.O. 180.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 67/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom.and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH.

[No. L-40012/220/2002- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Case No. I. D. 135/2002

Shri Bharat Bhandari S/o Sh. Leeladhar Bhandari , C/o Sh. Tika Ram , H. No. 391 , Industrial Area, Phase II , Ram darbar, Chandigarh.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH.

Applicant

Case No. I. D. 67/2003

VERSUS

Miss Nisha Ved, D/o Sh . Duli Chand Ved, H. No. 86, Village Kajheri (UT) Chandigarh .

The Principal General Manager , Telecom Deptt . , Sector- 18, Chandigarh .

Applicant

Respondent

VERSUS

APPEARANCES :

: Shri O.P. Singh

The Principal General Manager, Telecom, Telecome Deptt .. Sector- 18, Chandigarh - 160001 .

ShriG. C. Babbar

For the Workman For the Management

Respondent AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri O. P. Singh

Sh.G. C. Babbar .

For the Management

AWARD

Central Govt . vide notification No. L-40012/32/ 2002/IR(D.U . ) dated 24-7-2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Passed on 11-11-2005

Central Govt. vide Notification No. L- 40012/220/ 2002/IR(D.U. ) dated 21-3-2003 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Department of Telecom, Chandigarh in terminating the services of Sh . Bharat Bhandari watchman w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

"Whether the action of management of Department of Telecom. , Chandigarh in terminating 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shir O.P. Singh [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

407

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005 the services of Miss Nisha Ved Ex - Clerk w.e.f. 27-2-1999 without complying with the provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act , 1947 is just and legal ? If not, so what relief the workman is entitled? "

Central Govt. vide Notification No. L -40012/347/ 2000/IR(D.U. ) dated 28-9-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat. The authorised representative of the workman Shri O.P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 10-11-05 to this effect . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed .

Chandigarh.

11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom. , Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom. , Chandigarh district in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Bhajan Singh a workman engaged through contractor Sh . R. K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shir O.P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 10-11-05 to this effect . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn inLok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed.

का. आ. 181.-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 न.- I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 405/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Chandigarh.

.11-11-2005

[.सं. एल-4012/347/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005 New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005

का. आ. 182.- 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 न. - 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 331/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । S.O. 181.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 405/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005 .

[सं. एल-40012/262/2000- आई आर ( डी.यू.) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 [No. L-40012/347 /2000- IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 405/2000

S.O. 182. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 331 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

Shri Bhajan Singh C /o Sh . R. K. Sharma , H. No. 372 , Sector 20 -A, Chandigarh - 160001 .

Applicant

VERSUS

[No. L-40012/262/2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

( 1) The Chief General Manager, Telecom. , Punjab Circle. Sector 34 , Chandigarh- 160001.

(2): The Principal General Manager, Telecom. , Sector - 18, Chandigarh - 160001.

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

Respondent

Case No. I. D. 331/2000 APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri O. P. Singh

Shri Mahesh Ram S /o Sh . Ram Dev Ram . H. No. 879 , Rajeev Colony, Sector 17 , Panchkula .

For the Management Sh . G. C. Babbar.

Applicant THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

408

VERSUS

The Principal General Manager , Telecom. , Sector- 18 , Chandigarh - 160001.

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri O. P. Singh

Sh. G. C. Babbar .

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Case No. L. D. 307/2000

Shri Surjeet Singh S/ o Sh. Mohinder Singh , H. No. 280 ,

Lahora, Chandigarh .

Applicant VERSUS

The Principal General Manager, Telecom. , Sector- 18, Chandigarh.

.......Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Shri O. P. Singh

Sh .G. C. Babbar.

For the Management

Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012/262/ 2000 /1R(D.U . ) dated 29-8-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of Management of General Manager, Telecom. , Chandigarh in termination of services of Shri Mahesh Ram S/o Sh . Ram Dev Ram is just and legal? If not ,to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shir O.P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 10-11-05 to this effect . In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed.

Chandigarh.

11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Office नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 183.- 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 न. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 307/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं . एल-40012/ 195/2000 आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 S.O. 183. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 307/ 2000 ) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Telecom, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L-40012/ 195/2000- IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-1 , CHANDIGARH.

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

Central Govt. vide Notification No. L-40012 / 195/ 2000/IR(D.U. ) dated 31-7-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of Management of General Manager, Telecom. , Chandigarh in termination of services of Shri Surjeet Singh S/o Sh . Mohinder Singh is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? " 2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shri O.P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 10-11-05 to this effect. In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed. Chandigarh.

11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 184. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का14 ) 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 न. - 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 425/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40012/373/2000- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2005 .

S.O. 184. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 425/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the cmployers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L-40012/373 /2000 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

409 ANNEXURE

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2005 BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 425/2000

Shri Jasmer Singh C/o Sh . R. K. Sharma, H. No. 372 , Sector 20 -A, Chandigarh - 160001 ...

Applicant

S.O. 185.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 165/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt. of Telecom, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

VERSUS

[No. L-40012/4/2001 - IR (DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ( 1 ) The Chief General Manager, Telecom. , Punjab Circle, Sector 34, Chandigarh- 160001.

ANNEXURE

(2) The Principal General Manager, Telecom. , Sector- 18, Chandigarh

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

For the Workman

Shri O. P. Singh

Case No. I. D. 165/2001 For the Management Sh. G. C. Babbar.

Shri Amarjit C/ o Sh. R. K. Sharma, H. No. 372, Sector 20-A. Chandigarh

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

Applicant

VERSUS

( 1 ) The Chief General Manager, Telecom. Punjab Circle. Sector 34, Chandigarh- 160001.

Central Govt. vide Notification No. L -40012/373/ 2000/IR(D.U . ) dated 31-10-2000 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

(2) The Principal General Manager , Telecom. , Deptt .. Sector- 18 , Chandigarh-160001.

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri O. P. Singh

For the Management Sh. G. C. Babbar..

AWARD

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom , Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager, Telecom, Chindigarh district in ordering disengagement/termination of services of Shri Jasmer Singh a workman.engaged through contractor Sh. Nag Pal w.e.f. 27-2-1999 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ? "

Passed on 11-11-2005

Central Govt . vide Notification No. L -40012/4/ 2001/IR( D.U. ) dated 12-4-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat . The authorised representative of the workman Shir O.P. Singh withdraw the present reference in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 11-11-05 to this effect . In view of the same, the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt . be informed.

Chandigarh.

11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether the action of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Punjab Circle , Chandigarh and the Principal General Manager Telecom, Chindigarh Distt. in ordering disengagement/ termination of services of Shri Amarjit a workman engaged through contractor Sh. R. K. Mittal w.e.f. 27-2-1999 isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled and from which date ? " का. आ. 185.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 165/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The case taken up in Lok Adalat. The authorised representative of the workman Shir O.P. Singh withdraw the present reference, in Lok Adalat vide his statement recorded on 11-11-05 to this effect. In view of the same , the present reference is returned as withdrawn in Lok Adalat . Central Govt. be informed.

Chandigarh.

[सं. एल-40012/4/2001- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

11-11-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

410

नई दिल्ली , 16 दिसम्बर, 2005

विधिवत् एवं न्यायपूर्ण है । यदि नहीं तो वे किस राहत के पात्र है"?

का.आ. 186.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बोच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 54/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-12-05 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

1 [सं. एल-11012/9/98- आई. आर. ( सी -1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th December, 2005

S.O.186 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/98 ) of the Central Govt . Indus . Tribunal /Labour Court . Mumbai - 1 now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of Air India , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-12-2005 .

[No. L- 11012/9/98- IR (C- 1 ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE I

2. The admitted facts of this case are as follows: The workman was a Cleaner with the company. The workman was given charge sheet dated 5-5-1995 for remaining absent for 243 days without leave or information between 1 " January, 1994 to December 11 , 1994. The chargewas a clause 14 (3 ) (e) to the effect that the workman remained habitally absent without leave. The workman did not reply to the charge- sheet and consequently by order dated 14-7-1995 an enquiry Committee was constituted by the company. The Enquiry committee conducted the enquiry on 22-2-1996 . The workman was present during the course of enquiry proceedings . The enquiry report was made against the workman . Thereafter. the worknian received the letter dated 5-8-96 proposing punishment of dismissal . Thereafter , the workman received order of dismissal dated 14-10-96 which became effective from 20-12-1996 . The company filed approval application dated NTB No. 95/96 . This tribunal approved the order of dismissal vide judgement dated 29-4-1997. Thereafter , the workman raised an industrial dispute on 5-5-1997 . Then on 16-10-97 conciliation proceedings were started . Thereafter, failure of Conciliation was reported by Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . The dispute thereafter was referred to this tribunal .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT

Shri Justice S.C. Pandey, Presiding Officer

REFERENCE No. CGIT-54/1998

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of AirIndia

AND

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management

: Mr. Benny Francis , Adv.

3. In his Statement ofclaim , the workman has stated that the enquiry held against him was vitiated for the following reasons . It was alleged that workman was not given proper opportunity of hearing in as much as the charge - sheet was given to him in English . He did not . understand English properly. It was alleged by the workman that the proceedings on 22-2-96 were conducted in English hastely contrary to the principles of natural justice. The workman stated that he was askedto sign pre- recorded proceedings . The workman was not given copies of the documents . The Enquiry Officer took advantage of the illiteracy of the workman to obtain confession Statement . The principles of natural justice were violated.

For the Workman

:Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Adv.

:Maharashtra

State

Mumbai , dated the 26th day of May ' 2004

AWARD PART- I

1. This is a reference made by Central Govt. under clause ( d ) of Sub -section 1 and Sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short ) for adjudicating upon the industrial dispute between P.N. Wadker ( the workman for short ) and the Air India Ltd. (the company for short ) of dispute are as follows :

4. The company denied the claim of the workman stating in the written statement that the principles of natural justice were not violated by the company. The workman made voluntary admission before the enquiry committee. It was therefore , not necessary to hold an enquiry. The enquiry committee however, examined the representative of the office with punching cards . The attendance record was also called . The workman was found tobe absent for 214 days. He did not regularize the leave. The workman did not cross examine the witness . Thus . the workman was accorded full opportunity of hearing . The principles of natural justice were not violated . The workman did not examine any witness . Nor did he submit his final statement despite the fact he was given an " क्या एअर इंडिया के प्रबन्धतंत्र द्वारा दिनांक 13-10-96 से श्री प्रकाश एन. वाडेकर, क्लीनर को सेवा से डिसमिस करना 411

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौप 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

opportunity to do so . The workman was given an oportunity to comment against the report of the enquiry committee . He was given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed punishment . His record was bad. Therefore , the order of dismissal was passed . The workman filed rejoinder . It is not necessary to repeat the pleadings . They are mere repetition of the previous pleadings.

5. This tribunal framed the following two issues at the preliminary stage:

( 1 ) Whether the Departmental Enquiry held againsi Shri . P. N. Wadekar is in violation of principles of natural justice or not ?

(2) Whether the Report and Findings of the Enquiry Committee is against the material on record and hence perverse or not ?

6. The workman examined himself by filing his affidavit . He was cross examined on behalf of the workman . The parties also filed their documents .

7. The question is if the workman was given a reasonable opportunity of hearing . The workman stated in his cross -examination that he studied upto IXth class but he did not know enough English to understand the nature of proceeding . The enquiry officer has also stated that he ware of the fact that the workman was illiterate and was unable to understand English. He agreed that he had not recorded the fact that the charge sheet was explained to the workman . The version of the Enquiry Officer in his affidavit is that workman signed the proceedings only after Shri Wankhede the Stenographer , who was present and recorded proceedings as per his dictation , explained the proceedings in Marathi and only after the workman understood the same. A note was appended to the enquiry proceedings to cross examination . The case of the workman was that he was asked to sign pre - recorded proceedings . Therefore , the crucial question is if the workman was explained in Marathi each and every time as soon as it was recorded or that he signed the proceedings after they were dictated in English by the Enquiry Officer and explained subsequently in Marathi . The Company has not examined Wankhede. The workman stated that he was not permitted to call his defence representative . The proceedings show that workman was not given option to get the proceedings recorded in Marathi . The Model Standing Orders applicable to workman are given in Schedule 1 of the rules framed as Industrial Employment ( standing orders) Rule , 1946. The clause 14 (bb ) provides that the enquiry proceedings shall be held on the language preferredby the worker. The rule is mandatory. The workman should have given an option for recording of the enquiry proceedings in English before they were recorded. The workman was not asked the preference . It would be obvious he would asked for recording the proceedings in Marathi . The enquiry officer statement supports this 2 G1/06-18

inference . Similarly, the workman was not given an option to appear through an office bearer of the , Union. The admission of the workman could not be relied upon because he was not explained the implications of his admission . This tribunal is not convinced by evidence of Mr. D' Costa that had explained all the implications of the enquiry. It appears that he was not aware of the Model Standing Orders . He had not told the workman about his right to be represented by an Office bearer of the Union. The admission of the workman could not be relied upon because he was not explained the implications of his admission . This tribunal is not convinced by evidence of Mr. D ' Costa that had explained all the implications of the enquiry. It appears that he was not aware of the Model Standing Orders . He had not told the workman about his right to be represented by an Office bearer. In absence of examination of Stenographer , it has to be inferred that workman signed the statement after it was dictated and typed. The version of the workman has to be accepted that was asked to sign a pre - recorded statement . He was not explained the nature of proceedings. The workman was not given any real opportunity to cross examine or lead evidence as the proceedings were recorded in English , a language he did not understand . The enquiry officer hurriedly conducted the enquiry without giving the workman a semblance of opportunity to defend himself. Thus , the principle of natural justice were violated. Thus the Issue No. 1 isdecided against the company and in favour of the workman .

8. Since , this tribunal has found an Issue No. 1 that the workman did not understand the nature of proceedings , the findings recorded in the enquiry proceedings cannot be sustained. The finding that workman admitted his guilt cannot be accepted . The further findings that the workman did not explain his conduct cannot be accepted. Thus Issue No.2 is decided against the company and in favour of the workman not on the ground mentioned there but as a corollary finding on Issue No.1 . Consequently, the entire enquiry proceedings are hereby set aside . The company had stated in paragraph 29 that it be given an opportunity to prove charges .Accordingly, the company is given opportunity to prove the charges framed against before this tribunal this part 1 Award is accordingly decided.

S.C. PANDEY, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE I

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1

MUMBAI

Present :

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer 412

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] REFERENCE NO. CGIT-54 OF 1998

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

4. Inview of the above , submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties were heard . The record of the file has been perused .

Air India

And

Their Workmen

Appearances :

For the Management

: Mrs. Madhavi Dass , Adv.

For the Workman

: Mrs. P.S. Shetty, Adv .

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 2nd day of December 2005

AWARD PART - II

1. This is a reference made by Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause (d ) of Sub- section (1) and Sub -section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act for short) . Vide Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi order No. L - 11012/9/98 - IR ( C- 1 ) dated 7-12-1998 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

" क्याएअर इंडिया के प्रबन्धतंत्र द्वारा दिनांक 13-10-96 से श्री प्रकाश एन. वाडेकर, क्लीनर की सेवा से डिसमिस करना विधिवत एवं न्यायपूर्ण है । यदि, नहीं तो वे किस राहत के पात्र हैं । "

5. The learned counsel for the workman relied upon the law laid down in JT 1998 ( 8) SC 315 between Neeta Kaplish Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another Respondents , after referring a number of cases cited therein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held;-" In all cases where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective , the Tribunal can call upon the Management or the employer to justify the action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence , that the termination or dismissal order was proper. If the Management does not lead any evidence by availing of this opportunity , it cannot raise any grouse at any subsequent stage that it should have been given that opportunity, as the Tribunal , in those circumstances , would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman . If however, the opportunity is availed of and the evidence is adduced by the Management, the validity of the action taken by it has to be scrutinized and adjudicated upon on the basis of such fresh evidence . The Labour court , however, found that the enquiry was not fairly and properly held. It was after recording this finding that the Labour Court called upon the Management to lead evidence on merits which it did not do . If such evidence has not been led , the Management has to suffer the consequences . "

It further held " The record pertaining to the domestic enquiry would not constitute " fresh evidence " as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective . Such record would also not constitute " material on record " as contendedby the counsel for the respondent , within the meaning of Section 11 - A as the enquiry proceedings , on being found to be bad , have to be ignored altogether. In view of the nature of objections raised by the appellant , the record of enquiry held by the Management ceased to be "material on record " within the meaning of Section 11 -A of the Act and the only course open to the Management was to justify its action by leading fresh evidence as required by the Labour Court . " 2. In this reference Part - I Award was passed by predecessor in office on 26-5-2004 where in the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Committee against the workman was found to be a result of violation of principle of natural justice and hence the finding recorded in the enquiry proceedings was set aside . The domestic enquiry was with respect to the charge of misconduct under clause 14 ( 3 ) (e ) of the Model Standing Orders (Central) for " Habitual absence without leave " . The workman was found to be absent from duty during the period from January 1994 to December, 1994 for a period of243 days as mentioned in the chargesheet but he was actually found to be absent for 214 days during the course of enquiry. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal was passed by the Competent Authority which remained final at last . The workman alleged that his absence had been on account of ailment .

3. Since the finding on the charge of misconduct for habitual absence without leave had been set aside by my predecessor in office , the Management was asked to lead evidence to prove the charge . The management did not lead any evidence thereafter, before this tribunal to prove the change . This act does not appear to be an act of prudent person on the face of it . It is surprising as to how the Air India Ltd. , a company where the workman was working as a Cleaner chose not to lead any evidence before this tribunal .

6. Inview of the law mentioned above , this much is clear that the management is to suffer consequences for not leading any evidence to prove the charge and it cannot rely upon the domestic enquiry conducted in this case by the enquiry committee because that evidence cannot be said to be material on record . In this view of the matter the only question which is left for consideration at this juncture is as to what relief is to be granted to the workman since the dismissal cannot be upheld being based on the finding of the enquiry committee for the charge of misconduct . It is now clear that the basis of awarding the punishment of dismissal for a charge of misconduct is gone in view of the finding 413 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th December, 2005 recorded by my predecessor in office which is final till date being not modified/ reversed by a higher court.

S.O. 187. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 91/93 ) of the Central Government . Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Dhanbad- 11 now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 16-12-2005 .

[No. L-20012/ 173/92-IR (C- 1 ) ]

S. S. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present

Shri B. Biswas ,

Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 7. The learned counsel for the Air India cited before me the case of Divi . Controller G.S.R.T.C. Vs. Heirs of Inayatkhan Sarifkhan Pathan in Special Civil Application No. 13424 of 2004 decided by Honourable High Court of Ahmedabad (Not reported in any journal ) and the case of Francis Xavier Joseph Chawl Vs. Magna Graphics ( 1 ) Pvt. Ltd. , Mr. T.P. Panday, Director , Magna Graphics ( I ) Pvt. Ltd. , The Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court and President , Industrial Court decided by the HighCourt of Bombay in Writ petition No. 246 of 1997 (Not reported in any journal ) and submitted that in view of the absence of the workman from duty the punishment of dismissal be upheld. I feel that the argument put forward before me is falicious . It has no merits at all. The punishment of dismissal cannot be upheld in the instant case for want of evidence for the charge of misconduct before this tribunal . The evidence which was available before the enquiry committee does not have any sense at this juncture since the report of the enquiry committce has already been set aside .

REFERENCE NO. 91 OF 1993 .

Parties :--Employers in relation to the management of BCCL's Moonidih Project and their workman.

Appearances :

: Mr. D. Mukherjee,

Forbehalf of the workman

Secretary

BiharColliery Kamgar Union .

On behalf of the employers : Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate .

: Jharkhand

State

Coal.

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad , the 29th November , 2004

AWARD

8. In this view of the matter the only conclusion which is possible in this case is that the punishment of dismissal cannot be upheld . Now the question arises as to what more relief should be given to the workman. Considering the duration of absence from duty by the workman who was simply a Cleaner, since the absence isnever disputed by the workman , he is not entitled for any wages for the period of absence . The workman is to be reinstated immediately. No evidence has been lead before this tribunal by the workman that he remained idle and did not work at all anywhere and did not carn any income. The workman is not entitled to back wages. He shall be entitled to the wages from the date of reinstatement which must be done by the Air India Ltd. within a month positively and if not, the workman shall be deemed to have been reinstated in service and would be entitled to wages w.c.f. 2nd January, 2006.

9. The reference is answered accordingly. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer. नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर, 2005

1. The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L- 20012/ (173 )/92-1R ( Coal -I ) , dated , the 8th July, 1993 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofMoonidih Project ofM/ s . BCCL under Moonidih Area of M/ s. BCCL , P.O. Moonidih Dist. Dhanbad, in denying reinstatement of Shri Maharathi Prasad Pakawasa, T. No. 560 with back wages is justified ? If not, to what relic the workman is entitled?" का. आ. 187.- 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-11 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91 / 93) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-12-2005 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 173/92- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ] .

2. Case of the concerned workman according tớ Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union on his behalf in brief is as follows :-

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव 414

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II SEC. 3(ii) ]

asPresentingOfficer. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer issued notice of enquiry dt. 3-3-90 to the concerned workman fixing date of enquiry as 14-3-90 at his home address by regd. Post but as he could not be traced out in the colliery premises or at his local address the same could not be executed, and the letter of enquiry sent at his home address was returned back being unserved. Thereafter the said Enquiry Officer on 14-3-90 started departmental enquiry exparte against the concerned workman and after completion of hearing of the enquiry proceeding he submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 27- 3-90 holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges . Thereafter the disciplinary authority issued order of dismissal dt . 7/8-5-90 to the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman did not make any correspondence from 17-4-87 to till date of his dismissal vide order dt . 7/8-5-90 . On the contrary he raised industrial dispute on 4-12-91 through the sponsoring union after making out a case why he absented from duty on account ofhis family's misfortune and also why he became a inental patient due to misfortune in his family. They submitted that the concerned workman has made out a false case with the help and assistance of some interested persons as he could not justify any reason for not making any correspondence with the management disciosing the problems which he was facing . In view of the facts and circumstances stated above management submitted that they did not commit any illegality or took any arbitrary decision violating the principle of natural justice in dismissing the concerned workman from his service and for which he is not entitied to get any relief in view of his prayer.

It has been submitted by the sponsoring union that the concerned workman Maharathi Prasad Pakawasa was apermanent workman at Moonidih Project. On 19-4-87 he received a message from his elder brother about serious illness of his wife . On receiving said news he became shocked which temporarily put him in mental depression and for which he left the station without intimating the management . The sponsoring union admitted that the concerned workman started absenting from duty without taking prior permission be leave from the management. They submitted that while the said workman was busy with the treatment of his wife all on a sudden his mother expired and for which he fell in serious mental depression which resulted his temporary derailment and was placed before theDoctor for treatment . As per advice of the local doctor the concerned workman again was taken to Ranchi for his treatment by a competent Psychiatrist . After recovery from his illness the said workman reported for his duty along with a Medical Certificate but management instead of allowing him to resume his duties informed that he was removed from his service . Accordingly after receiving the said news of his dismissal from service he submitted representation to the management with prayer for his reinstatement in service but management did not consider his prayer and for which he raised an industrial dispute before the ALC(C), Dhanbad challenging his illegal and arbitrary dismissal order issued by the management 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 servicewith full back wages setting aside the said order of dismissal.

POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the action of the management ofMoonidilh Project ofM/ s . BCCL under Moonidhi Area ofM/ s . BCCL, P.O. Moonidih Dist. Dhanbad in denying reinstatement of Shr Maharathi Prasad Pakawasa, T. No. 560 with back wages is justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

3. Management on the contrary after filing Written Slatement -cum-rejoinder have denied all the claims and Allegation which the sponsoring union asserted in the Written Statement submitted on behalf of the concerned workman . They submitted that the concerned workman started absenting from duty without leave and permission And also without satisfactory cause with effect fron 17-4-87. Accordingly they issued charge sheet to the Concerned workman on 14-6-88 for commission of misconduct under para 17 ( i ) (N) of the Certified Standing Order of Moonidih Project under signature of the Area Manager (Technical ) who was Agent under the Mines Aci , 1952. They submitted that the concerned workman ald not receive the chargesheet at his local address and for which the same was sent to him by Regd. Post A/D in His permanent home address . As the concerned workman was not found in the home the charge sheet was returned back to the management . Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority appointed Shri R. C. Srivastava Senior Personnel Officer as the Enquiry Officer by letter dt . 22/28-2-20 under the signature ofthe Dy. Gen al Manager, Moonidih Area who also Agent under the Mines Act, 19:52. By the said order Mr. Ambika Pandey, M.T.K. Incharge was appointed

5. 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 ofnatural justice . Said issue on preliminary point was disposed of vide order No. 66 dt . 30-10-2003 against the management and for which opportunity was given to them to adduce evidence on merit. On merit the point for consideration is whether management have been able to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman and if so whether order of dismissal issued against him was proportionate and justified, as regards to the misconduct committed by him, in view of the provision as laid down under Section 11A of the I.D. Act . , 1947. Here in the instant case on merit management examined one witness as W- 1 . This witness during his evidence disclosed 415 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Psychiatric patient he did not get scope to join his duty. During hearing the concerned workman did not consider necessary to produce any medical paper in support of his claim that he was actually a Psychiatric patient and for which it was not possible on his part to attend his duties . Accordingto the Certified Standing Order absent from duty without leave or prior permission and without satisfactory cause for more than 10 days amounts to misconduct . As the concerned workman failed to give any satisfactory explanation supported by cogent document I find sufficient reason to hold that management was justified in issuance ofcharge sheet in the name of the concerned workman on the ground of committing misconduct as per clause 179 ( i ) ( n ) of the Certified StandingOrder .

that the concerned workman was posted at Auto Section at Moonidih Project . He disclosed further that he was attendance clerk of the said Auto Section at Moonidih Project . He disclosed further thet he was attendance Clerk of the said Auto Section and other sections of the Moonidih Project and being the Attendance clerk he used to note attendance of the workman in the Attendance Register.He submitted that the concerned workman started remaining absent from duties without taking prior permission or giving any intimation to the managemen with effect from 17-4-87 in writing . Accordingly a charge-sheet was issued to the concerned workman by the management copy of which during his evidence was marked as Ext. M - 1 . This witness further disclosed that the concerned workman remained himself absent from duty continuously upto 1990. Considering the evidence ofMW- Iand considering the claim of the manageinent which they have ventilated in their Written Statement it transpires that the concerned workman started remaining himself absent from duty without giving any information or obtaining prior permission from the management w.c.f. 17-4-87 . The charge sheet during hearing of domestic enquiry was marked as Ext . M- 1 . The said charge-sheet on the allegation of committing misconduct and for violation of clause 17 ( i ) ( n ) of the Certified Standing Order was issueddt . 14-6-88 . The contention of the management is that from 17-4-87 to till date of issuance of charge-sheet the concerned workman remained himself absent fronrduty without giving intimation or taking prior permission from the management . The concerned workman did not deny that he was not remaining absent during the period in question. In his Written Statement he admitted that on receipt of a communication about serious illness of his wife from his elder brother he was not only seriously shocked but also depressed mentally and for which he left the station without giving any intimation to the management . He further disclosed in his Written Statement that while he was busy with the treatment of his wife his mother all on a sudden expired which put him into further mental depression and he became a psychiatric patient and accordingly he remained under treatment of the Psychiatrist at Ranchi . The concerned workman in his Written Statement further submitted that after recovery from his ailment when he came to his place of work along with necessary medical certificate with a view to resume his duties he was informed by the management that his service was terminated . Order of dismissal was issued by the management vide letter No. MNO/Dy.GM/Dy.CPM/ Per/39/90/8333-38 dated 7 /8-5-9t ) which during hearingwas marked as Ext . M - 5 . Therefore, it is clear that upto that period till issuance of his order of dismissal the concerned workman was absent from duty. It is therefore , clear that from 17-4-87 till dismissal from his service the concerned workman did not attend to his duties . His claim is that on the ground of his wife's illness and due to expiry of his mother and also on the ground of his ailment being

It is the claim of the management that the said charge sheet was issued in the name of the concerned workman at his local address but as he was not found there the samewas sent to his permanent address at his native village by Regd. Post . They submitted further that inspite of issuance of chargesheet by Regd. Post as the concerned workman failed to give any reply to the chargesheet the Disciplinary authority decided to hold domestic enquiry against him and accordingly appointed Mr. R.C. Srivastava as the Enquiry Officer , and Mr. Ambika Pandey, M.Τ.Κ. Incharge as Presenting Officer . Office Orderdt . 22/28-2-90 to that effect was marked as Exi . M - 2 . Further contention of the management is that after taking charge of the enquiry proceeding the Enquiry Officer issued notice of enquiry proceeding to the concerned workman first at his local address and then at his permanent address by Regd. Post . The notice sent to the permanent address of the workman was returned back with the comment of the postal Peon "Not found" . Thereafter the Enquiry Officer intiated hearing of the enquiry proceeding exparte and after completion of hearing submitted his report holding the concerned workman guilty to the charges to the disciplinary authority. Enquiry report during hearing was marked as Ext . M - 4. It is the specific contention of the sponsoring union that management illegally, arbitrarily and violating the principle of natural justice conducted domestic enquiry against the concerned workman without giving him any opportunity to defend his case and accordingly they submitted that such illegal and arbitrary act of the management which resulted dismissal of the concerned workman is liable to be vitiated. On the contrary Ld. Advocate for the management în course of hearing submitted that from the facts disclosed in the Written Statement submitted by the sponsoring union it has been exposed clearly that the concerned workman remained on unauthorized absence continuously from 17-4-87 to till date of his dismissal . This act has proved specifically that the concerned workman committed misconduct which invited enquiry against him and accordingly on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer management did mot commit any illegality in dismissing the concerned workman from his service . Considering submission of both sides 1 find no dispute to hold that absence of the concerned 416

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006 /PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] workman from duty for a continuous period from 17-4-87 till date of issuance of chargesheet invited misconduct as per clause ( i ) ( n) of the Certified Standing Order . Accordingly there is no scope at all to say that management committed any illegality in issuance of chargesheet against the concerned workman for committing such misconduct but the point which has to be considered here is whether opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend his case or not . Committing misconduct and holding of domestic enquiry based on committing that misconduct should not be placed on the same footing . If a person commits miscondut it is mandatory on the part of the management as per the provision laid down in the Certified Standing Order to issue chargesheet to the concerned workman with a new to give him opportinity to submit his reply and if the reply is found unsatisfactory in that case the management gets the courseto move for domestic enquiry against him. Therefore , management is liable to fill up this gap and burden of proof rests on them to establish that inspite of receiving chargesheet the concerned workman intentionally did not submit his reply which led themto initiate domestic enquiry against him.

Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the postal endorsement " not found " on the cover of the envelop containing the chargesheet sent by registered post indicated that the chargesheet was not tendered to the respondent even by the postal authorities . It could not be legally treated to have been served . The appellant should have made further efforts to serve the chargesheet on the respondent. A single effort on the circumstances of the case , should not be considered as sufficient which could invite departmental proceeding against the workman. Accordingly departmental proceeding should be considered as bad in law. In view of my observation made above based on the decision of the Apex Court will expose clearly that the first and foremost duty of the management is to establish that inspite of taking all out ventures and exhausting all process with all diligence either the chargesheet or the notice of enquiry proceeding couldbe served upon the concerned workman. Fairness of the domestic enquiry accordingly was challenged by the concerned workman taking the plea that no opportunity was given to him to defend his case . After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances it was decided by this Tribunal vide Order No. 66 dtd. 30-10-2003 thatdomestic enquiry held by the enquiry officer was not fair and in accordance with the principle ofnatural justice.

Accordingly opportunity was given to the management to adduce evidence on merit. In course of hearing on merit management though examined one witness with a view to substantiate their claim have failed to exhibit material document to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman . In course of hearing representative of the concerned workman submitted that at the time of considering the evidence on merit the Tribunal is debarred from considering the material papers of the enquiry proceeding. Ld. Advocate for the management on the contrary challenging submission of the representative of the concerned workman relied on the decision reported in SCLJ Vol . 7, Page 512 arising out ofCivil Appeal No. 1461 of 1972 between the workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. and the management and others. In the said decision in para - 49 & 50 Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court incorporated the meaning of "materiasl on record " as incorporated in Section 11A of the I. D. Act . , 1947 which is as follows :- Para-49

The expression ' materials on record ' occurring in the proviso, in our opinion, cannot be confined only to the materials which were available at the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, the ' materials on record ' in the proviso must be held to refer to materials on record before the Tribunal ,

Para-50 They take in:-

(1 ) The evidence taken by the management at the enquiry and the proceedings of enquiry, or Contention of the management is that the chargesheet against the concerned workman was sent initially at his local address but as he was not found present there the same was sent to the address at his native village by Regd . Post . During hearing on preliminary point management got the scope to produce the postal receipt to show that chargesheet was issued and sent at the permanent address of the concerned workman by Regd . Post. Until and unless this fact is established there is no scope to draw any inference about such claim of the management . There was scope for issuance of substituted service by publication of chargesheet in the newspaper . When the management was not confirmed about serviec of chargesheet upon the concerned workman they had the scope to publish the chargesheet in the news paper with a view to establsih that they have exhausted all the procceses for causing service of the chargeshect against the concerned workman . Instead of doing so they initiated domestic enquiry against the concerned workman. It is the claim of the management that the enquiry officer after taking charge of the enquiry proceeding issue notice to the concerned workman . No evidence is forthcoming to 1lte effect that the said notice was actually received by the concerned workman. Management based on the comments of the Postal Peon on the envelope marked as Ext . M-6 "Not found" , submitted that the service of notice was proper. The said envelope contains the office order relating to the appointment ofthe Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer marked as Ext . M- 7 . This officer order in no circumstances can be considered as issuance of chargesheet or issuance of notice notifying the date of hearing of the enquiry proceeding by the Enquiry Officer. In this connection the decision reported in 1998 LLR 1097 should be taken into consideration . In the said decision

(2) the above evidence and in addition any further evidence led before the Tribunal , or 417

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(3) evidence placed before the Tribunal for the first time in support of the action taken by an employer as well as the evidence adduced by the workmen centre .

workman from his service also without giving any second notice to the concerned workman . The said order of dismissal was based on the report of the Enquiry Officer who conducted domestic enquiry exparte . Absolutely burdenofproof is on the management to substantiate the charge brought against the concerned workman . As the concernedworkman did not get any opportunity to submit any reply there is no scope at all to say that he got the scope to defend his case . There is no doubt in view of admission made by the concerned workman in his written statement that he remained himself absent from duty for a long period without taking prior permission or giving intimation to the management . This act of the concerned workman amounts to misconduct , no doubt and he deserves to be chargesheeted as per clause 17 ( i ) ( n) of the Certified Standing Order . But it does not interpret that management has got the authority to conduct domestic enquiry exparte as of their choice without establishing the fact that sufficient opportunity was given to the concerned workmanto defend his case. My discussions above have clearly established neither chargesheet that nor any notice of enquiry proceeding was served upon the concerned workman. Therefore , it is clear that without the knowledge of the concerned workman , said exparte enquiry proceeding was conducted by the Enquiry Officer which I consider is absolutely illegal , arbitrary as it violated the principal of natural justice . It is seen that on the basis of that illegal and arbitrary domestic enquiry the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned workman from his service. As the management have failed to establish the charge brought against the concerned workman the said orderof dismissal is liable to be set aside . In the result, the following Award is rendered:-

"The action of the management of Moonidih Project ofM/ s . BCCL under Moonidih Area of M/ s . BCCL. P.O.Moonidih Distt . Dhanbad in denying reinstatement of Shri Maharathi Prasad Pakawasa T.No.560 is not justified. Consequently, the dismissal order issued against the concerned workman by the management is set aside .Accordingly the concerned workman is entitled to be reinstated in his original post without any back wages .

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 above observations .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर, 2005 The above items by and large should be considered to be the ' materials on record ' as specified in the Proviso . We are not inclined to limit that expression as meaning only that material that has been placed in a domestic enquiry. This provisionally confines the Tribunal to the materials on record before it as specified above when considering the justification or otherwise of the order of discharge or dismissal . It is only on the basis of those materials that the Tribunal is obliged to consider whether the misconduct is proved and the further question whether the proved misconduct justified the punsihment of dismissal or discharge . It also prohibits the Tribunal from taking any fresh evidence either for satisfying itself regarding the misconduct or for altering the punishment. From the Proviso it is not certainly possible to come to the conclusion that when once it is held that an enquiry has not been held or is found to be defective , an order reinstating the workman will have to be made by the Tribunal . Nor does it follow that the proviso deprive an employer ofhis right to adduce evidence for the first before the Tribunal . The expression ' fresh evidence' has to be read in the context in which it appears , namely, as distinguished from the expression ' materials on record. ' If so, read the proviso does not present any difficulty at all. Therefore , the interpretation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in relation to the meaning ' Materials on record ' has clearly exposed that the Tribunal is very much entitled to consider the evidence taken by the management at the enquiry and the proceedings of the enquiry or in addition any further evidence led before the Tribunal , or evidence placedbefore the Tribunal for the first time in support of the action taken by the employer as well as the evidence adduced by the workmen contrary. I, therefore , hold that the submission made by the Ld . Advocate for the management iscorrect and for which I am not inclined to accept the submission of the representative of the concerned workman. Inspite of reliance of the decision as discussed above management have failed to substantiate that the chargesheet which was issued to the concerned workman was actually received by him particularly when it has been emphatically submitted by the concerned workman that he did not receive any such chargesheet . Burden of proof absolutely rests on the management that notice of enquiry proceeding also was communicated to the concerned workman. In view of my discussions as above 1 find no dispute to hold that management in this regard also has lamentably failed to establish their claim . Therefore , it is scen that the concerned workman not only was deprived ofgetting the chargesheet but also was in the dark about hearing of the enquiry proceeding conducted by the

का. आ. 188.- 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-11 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या Enquiry Officer . Management dismissed the concerned 418

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 24/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को16-12- 2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/146/90- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th December , 2005

S.O. 188.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 24/90) of the Central Government , Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Dhanbad- II now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the the management of CCL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 16-12-2005.

[No. L -20012/ 146/90- IR ( C- I ) ]

S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

i Shri B. Biswas . Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 11) ( 1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 24 of 1996

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of Rajahara Collicry of M/ s.CCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Mr. S. Bose , Authorised Representative

On behalf of the employers Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate.

State

: Jharkhand

Industry

: Coal .

Dhanbad, the 30th November, 2005

AWARD

Sponsoring union submitted that the concerned workman was employed in the capacity of Quality Incharge atGore Magnetite Project of BCCL w.e.f. 5-4-76 . Prior to taking over of the said Project by BCCL the same was under the management of M/ s . IISCO , and as such the workmen ofthat Project were paid IISCO . Rate ofwages even after its take over by BCCL and the said system continued till 1981. They submitted that during the period between 1976 to 1981 the concerned workman was paid consolidated rate of wages @ Rs . 300/- P.M. without fixing any time scale. However, in the year 1981 BCCL management appointed a committee for grade fixation in respect of the employees of Gore Magnetite Project and the said committce proposed certain scales of different categories of workman in the Project and the concerned workman was placed in the time scale of Rs . 400-16-576 w.c.f. 1-1-79 . They disclosed that the concerned workman immediately raised his protest for his wrongful fixation of pay but to no effect. They submitted that in the year 1985 the concerned workman was put on duty of Laboratory Incharge of Gore Magnetite Project and was told that he would be paid the scale of Laboratory Incharge w.c.f. April , 1985 and a noteshcet was moved by the Agent of Gore Magnetite Project for fixation of grade and scale in conformity with his designation as Laboratory Incharge . In the year 1986 NCWA was introduced at Gore Magnetite Project and accordingly the grade of the concerned workman was fixed @ Rs. 678-30-918-35-1198 in Tech . and Supervisory Grade - D . As the grade providedto the concerned workman was inferior grade he again through his union raised protest and thereafter the management placed him in Technical and Supervisory Grade ' C ' from Technical and Supervisory Gr . D w.e.f. 4-1-89 but denied to provide the Technical and Supervisory Grade- A which the concerned workman was very much entitled being Laboratory Incharge . As the management refused to provide the concerned workman with supervisory and Technical Grade-A he raised an Industrial dispute through sponsoring union for conciliation before the ALC ( C ) Ranchi which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . Accordingly the sponsoring union submitted prayer to pass award directing the management to place the concerned workman in Technical and Supervisory Grade - Aw.c.f. April , 1985 with back wages and other consequential benefits .

1. The Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) of the 1.D. Act. 1947 has referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their order No.L -20012/ (146) /90 - IR ( Coal- 1 ), dated, the 19th September, 1990.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the workman/ Union that Shri Arun Kumar be promoted to Tech . A Grade is justified? If so , what relief the workman is entitledto and from which date? "

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

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. They submitted that the concerned workman was employed at Gore Magnetite Mines as Mazdoor (a Rs. 15/- per day w.c.f. 5-4-76 . The said project during the carly's 1970 was under control of Steel Authority of India Ltd. After nationalisation of Coking Coal Mines w.c.f. 1-5-72 under the Coking Coal Mines ( Nationalisation ) 419 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

results of analysis ofGis Mine dust, Boiler feed water etc. or in awashery he should be capable of independently organising a process and quality control laboratory. He should be fully comersant with the Indian and as well as other standard specificationsused for sampling, preparation and analysis of coal/wngnctite and other materialsused in coal preparation plant . He shouldbe comersant towaskability and efficiently test and principles of various coal preparation process. He should be capable ofcarrying out mine, air and dust analysis. Hewill also be required to draw raw coal samples from coal seams . He must be able to interpret the result forguidance in quality controls etc. He should be responsible for indent, storage chemical . equipment and maintain necessary records thereof. He shall guide and supervise the work ofAssistants underhim in Laboratory."

Management submitted that as per the promotional rules an employee in Technical Grade-C can be promoted in Technical and Supervisory Grade- B and an employee in Technical and Supervisory Grade-B can promoted in Tech. and Supervisory Grade-A step by step subject to vacancies , selection and compliance with the relevant promotion rules laid down by JBCCI wide Implementation Instruction No. 39 dt. 10-8-82 . They disclosed that highest post in the Rajhara Laboratory can at best be of an Asstt. Chemist and that there will be nojustification for posting the Chemist or a Sr. Chemist in that Laboratory: Accordingly they submitted that the demand ofthe concerned workman/ union that Shri Arun Kumar be promoted to Technical and Supervisory Grade -A is not at all justified and in consequencehe is not entitled to get any reliefwhatsoever and from any date whatsoever. In the circumstances management submitted prayer to pass Award rejecting the claim of the concerned workman .

4. POINTS TO BE DECIDED

"Whether the demand of the Workman/Union that Shri Arun Kumar be promoted to Tech . AGrade is justified? Ifso what reliefthe workman is entitledto and from which date ?"

5. FINDING WITH REASONS

Act , 1972 the said Project was handed over by the SAIL to the BCCL for its management under a power of attorney. Later on w.e.f. 1-10-1983 the ownership of these coal washeries was transferred by SAIL to BCCL alongwith Gore Magnetite Mine. Thereafter w.e.f. 1-10-1986 said Magnetite Mine was transferred by BCCL to CCL and ultimately it was closed w.e.f. February, 1991 as it was found to be very uneconomical apart from some technical and other problems . As a result all the workers of Gore Magnetite Mine were transferred to different units ofCCL. They submitted that when Gore Magnetite Mine was in existence it had a very small laboratory for analytical purposes of the minerals and it was under the charge of a Laboratory Incharge/Laboratory Assistant, Shri Upendra Singh .Sometimes after his initial employment on daily rates ofpay the concerned workman was transferred to that Laboratory and was allowed to function as Laboratory Technician w.e.f. 1-1-79 . In the year 1981 the workmen of Gore Magnetite Mine were placed in the pay scales of Steel Wage agreement with retrospective effect from 1-4-79 and the concerned workman was designated as Laboratory Technician in the Grade of OM-7. Such placement ofthe concerned workman in Grade OM- 7 was done on the basis of the deliberations of a committee constituted by the management . In the year 1986 the workmenofGore Magnetite Mine who were till then in the pay scale ofSteel Wage agreement were placed in the pay scales ofCoal Industry as finalised by the Joint Bipartite Committee for coal industry and as provided in NCWA . Accordingly as per NCWA the concerned workman was placed in daily rated category V w.e.f. 1-1-1983 and subsequently placed in Technical and Supervisory Grade- D in the pay scale ofRs. 678-30-918-35-1198. In February, 1988 the concerned workman was transferred to Rajhara Colliery and posted in the colliery laboratory as a LaboratoryTechnician in Technical and Supervisory Grade- D. The said laboratory they submitted was a small unit and pressure of work was absolutely normal . However, subsequently the case of the concerned workman was considered by departmental promotion committee and he was promoted to the post ofAssistant Chemist in Technical and Supervisory Grade -Cunder NCWA- III by Office Order dt. 21/22-12-88 . Subsequently, when NCWA - IV came into force retrospectively from 1-1-1987 he was given the benefit ofthe revised pay scale thereunder. Management submitted that considering the qualifications experience and nature ofjob performed by the concerned workman and hisduties and responsibilities there is absolutely no question of promoting him to Technical and Supervisory Grade-A. They disclosed that Technical and Supervisory Grade -A relates to the post of Sr. Chemist. The qualification laid down by JBCCI are as follows:-

"Chemical Laboratory :

A workman graduate in Science with 5 years oxperience as a Chemist . Alternatively, he should have atleast 13 years experience out ofwhich 5 years must be as a chemist . He mustbe fully conversant with analysis of coke , coal mine , gas, mine dust, boiler feed water etc. He mustbe able to interpret

It transpires from the record that the sponsoring union with a view to substantiate their claim examined the concerned workman as WW - 1 . Management on the contrarydidnot adduce any oral evidence. WW- 1.1.e. the concerned workman during his evidence disclosed that in the year 1976he joined in the post of quality incharge st GoreMagnetite Project of BCCL Dal tongaunge. He disclosed that in the year 1985 he was put on the duty as Laboratory Incharge in Gore Magnetite Project and a notesheet was movedby the Agent for fixation ofhis grade and scale.Accordingly in the year 1986 as per NCWA- III thescale of paywas fixed at Rs. 678-1198/-in Tech, and SupervisoryGrade-B. He disclosed that in the year 1906 the ownership of the management of the said project was transferred to CCL from BCCL. As he was not with the fixation of his scale of pay he maderepa 2 G1/06-19 420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

This witness had categorically admitted that JBCCI has formulated the scale and Grade of Junior Chemist , Senior Chemist in Supervisory Grade- D, C , B, and A respectively. Accordingto the submission of the management based on JBCCI circular the post of Sr. Chemist relates to Technical and Supervisory Grade - A and the qualification etc. laid down to that effect as per JBCCI are as follows:-

"A Workman graduate in Science with 5 years experience as a Chemist . Alternatively, he should have atleast 13 years experience out ofwhich 5 years must be as a chemist . He must be fully conversant with analysis of coke , coal , mine , gas , mine dust, boiler feed water etc. He must be able to interpret results of analysis of Gas Mine dust, Boiler feed water etc. or in a washery he should be capable of independently organising a process and quality control laboratory. He shouldbe fully conversant with the Indian and as well as other standard specifications used for sampling , preparation and analysis of Coal/Magnetite and other materials used in coal preparation plant . He should be conversant to washability and efficiently test and principles of various coal préparation process . He should be capable of carrying out mine, air and duest analysis . He will also be required to draw raw coal samples from coal seams. He mustbe able to interpret the result for guidance in quality controls etc. He should be responsible for indent , storage chemical . equipment and maintain necessary records thereof. He shall guide and supervise the work of Assistants under him in Laboratory. "

to the management and ultimately in the year 1989 he was promoted toTechnical and Supervisory Grade-C. His claim is that management illegally placed him in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C though he was very much entitled to get Technical and Supervisory Grade- A. This witness during cross -examination admitted that in the beginning he was appointed as quality incharge but though admitted the same he has failed to produce any appointment letter to that effect . He practically failed to discharge this responsibility by disclosing the fact that he handed over that appointment letter to his counsel . This witness during his evidence further disclosed that Sri Satyapal Verma raised an industrial dispute regarding the workers of Gore Magnetite Project for their scale which was pending in Tribunal No. 2, at Dhanbad. From his cross-examination it transpires clearly that he was placed in Grade OM- 7 though he disclosed that he ought to have been placed in higher grade.As anomaly relating to fixation of grade and scale of pay croppedup an anomaly committee was constituted for redressal ofthe grlevances of that project and Mr. Satya Pal Verma was one of the member of that committee . He alleged that the said committee decided his case correctly and in a bonafide manner. The report of the committee wherein Satya Pal Verma had signed was marked as Ext . M-3. This witness disclosed that thereafter management placed him in Technical and Supervisory Grade-Dw.e.f. 1-1-83 as per scale provided under NCWA- III and thereafter he was transferred to Rajhara Colliery in the month of February, 1988. This witness further disclosed that JBCCI hadformulated the scale ofJunior Chemist, Senior Chemist in Technical and Supervisory Grade D, C , B , and A respectively. He further admitted that he was not aware of the promotion rules and Its stages framed by JBCCI. However, he admitted that the nature ofwork has distinctly defined as to who will work what sort of work and who will be entitled to get the grade according to qualification and experience. He admitted that the post of Senior Chemist comes under Technical and Supervisory Grade -A. Considering the averments of WW- 1 it transpires that in the year 1976 when he Joined at Gore Magnetite Project his designation was disclosed as a quality incharge . The concerned workman during his evidence relied on the I.D. Card issuedto him by Rajhara Colliery which was marked as Ext . W- 1 . Said I.D. card was issued on 5-4-76 wherein his designation was disclosed as Laboratory Incharge . The concerned workman during his evidence categorically admitted that in the year 1985 he was put on duty as Laboratory Incharge at Gore Magnetite Project. If this fact is taken into consideration how his designation was disclosed as Laboratory incharge in the year 1976 when his designation was nothing but Quality Incharge . During hearing the representative of the concerned workman has failed to give any satisfactory explanation to this effect. A very pertinent question which has been cropped up here is whether Laboratory Incharge is entitled to get the scale of Technical and Supervisory Grade -A. It is seen that in the year 1986 the concerned workman was placed in Technical and Supervisory Grade -D and thereafter in the year 1989 he was provided with Technical and Supervisory Grade-C.

Management submitted that the departmental promotion committee considered the case of the concerned workman and accordingly he was promoted to the post of Asstt. Chemist in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C under NCWA - III vide Office order issueddt . 21 / 22-12-88 . It is the specific case ofthe management that there is no scope for claiming promotion to the post of Senior Chemist in Technical and Supervisory Grade-A directly from Technical and Supervisory Grade- C. To get the post of Technical and Supervisory Grade -A workman must fulfil the required conditions as laid down under JBCCI Circular No. 39 . According to that circular a workman claiming such post must fulfil the following conditions viz . he must be science Graduate with five years experience as Chemist alternatively he should have 13 years experience out of which 5 years must be as a chemist along with other stipulation . In course ofevidence the concerned workman has failed to produce a single scrap of paper to show that he got five years experience as Chemist being a Science graduate . If his evidence is taken into consideration in that case it will expose clearly that only in the year 1985 he was put on duty of Laboratory Incharge and he got his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C as Asstt . Chemist in the year 1989. Therefore, his evidence speaks clearly that he did not accrue any experience as Chemist continuously for a period of five years before he placed his claim for his 421 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Technical and Supervisory Grade -A and not in any other grade. JBCCI circular has clearly pointed out who are entitled to get promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade-Aas Senior Chemist . The prime condition which is required to be fulfilled is that the workman must have experience towork as Chemist continuously for a period of 5 years . As the concerned workman has failed to produce any paper to show that Laboratory Incharge is entitled to get promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade - A he is liable to establish that as Chemist he fulfils the condition as laid down in JBCCI Circular No.39 to get his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade -A. The concernex workman has very clearly admitted that he was put on duty as Laboratory Incharge at Gore Magnetite Project in the year 1985. Therefore , in the year 1988 he got his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade -D and in the year 1989 he got his promotion in Technical and Supervi sory G ade- Cto the post of Asstt . Chemist on the basis ( the recommendation made by D.P.C. The post ofAsstt. Chemist and the post of Sr. Chemist cannot be equated together. To get promotion as Sr. Chemist, an Assistant Cherr ist is required to fulfil the conditions as laid down in JBCCI circular No. 39. The concerned workman during his evidence has failed to produce any paper to show that even as Asstt . Chemist he has failed to fulfil the conditions to get his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade- Abut management illegally and arbitrarily did not consider his such qualification . It is seen that the concerned workmanjust as a Laboratory Incharge has placed his claim for his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade-A but excepting placing that claim he has failed to produce a single scrap ofpaper to show that management illegally and arbitrarily violating the principle of natural justice ignored his promotion to the post of Technical an supervisory Grade -A, on the contrary placed him as Asst Chemist in Technical and Supervisory Grade-C.

promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade -A. The concernedworkman to establish his claim that he worked as Laboratory Incharge relied on certain papers marked as Ext. W- 1 to W- 7 . In all these official documents his designation was disclosed as Laboratory Incharge. Nowhere in these office orders it could be seen that he discharged his duties as Chemist . The role of Laboratory Incharge and the role of Chemist cannot be equated together. Moreover, genuinity ofdisclosing his designation which are appearing in these documents definitely have been questioned because of the fact that he has failed to produce his appointment letter as Laboratory Incharge. I.D. Card marked as Ext . W- 1 shows that his designation wasdisclosed as Laboratory Incharge by the management ofRajhara Colliery showing his date of appointment as 5-4-76 . When the witness himself has admitted that in the year 1976 he joined the port of quality incharge how his designation was disclosed as Laboratory Incharge . It is seenthat the concerned workman was transferred to Rajhara Collieryby orderdt . 16/ 19-2-88 marked as Ext. W- 3 and he joinedthereby Office order dt. 20-2-88 marked as Ext. W-3/1 . Itis admitted fact that the concerned workman got his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade - D in the year 1986 as per NCWA III and was placed in the scale of Rs . 678/- and 1198/- . Nowhere in the office order marked as Ext. W-3 and W-3 / 1 this fact was disclosed. It is admitted position that by Office orderdt . 22-12-88 the concerned workman was promoted to the post of Asstt. Chemist in Technical and Supervisory Grade -C and was placed in the scale of Rs . 742-40-1062-45-1422 . By that order he was posted at Rajhara Project . Based on that office order another Office order marked as Ext . W-8 was issued by Dy. CME/ Project Officer, Rajhara Group. But in the said order there is nowhisper to the effect that he was promoted to the post ofAssistant Chemist as per recommendation of the D.P.C. However, as Asstt. Chemist he was on probation for six months and after completion of the period of probation satisfactorily the said probationary period was closed w.e.f. 4-7-89.

JBCCI circular No.39 has clearly pointed out which chemists are to be promoted in Technical and Supervisor. Grade-D, C , B and A. Until and unless conditions as laid down therein by any workman he cannot place his claim for such promotion. After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances and considering the guideline of JBCCI circular No. 39 I find no hesitation to say that the claim of the concerned workman is absolutely baseless and for which there is no scope at all to say that management illegally and arbitrarily placed him in Technical and Supervisory Grade-Cas Asstt . Chemist ignori g his promotion in Technical and Supervisory Grade-A as nior Chemist . Accordingly the concerned workman not entitled to get any relief. In the result, the following Award isrendered:

"The demand of the workman/ union that Shri Arun Kumar be promoted to Technical A Gra le is not justified. Consequently, the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief. "

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer It is fact that the concerned workman has failed to produce any appointment letter to show that he appointed asLaboratory Incharge. Even for argument sake it is taken into consideration that he discharged his duties as Laboratory Incharge in that case a question which has been cropped up here is whether a Laboratory Incharge is entitled to get his post in Technical and Supervisory Grade-Aparticularly when it is clear that the said grade i.e. Technical and Supervisory Grade-A is meant for Senior Chemist. Accordingly burden of proof is on the concerned workman to establish that the post of Laboratory Incharge and the post of Senior Chemist are same . I find no hesitation to say that in spite of getting ample opportunity neither the concerned workman nor his representative has failed to produce any paper to show that the post of Laboratory Incharge and the post of Senior Chemist are same. Even he has failed to produce any paper to show that Laboratory Incharge is entitled to get his promotion in 422

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006 /PAUSA 24 , 1927

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

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act' ) has referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-

का. आर. 189-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14.) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ वेस्ट रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संद्ध नियोजनों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ जपुर के पंचाट (संदर्भ संमा 5/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[से एल-41012/91/2004-आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

"Whether the action of the management ofNorth West Railway Adiministration , Jaipur in not treating Sh . Ghanshyam S/ o Sh . Narayan , Kantewala as on duty from 26-5-98 to 29-10-03 after his accident while on duty, is justified ? If. not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

अजय कुमार डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 19th December, 2005

S.O.189.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management ofNorth West Railway and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 16-12- 2005

No. L-41012/91/2004-IR(B-1 )]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR- COURT, JAIPUR CaseNo. CGIT-5/2005

ReferenceNo. L-42012/91 /2004- IR(B-1)

Sh.Ghanshyam, Ro 1224, Chavria Marg, NahargarhRoad, NearNinadi Police, Mohan Nagar, Jaipur

Applicant

2. The workman has pleaded in his claim statement that while he was posted as Pointsman (Kantewala ) at Jaipur railway station he met with an accident on 17-2-1994 and was hospitalized, who was referred to the SMS Hospital , Jaipur by the railway hospital vide its letter Ex. A - 1 . After undertaking his treatment at SMS Hospital , Jaipur a letter by the concerned doctor was issued in his favour and the railway hospital had advised for his posting in the light zone. It is further stated that meanwhile he was transferred to Govindgarh Mallikpur and he submitted his representation for its cancellation to the Station Superintendent. It is also stated that he was referredby the Railway Hospital, Jaipur to Jagjivan Ram Hospital , Bombay, that a fitness certificate Ex. A-8 was issued by the railway hospital , Jaipur in his favour and that he reported for duty on 26-5-98 before the Railway Manager. He has asserted that he continuously appeared in the office but he was not taken on duty. Therefore, he had to raise an industrial dispute on 24-6-2003 before the Conciliation Officer. It is his averment that he was only taken on duty w.e.f. 7-11-2003 . He has urged that he be treated on duty from 26-5-98 to 7-11-2003 and the due salary along with the admissible benefites be granted to him.

Versus

1. The Divisional RailwayManager, North West Railway, PowerHouse Road, Jaipur, Jaipur

7 2. Station Manager, North West Railway, RailwayStation, Jaipur

3. Union of India, ThroughGeneral Manager, NorthWest Railway, KhatipuraRoad, Jaipur

Non-applicants

Present:

3. The non -applicants, in their written counter, disputing the claim have averred that the workman had not metwith any accident on 17-2-94, who was continuing as railway sick from 9-9-2004 to 28-9-2004, that he was transferred vide order dated 22-11-94 to Ladpura and on various dates , which find mention at para 1 of the written- counter, he unauthorisedly absented himself from the duty. Itisfurther pleaded that from 26-12-94 to 26-6-98 he was continously absent, who also represented against his transfer, but his request was delined by the letter dated 22-6-95 . By an amended order , he was transferred to Govindgarh and he had moved again for its cancellation. The non-applicants have questioned the genuineness of the documents submitted by the workman and they have averred that the registered notices to join the duty were sent to the workman but he did not report for the duty.

PresidingOfficer:

Sh. R.C. Sharma.

Fortheapplicant :

Sh. R.C. Narang.

4. On the pleadings ofboth the parties, the following points fordetermination were framed:---

For the non-applicant: Sh.Balvinder Singh.

Date of award

30-11-2005.

AWARD

I. Whether the workman is entitled to be treated on duty from 26-5-1998 to 29-10-2003 on account of his accident on duty ? BOA

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under Clause 'D' of sub -sections 1 & 2(A) to

II. Relief, ifany.

423

भारत काराजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. In the evidence , the workman has submitted his affidavit and in the rebuttal, the counter- affidavit of MW- 1 K.K. Singodiya , Assistant Personnel Officer was placed on the record . Both these witnesses were cross- examinedbythe respective opposite representative. Both the parties have also led the documentary evidence on the record .

27-5-98 to 30-10-2003 , who was marked absent in the attendance registers the copies thereof Ex . D-2 to D-95 have been placed on the record. He has also stated that between 22-4-95 to 30-10-2003, the workman never reported for duty before the concerned authority and he was absenting himself unauthorisedly from the duty. He has also stated that a notice Ex. D -96 dated 2-11-2001 was issued to him and thereafter the another notice 30-9-2003 was issued, but he did not join the duty.

6. I have heard both the parties and have scanned the record . The point - wise discussion follows as under :- Point No.1

7. The workman's case is that he met with an accident during the official duty and had undertaken the treatment at various hospitals , who after obtaining the fitness certificate from the railway hospital reported for the duty, but he was declined to join the duty. Contrary to it , the non - applicants ' stand is that the workman had not met with any accident while on duty and that he had absented himself unauthorisedly from the duty who was marked absent in the attendance registers .

10. In his cross - examination , this witness has admitted that on 17-2-94 , the workman was ill, he was not onduty and that the portion between A to B at para 3 ofhis affidavitis incorrect . He has also admitted that the copy of the transfer order and the acknowledgement receipt by the workman could not be placed on the record. He then has stated that the notice Ex . R- 96 was issued on 1-11-2001 and the another notice Ex . R-97 was issued on 30-9-2003 . He has admitted that on account of the absence of the workman no chargesheet was issued against him under the DAR Rules. Admitting the letter Ex. A-9 , he has stated that by this letter the duty certificate of the workman was transmitted to the Sr. Division Traffic Manager and the workman has presented this letter before him. On scrutiny ofthe record the acknowledgement receipts/postcards of notices R- 96 and R- 97 respectively have not been placed onthe record.

8. So far as the question that the workman sufferd some ailment during his duty is concerned , MW - 1 K.K. Singodiya at para 3 of his affidavit has deposed that he sustained a heart attack while he was on duty on 17-2-94 , which helps the workman's case . The plea of the workman is also supported by the documents submitted by him, e.g. , the railway pass whereby he had undertaken his journey from Jaipur to Bombay along with an attendant for his medical check up . Vide duty certificate (fitness certificate ) Ex . A- 8 he was found fit for duty w.e.f. 22-5-98 and it is rervaled from the letter of the Station Superintendent , Jaipur dated 26-5-98 Ex. A- 9 addressed to Sr. Divisional Traffic Manager that he reported for duty on this date before the Station Superintendent . It says that Ghanshyam, Kantewala had remained railway sick w.e.f. 25-12-94 to 22-5-98 , who has submitted the duty certificate dated 22-5-98 and who is being sent to you . It has further sought the direction to take him on duty from the Sr. Divisional Traffic Manager, Jaipur . Thereafter the workman had moved an application Ex. A- 12 dated 27-5-98 before the Sr. Divisional Traffic Manager, Railway requesting that he sustained a heart attack on 25-12-94 and had been under treatment of the railway hospital and a sickness certificate was issued in his favour from 25-12-94 to 22-5-98 and that he should be taken on duty. Vide his letter Ex. A- 13 dated 6-7-98 he requested the DRM, Jaipur Division , Jaipur that he had not still received any information as to whether he had to join and that he is continuously reporting for duty at Jaipur railway station. Thereafter on 24-6-2003 , vide his petition under Section 2-A of the Act he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Jaipur . He also sent the UPC letters from Ex . A- 17 to A -51 before the concerned authority for taking him on duty. On 29-10-2003, he was referred by the Station Suprintendent , Jaipur for medical check up and on 1-11-2003 he was found fit and the certificate Ex. A-55 dated 1-11-2003 was issued in his favour and w.e.f. 7-11-2003 he was allowed tojoin the duty.

9. Contrary to it, MW- IK. K. Singodiya has deposed in his affidavit that the workman absented himself from

11. It, therefore , follows from the aforestated facts that the workman had suffered heart attack on 17-2-94 while he was on duty, as is stated by MW - 1 , K. K. Singodiya at para 3 of his affidavit . Though he has stated this portion of his deposition as incorrect in his cross -examination , but he couldnot be able to reply a definite answer to the questions put to him on behalf of the workman on this point . He has also failed to explain that if this portion of his statement was incorrect , then how it was noted in his affidavit . As such , it stands admitted on behalf of the non - applicants that the some heart ailment was developed with workman on 17-2-94 while he was on duty. It is undisputed that the duty certificate Ex . A-8 was issued in his favour whereby hewas found fit to join the duty on 22-5-98 and it is further evident from the letter Ex. A- 9 that he reported for duty on 26-5-98 before the Station Superintendent . But despite the repeated request made by the workman to the higher authorities neither he was taken on duty nor he was intimated any ground for not taking him on duty. It is also revealed from the perusal ofthe materials that the workman in order to join the duty put his apearance before the concerned authorities and sent UPC letters Ex . A- 17 to A-51 , which show that he was present at Jaipur Railway Station and was willing to join his duty, but was declined to join the duty without assigning any good reason for it and no step was taken on behalf of the railway management to convey him the reason for not permitting him to join the duty,which is a sheer negligence on the part of the railway management and it cannot be presumed that the workman had deliberately absented himself from the duty. On behalf, of the railway management , it has beer contended that the workman did not present himself for duty and in support of 424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

it the copies of the attendance registers have been produced. But it is abundantly clear from the evidence supra that the management had neither permitted him to join the duty nor had initiated any departmental action against him, if he was considered to be an absentee. It appears that just to save the skin, the departmental authorities have marked him absent in the attendance register without any rhyme and reason. The railway management has also failed to show as to why he was not directed tojoin the duty at a place when on 26-5-98 he reported for duty before the Station Superintendent . As such , it is established from the aforesaid evidence that the workman sustained heart ailment during his duty, who was not taken on the duty by the railway management, whereas he was continuously presenting himself before them . Therefore, the workman is entitled to be treated on duty from 26-5-98 to29-10-2003 .

12. To sum up , the workman succeeds to satisfy that he had reported for duty on 26-5-98 before the railway authorities and was putting his presence thereafter, but was declined to join the duty without any good reason . As such, this point is decided in favour of the workman and against the non - applicants.

RELIEF

13. For the foregoing reasons , the claim of the workman deserves to be allowed.

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 88/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Excise & Custom Department and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-12-2005.

[No. L-42012/ 188/2004- IR (C-II)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT-88/2005 .

Reference No. L -42012/188 /2004 - IR ( CM- II)

Sh . Surendra Kumar Parsoia, S/o Sh . Ghasi Lal Parsoia, R/ o 951 , Behind Government Hospital , Jagatpura Kachi Basti , Jaipur (Raj .)

Applicant

Versus

The Joint Commissioner ( Law ) ,

Central Excise & Custom Department, Central Circle,

Jaipur

Non- applicant

PRESENT :

PresidingOfficer

Sh . R.C. Sharma.

Forthe applicant

: None.

For the non - applicant

14. Resultantly, the reference is answered in the affirmative in favour of the workman and against the railway administration and it is held that the workman is entitled to be treated on duty from 26-5-98 to 29-10-2003 and he is further entitled to get the arrears of his salary and admissible benefits of the period in question. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

: Sh. Tej Prakash Sharma

Dateof award

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

R. C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 190.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल एक्साईज एंड कस्टम डिपार्टमैन्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 88/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को19-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-42012/188/2004-आई. आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005"

S.O. 190. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central

: 21-11-2005

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exericse of the powers referred under Clause D of sub-section 1 to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act,. 1947 (for short. ' the Act ' ) has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, which runs as under:-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Excise & Custom Depratment, Jaipur in terminating the services of workman Sh . Surendra Kumar , S/ o Sh . Ghasi Lalw.e.f. 5-7-2002 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? " 2. The workman in his claim statement has pleaded that he was employed by the non - applicant establishment on 8-5-2001 , who continuously worked up to 4-7-2002, but whose service was terminated on 5-7-2002by the non- applicant management in violation of Section 25 - F of the Act . He has also averred that subsequent to his termination, the new appointments have been made by the non -applicant. He has urged that his termination order be declared as illegal and void and he be reinstated in the service with all consequential benefits.

425

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

[भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

VERSUS

1. The Office Superintendent ,

Central Narcotice Bureau ,

Kota (Rajasthan)

2. The Superintendent,

Nivarak Awam Aasoochana Prakoshth ,

Central Bureau of Narcotics,

Non- applicants

Udaipur

3. On 7-10-2005 , the workman had filed his claim statement . Thereafter the case was posted for filing the written statement . But on the consecutive dates i.e. 28-10-2005 and 15-11-2005 , none put appearance on behalf of the workman. It was the responsibility of the workman to appear and prove his case by producing the cogent evidence. No reason could be assigned for his non- appearance before the Court. Therefore, the workman has failed to prove his claim.

Present:

: Sh . R.C. Sharma .

Presiding Officer

Fortheapplicant : None .

: Sh. T. P. Sharma.

Forthe non- applicants

: 29-11-2005

Date of award

4. Resultantly the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of the management and it is held that the termination order dated 5-7-2002 passed against the workman is legal and justified. The claim ofthe workman is dismissed . An award is passed inthese terms accordingly.

AWARD

5. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 (1 ) of the Act . R.C. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर , 2005

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Clause ' D ' of sub -section 1 & 2 (A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ' Act ' ) has referred this industrial for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under:-

का. आ. 191.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल नारकोटिक्स ब्यूरो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 87/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-42012/217/2004- आई. आर. ( सी-11 ) ]

"क्या अधीक्षक, केन्द्रीय नारकोटिक्स ब्यूरो , राजस्थान , कोटा/ अधीक्षक ( नि. ) निवारक एवं आसूचना प्रकोष्ठ, केन्द्रीय नारकोटिक्स ब्यूरो, उदयपुर के द्वारा अपने कर्मकार श्री. तुलसी राम पुत्र श्री लालूराम गमेती ड्राईवर कम चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी को दिनांक 11-3-1993 से दिनांक 1-1-2003 तक कार्य करने के बाद दिनांक -1-2003 से सेवा से बर्खास्तकरना न्यायोचित एवं विधि सम्मत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार अपने नियोक्ता से किस राहत पाने का अधिकारी है ?" एन.पी. केशवन, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

2. The workman has pleaded in his claim statement thathe was engaged as a driver cum 4th Class on 11-3-1993 by the non- applicant Central Narcotics Bureau , who continuously worked upto 1-1-2003 , but whose service was terminated w.e.f. 1-1-2003 in violation of Section 25 -F ofthe Act. He has further stated that the non - applicant bureau has also contravened the provisions contained under Section 25 -G and 25 - F of the Act respectively while terminating his service . He has urged that he be reinstated in the service with other consequential benefits .

S.O. 191.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.87/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Narcotics Bureau and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-12-2005

[No. L-42012/217/2004- IR (C-II) ]

N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT-87/2005 .

Reference No. L-42012/217/2004- IR (CM- II)

Sh. Tulsiram,

3. On 28-10-2005 , the non - applicants despite the last opportunity given to them failed to submit the written statement before the Court . On 7-10-2005 , the case was posted for filing the written statement , on which date none appeared on behalf of the workman . The case thereafter was fixed for 18-11-2005 and on this date , too, none put appearnce on behalf of the workman . Thereafter the case was listed for 28-11-2005 and even on this date neither the workman nor his representative put the appearance before theCourt.

S/o Sh . Laluram Gameti ,

Basant Vihar,

FlatNo. 335 , Hiran Nagri No. 5,

.. Applicant

4. From the above narration , it is clear that the workman has not appeared before the Court and no explanation could be offered on his behalf for his absence Udaipur 426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

Theirworkmen

Appearances:

on these dates . It was the bounden duty of the workman to appear before the Court and to prove his claim by adducing the evidence before the Court , which he has failed to discharged. Therefore , his claim deserves to be rejected. For the Management Shri Ajay Thomas , Adv.

For the workman : Shri J.P. Sawant , Adv.

State

: Maharastra

Mumbai , dated, the 1st day of December, 2005.

AWARD

5. Accordingly, the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and it is held that the termination order dated 1-1-2003 passed against the workman is legal andjustified and the claim of the workman is dismissed. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

6. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act . R. C. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub- section 1 and sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India , Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi , order No. L-42012/71/2002- IR(C-II ) dated 14-11-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

SCHEDULE

"Whether action of the Seamen's Provident Fund Commissioner in terminating the services of the workman Shri Nilesh M. Mahaeswar, Junior Assistant w.e.f. 21-4-1994 is legal and justified ? If not, towhat relief the workmen is entitled ?"

का.आ. 192.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीमेनस प्रोविडेंट फंड कमिश्नर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय - Ⅰ , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/ 2003)को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल -41012/71/2002- आई. आर. ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th December , 2005

S.O. 192. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 65/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- I , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial disputed between the employers in relation to the management of Seamen's Provident Fund Commissioner and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19-12-2005

[No. L -42012/71/2002- IR (C- II )]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBA ALNO.1,

PRESENT : JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS ,

Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT 65 OF 2003 .

2. The case ofworkman Shri Nilesh M. Mahadeshwar as set out in the Statement of claim is that he was appointed as Junior Assistant w.e.f. 25-4-94 vide appointment letter No. 11/138/94 dated 15-4-1994 issued by the Commissioner of the Management of Seamen's Provident Fund Commissioner , Mumbai ( hereinafter referred to as Management ) He was in service. However, vide letterNo. 11/2376/94 dated 21-10-1994 issued by the Administrative Assistant, Accounts Officer the services of the workman was terminated w.e.f. the said date i.e. 21-10-94 . He alleged that after his termination , other persons were employed by the management but he was neither reinstated nor kept in service. It is alleged that the termination is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and also Order No. 13 of Model Standing Orders ( Central Schedule 1 ) prescribed under the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders , Act 1946) since the workman was neither issued one months notice nor paid one months pay in lieu there- of. He further alleged that the management contravened the provisions made under 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act 1948 as the notice of at least 14 days was not issued to the workman while terminating the services . The provisions of Section 25 -H of the Industrial Dispute Act have also been violated by the management . Lastly, the management violated the provisions made under Regulation 6 and 8 of the Seamen's Povident Fund ( Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulations , 1972 and that the management did not follow the principles of naturaljustice while terminating by way ofvictimization and indulging in unfair labour practice.

Partles: Employers in relation to the management of Seamen'sProvident Fund Commissioner

AND

3. The management filed written statement. There is no dispute about the facts regarding the date of 427 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

termination. It is also admitted position that appointment was made for a period of six months and the service could be terminated without assigning any reason . The appointment letter reads as follows:

MEMORANDUM

appointment order and date of termination . The admitted position isthat termination is being done without assigning any reason or without issuing any notice or paying one month's salary thereof for issuing notice for 14 days or any notice whatsoever. The termination is contended to be legal and proper in view of the matter that the appointment ofthe workman was for a fixed period i.e. for six months as mentioned in the appointment letter itself and he was terminatedjust before the expiry ofthe aforesaid period of six months . He was not a permanent employee nor he remained in service after the period of six months was over. There was no question of any violation of any law whatsoever and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

"Shri Nilesh M. Mahadeshwar is hereby appointed as a Jr. Assistant in this Organisation w.e.f. 25-4-1994 (F.N. ) in the scale of Pay of Rs. 1200-30-1440-EB-1800. Besides the grade pay he will be entitled to allowances as applicable to the employees of the Organisation as laid down under Section 7(6) ofthe Seamen's Provident Fund Act. Discipline and other conditions of his services shall hesuch as specific from time to time as in the Seamen's Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service) Regulation , 1972.

His appointment is purely provisional for six months and conditional to:

4. The workman filed his own affidavit as a piece of evidence . He reiterated his claim as set out in the Statement ofclaim . There is nothing material in his cross -examination. He has admitted hat his father Mr. Mahadeshwar was Superintendent in the Office of the Seamen's Provident Fund Commissioner.

(i) Showing aptitude to work;

(ii) Punctuality in attendance and

(iii) Devotion to duties.

5. The management filed affidavit of Shri Dhansuklal Ranchodbhai Gandhi as a piece ofevidence in the capacity ofOffice Superintendent. During his cross-examination he admitted that the workman was not on the regular muster roll but on a temporary muster. He admitted that no notice whatsoever prior to termination was ever issued to the workman.

His appointment is also subject to his being found physically fit by the Government Doctor. He will also furnish two Character Certificates from amongst responsible persons known to him but not related . The undersigned may, at any time terminate his services without assigning any reason .

(C.R. Neelakantan) Commissioner 6. The documents consisting of appointment letter as well as termination letter and the representation made by him with a reply thereof and certain other documents hadbeen filed by the workman vide list dated 6-1-2004.

9. Ona plain reading of the appointment letter quoted above, it is clear that the appointment of the workman was purely provisional for six months and the undersigned (Commissioner) may at any time terminate the services without assigning any reason.

10. In this background, I do not find any fault with thetermination of the workman . The controversy appears to have set at rest by the Hon'able Supreme Court as mentioned below :

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record . prior to adjudicating the matter on merits , I would like to mention that the government had carlier refused to make the reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act on the ground of laches and delay on the part of the workman. This order was challenged in the High Court of Bombay by W.P. No. 160 of 2003. The writ petition was decided by the Honourable High Court of Bombay in favour of the petitioner on 8-8-2003 and the Government was directed to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal . In this back ground the government made the instant reference .

8. The only controversy which required the foremost consideration in this reference is as to whether the termination of the workman can be said to be legal and justified without compliance of the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act, Order No. 13 of Model Standing Order (Central Schedule 1 ) prescribed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders Act 1946 ) , Regulation 6 and 8 of the Seamen's Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions ofService) Regulations , 1972 and provisions made under 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act 1948. The admitted position is that no notices whatsoever under any provisions of law was ever issued to the workman prior to his

11. In AIR 1996 Supreme Court 1001 the State of Rajasthan v/s . Rameshwar Lal Gahlot , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting Section 25 F and Section 2(00)(bb) held that termination is not retrenchment and not illegal unless it is malafide. The provisions of Section 25 -F did not apply, after referring the earlier case of Venugopal vs. Divisional Manager, LIC ( 1994 ) 2 SCC 323 and quoting as, " Therein this court had held that once an appointment is for a fixed period Section 25 - F does not apply as it is covered by clause (bb) (00) of the Act . It is contended for the respondent that since the order of the learned single judge was not challenged, the termination became final . Consequently, the appellant would be liable to pay back wages on reinstatement . In our considered view, the opinion expressed by learned single Judge as 2 GI/06-20 428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Court held that the workers had been engaged in a projeet and for want of proof of attracting applicability of Section 2 (00) (bb) the termination must be held to be retrenchment . In this case , the termination was said to be retrenchment for want of proof of applicability of Section 2 ( 0 ) (bb ) and hence the case was held to be covered by Section 25 - FFF.

16.Keeping in mind the settled legal position in view ofthejudgments of the Hon'able Supreme Court ( supra) this much is clear that the termination can be said to be legal and justified even if without issuance of any notice under any provisions of law if the appointment is being made for a fixed period.

well as Division Bench are incorrect in law. When the appointment is for a fixed period, unless there is finding that power under clause (bb ) of Section 2 (00 ) was misused orvitiated by its malafide exereise , it cannot be held that the termination is illegal . In its absence, the employer could terminate the services in terms ofthe letter of appointment unless it is a colourable exercise of power. It must be established in each case that the power was misused by the management or the appointment for a fixed period was a colourable exereise of power. Unfortunately, neither the learned single Judge nor the Division Bench recorded any finding in this behalf. Therefore , where the termination is in terms of letter of appointment saved by clause (bb ) , neither reinstatement nor fresh appointment could be made."

12. In the case reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 300 M/ s . Kalyani Sharp India Ltd v. Labour Court No. I , Gwalior and another the Honable Supreme Court held that where the terms of employment providing that if serviees of employee were not satisfactory it could be put to an end and the service was terminated before the expiry of probationary period without issuance of prior notice , the termination did not a mount to retrenehment nor it can be said to be illegal ...

17. In the case in hand , this much is very very clear that the appointment was for a fixed period of six months only. The termination could be made without assigning any reason. The period originally employed was never extended. It came to an end after six months vide termination letter issued by the management . There is no illegality at all in it . The management was not obliged to issue any notice either under the provisions of I.D. Aet or Order No. 13 of Model Standing Orders ( Central Schedulel ) prescribed under the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders Act 1946 ) , Regulations 6 and 8 of the Seamen's Provident Fund (Staff and Conditions of Service ) Regulations , 1972 and provisions made under 66 of the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act, 1948. There was no necessity of issuing one month's notice or make payment thereof as provided under the I.D. Act nor there was necessity for issue of 15 days notice as provided under Bombay Shops and Establishment Act 1948 nor there was any question of compliance of Model Standing Order or the provisions of Scamen's Provident Fund Commissioner. The workman was not held to be in continuous service of the management. There was no malafide on the part of management. The management was empowered to terminate the service without assigning any reason and it was rightly done in the instant case.

13. In AIRSupreme Court 2681 Harmohinder Singh v. Kharga Canteen , Ambala Cantt. , clause ( c) the Hon'able Supreme Court held that the provisions of retrenchment of workmen were not to be complied within the eases where termination takes place on expiry of contract , reasonbeing definition of retrenchment which excludes cantract of service for fixed term . In ( 1997 ) 11 Supreme Court Cases 521 Escorts Limited vs. Presiding Officer and another the Hon'able Supreme Court held that if the terms of appointment enabling the employer are there to terminate the service at any stage without assigning any reason , the termination of service under the said terms even though effected before the expiry of the specified period did not amount to retrenchment and did not attract Section 2(00 )(b ) , 25-F and 25 -G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act .

18. The ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the work man reported in 1996 II LLJ 820 between Central Bank of India vs. V. Satyam and others is not applicable and helpful to the workman in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and the legal position referred to above .

19. In view of what has been discussed above , I conclude that the action of the Scamen's Provident Fund Commissioner in terminating the serviecs of the workman Shri Nilesh M. Mahadeshwar, Jr. Assistant w.c.f. 21-4-1994 is legal and justified . The workman is not entitled to any rclicf.

14. In recent case not reported so far but taken on line through Internet , the Hon'able Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Chandra Samal vs. The D.M , Orissa State Cashew Development Corp. Ltd. held that where the petitioner was employed as a typist on daily wages for fixed period and the period extended from time to time but this specific period was mentioned on all orders of engagement, such type of engagement was for a fixed period and hence the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted. The termination was therefore , justified and order of reinstatement passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court was set aside .

20. The reference is accordingly answered in affirmative.

15. In the case of Nilajkar & Ors.v. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka 2003 II CLR 233 , the Hon'able Supreme

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS . Presiding Officer 429 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

C.R. No. 108/87

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

II PARTY

I PARTY

Divisional RailwayManager ,

Shri Ranga ,

Southern Railways

S/o Dasappa,

Bangalore City Railway

No. 158 , Swathanth-

Station, BANGALORE

Nagar, Srirampuram,

BANGALORE - 21 .

COMMON AWARD

का.आ. 193.- 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 औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी आर -107/87,108/ 87,142/87,145/87,146/87 एवं 22/88 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल-41012/24, 28 , 31 , 33, 34 ,36/86-आई आर ( बी Ⅰ ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide order . No. L -41012/24/86 -D . II (B ) dated 22-5-1987 for adjudication on the following schedule:

New Delli , the 19th December , 2005

SCHEDULE

"Whether the manageinent of the Southern Railway isjustified in terminating the services of Shri Ranga w.c.f. 16-5-1987 ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

C.R. No. 142/87

II PARTY

I PARTY

Divisional Railway Manager ,

Shri P. Changalrayan ,

S.O. 193.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (CR No. 107/87 , 108/87,142/87 , 145 /87,146/87 and 22/88 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Southern Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Governntent on 19-12-2005 .

Southern Railways

Bangalore City Railway

Station, BANGALORE [No. L-41012/ 24/86- IR (B - I) , L-41012/28/86- IR (B -I) , L-41012/31/86- IR (B-I ), L-41012/33 /86 - IR (B - I), L-41012/ 34/86-IR (B -I) , L-41012/36/86 - IR (B -I) ]

S/o Loganathan , No. 97 , 3rd Cross , PrakashNagar, Bangalore -21

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Shri K. Ramanaiah, S/o Vengaian, No. 279 , 9th Cross , Prakash Nagar, Bangalore -21

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 8th December 2005

Shri Palani . A,

PRESENT:

SHRI A.R. SIDDIQUI : Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 107/87

S/o K.M. Annamali , Balegowda Compound, 1 Main, Depanjali Nagar, 69th Cross Mysore Road,

II PARTY

I PARTY

Bangalore -21

Divisional Railway Manager,

Southern Railways

Bangalore City Railway

Shri K. Gangadharan, S/o Kalimuthu, No. 158 , Swathanthnagar, Bangalore -21

Station , BANGALORE

Shri R. Rajendran, S/o Rathnam, No. 111 , 3rd Cross , PrakashNagar, BANGALORE - 21 .

Shri S.Murthy,

COMMON AWARD

S/o Subramany, Major, No. 215 , 6th Cross , Prakash Nagar, Bangalore -21

Shri Ravi R,

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) ofsub- section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide order. No. L-41012/ 31 /86 -D. II (B) dated 22-5-1987 for adjudication on the following schedule:

S/o K. Raju , No. 44/2 , Metadahalli ,

SCHEDULE

Bangalore -32

Shri Krishnamurthy. V, S/oVeeraswamy,

"Whether the management of Southern Railway is justified in terminating the services of Shri R. Rajendran w.e.f. 16-5-1984 ? If not , to what reliefthe workman is entitled? "

No. 1538, Mariyappanapalyam, Srirampura , Bangalore - 21 430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

Shri Devan . P, S/o Periappa , No. 140, II Main Road, Ramachandrapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore -21.

Shri R. Selva , Since dead rep by his LRs, Smt. JulianMercy, Wife, S.Rajesh, Son , S. Shalini , Daughter, No. 135 D, New RailwayQuarters, New Vasanthnagar PostOffice, Bangalore -52.

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub -section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L -41012/28/86-D. II (B) dated 25-8-1987 foradjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Southern Railway is justified in terminating the services of nine workmen (as shown below) w.e.f. 16-5-1985 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

S/ Shri P. Changalarayan , K. Ramanaiah , A. Palani , K. Gangadharan , S. Murthy, R. Ravi , V. Krishnamurthy, P. Devan , Selva .

C.R. No. 145/87

I PARTY

II PARTY

Shri . T. Venkatesh , S/ o Thammayya, No 276 - L , M. G. Railway

Quarter, Bangalore-21

Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways , Bangalore City Railway Station, Bangalore.

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L -41012 /34 /86 -D - II ( B ) dated 25-8-1987 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Southern Railway is justified in terminating the services of T. Venkatesh w.c.f. 16-5-1984 ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled? "

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

C.R. No. 146/87

I PARTY

II PARTY

Shri B. V. Srinivasalau Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways , Bangalore City Railway Station, Bangalore.

S/ o Venkataswamy, No. 21-8 , 1st Cross , II Main Road, Prakashnagar, Bangalore -21 .

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-41012 /36 /86-D . II (B ) dated 2-9-1987 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Southern Railway is justified in terminating the services of Shri Srinivasalu w.e.f. 16-5-1984 ? If not, to what reliefthe workman is entitled?"

C.R. No. 22/88

I PARTY

II PARTY

No.4thBlock,

Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railways Bangalore City Railway Station, Bangalore .

Shri N. Rajendran S/oNatarajan, Rajajinagar Bangaloic - 10

COMMON AWARD

The Central Government by exercising the powers conferredby clause ( d) of sub - section 2A ofthe Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L-41012 /33 /86-D . II (B) dated 12-5-1988 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of the Southern Railway is justified in terminating the services of Shri N. Rajendran w.e.f. 12-5-1988 ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?"

2. The aforesaid first party workmen and the deceased R. Silvan , one of the first party workmen in CR No. 142/87 , approached the High Court in Writ Petition Nos. 13339 to 13350, 13593 of 1984 with a prayer of issue of direction to the Second party management to reinstate them in service and pay them full wages from the date of their alleged termination . During the pendency of these Writ Petitions , the workmen alleged that they have not been paid wages for a period of 13 months and to that learned management advocate agreed to pay the wages to each workmen for the actual number of days worked as evident from the muster rolls . The learned single judge noting this admission disposed off the above said writ petitions with a liberty to the workmen to raise an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the ID Act and to receive 431 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

by affording opportunity to the parties to lead evidence ifany and after hearing them , in light ofthe observations made above .

the wages for 13 months from the management . The workmen raised the dispute resulting into the failure report of the conciliation officer and thereupon the above said references to this tribunal .

Ⅲ. The respondents who are working now will continue to work and their reinstatement is subject to the result of the dispute to be adjudicated by the Labour Court.

3. During the course of trial , the workmen , filed applications for grant of interim relief and they being allowed, they were getting the interim relief regularlytill the reinstatement . The workman , Shri R. Selvan since died during the pendency, his legal representatives have been brought on record .

IV. Inview ofthe fact that the dispute is pending for the last 20 years , the labour court shall take it up ofout of turn and dispose it expeditiously, atany rate within six months from today.

V No order as to costs .

4. After due trial of the case and after having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties on oral and documentary evidence produced by them, my learned predecessor by his common award dated 1-3-99 allowed the references on hand by passing the following order:-

ORDER

6. Before the remand of the case , proceedings in all the above said reference cases were clubbed and common evidence was recorded in C.R. No. 108/87 . All the workmen had examined themselves including the LR of deceased, R. Silva as WWI to WW12 and got marked documents at Ex .W1 to W16 . The management on its part examined the thenAssistant Personnel Officer by name Shri C.R. Rangaraj asMWI getting marked 5 documents at Ex . M1 to M5 .

7. Since all these workmen have taken the common stand and reiterated averments common to each other in their respective claim statements raising facts and the question of law almost similar, to avoid the repetition, the common case made out by the First party workmen is brought on record as under:-

"The Second party are not justified in terminating the services of the workmen who are involved in respective cases. Therefore , the termination is set aside . Since the Second party is also found not following the mandatory provisions contained under Section 25F of the Act , the workmen are eligible for reinstatement, continuity of service and back wages. Since they have reached age which made them ineligible for the appointment , for the purpose of this case their age shall be taken on the date they have first worked and they shall be provided a suitable employment in accordance with rules governing the Second party.

As it relates to the workman Silvan in CR No. 142/87 the legal representatives are represents him dueto his death on 2-4-1989 . The order of reinstatement in his case is not possible . He has left his wife a son and a daughter . The benefit of back wages shall be paid in equal proportion to the wife and children . If the children are minor the amounts shall be deposited in a schedule bank making their mother as guardian. Any one of the member shall be appointed to a suitable post on compassionate grounds.

The Second party are entitled to make necessary deductions for the money paid by them towards wages for 13 months and interim relief that they are paying to the First party throughout . "

It is the case of the workmen that they have been appointed as substitutes/ Khalasi's on a pay scale of Rs. 196-232 per month . They are under control of CTXR/ BYPL , against the existing vacancies w.c.f. the respective date of appointments as shown in the chart annexed. They worked continuously, uninterruptedly and to the atmost satisfaction of the management from the date of their respective appoints but the management all of a sudden stopped their services w.c.f. 15-5-1984 without assigning any reason . They further contended that they worked continuously for more than 13 months which is more than 240days in a period more than 12 calendar months therefore, the non compliance of mandatory provisions of Chapter V-A and V-B of ID Act read with Section 25F thereof by the management before terminating the services of the workmen amounts to retrenchment and the termination is a nullity in the eye of law. Therefore , they are entitled for reinstatement.continuity of service , backwages and other reliefs . The chart given by the first party workmen is as under:-

CHART

Name-S/Shri

Date

5. Aggrieved by the above said award passed by this tribunal , the management challenged it in Writ Petition Nos . 23812-23825/99 and his Lordship of our Hon'ble High Court after hearing the learned counsels representing the . respective parties remanded the matter back to this tribunal by passing the following order:-

Date of appo-

ORDER

intment

Date oftermi- nation

of pass- ingof medical cxam

1. The Writ petitions are allowed. The impugned award passed by the Labour Court dated 1-3-99 is qushed.

11-5-1983 15-5-1984

P. Changalarayan 6-4-1983

11-5-1983 15-5-1984

6-4-1983

N. Rajendran

11. The entire matter is remittedback to the Labour Court for adjudication in accordance with law 432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/ PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Name-S/Shri

Date

oftermi-

Date ofappo-

nation

intment

of pass- ingof medical

---exam

6-4-1983 11-5-1983 15-5-1984

R. Rajendran

A. Palani

6-4-1983 11-5-1983 15-5-1984

20-4-83

15-5-1984

26-7-1983

Ranga

20-4-83

15-5-1984

26-7-1983

C.Gangadharan

20-4-83 26-7-1983 15-5-1984

S.Murthy

20-4-83

R. Ravi

15-5-1984

26-7-1983

20-4-83

B.V. Srinivasulu

15-5-1984

26-7-1983

15-5-1984

26-7-1983

V. Krishnamurthy 20-4-83

20-4-83

P. Devan

26-7-1983 15-5-1984

Venkatesh

20-4-83

15-5-1984

26-7-1983

20-4-83

Selva

23-6-1983 15-5-1984

Ramanaiah

20-4-83

15-5-1984

21-6-1983

fact that there was no application by any of the workmen seeking appointment much less against any vacancy advertised by the management and that they did not claim wages for a substantial period of 13 months they said to have worked all along must make it abundantly clear that their appointments were fake appointments not giving any legal right to them to challenge the action of the management in stopping them to work and and to claim the reliefs sought for . In support of his argument that Ex.M1 & M3 are forged documents not issued by the then Personnel Officer, namely, Shri C. Rangaraj . Learned counsel took the court through the statement of said Shri C. Rangaraj before this tribunal examined as MW1 . Wherein he disowned his signatures on Ex . MI & M3 and the fact that he issued such appointment letters in favour of the workmen . He also took the help of the admitted signatures of MWI on Ex. M2, M4 and M5 to compare with his disputed signatures on Ex . M1 and M3 to point out that they are not one and the same. His next contention was that ifat all the workmen were to be appointed, they must have undergone medical test well before the appointment orders and not subsequent tojoining the services as claimed by the workmen . He then question statement of WW13 , the then Chief Trainer Examiner, Byapanahalli , Bangalore on the ground that his testimony is not worth reliable , he being a partisan witness favouring the case of the workmen for the reason best known to him. He also contended that under the rules framedby the management , the workmen should have been conferred with the ' temporary status ' for having worked for a period 120 days but they did not do so as their appointment was not by the competent authority.

8. The case of the management on the other hand asmade out its Counter Statement again with a common stand in all the cases is that these workmen have not been appointed in any capacity under the management . The appointment orders produced by the first party workmen said to have been signed by said Shri C. Rangaraj are forged and created one and that the matter was under investigation by the Railway Vigilance Commission into the alleged forgery of the aforesaid documents namely, the appointment orders produced by the workmen . All the averments made in the Claim Statement also were denied by the management as false and that the reliefs sought for them are not to be granted.

9. During the course of trial , keeping in view the respective pleadings of the parties , this tribunal on 16-7-87 framed the following additional issue:-

"Whether the First party workmen proves that they have been employed by the Second party as contended by them?"

Again on 21-9-1987 one more additional issue was framed as under:-

"Whether the First party workmen committed fraud asalleged in the Counter Statement " ?

10. Therefore , in the light of the above, before answering the points of references it will be proper to answer and record findings on the aforesaid two additional issues as per the observations and direction given by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petitions while remitting the matter back to this tribunal .

12. Whereas , learned counsel for the First party argued that keeping in view of the fact that the workmen have admittedly worked under the management for a period of13 months and that the management paid the wages to each of the workmen under the direction of the Hon'ble High Court , it has to be presumed that they worked under the proper and valid appointment orders issued by the competemt authority and it is now for the management to show that those appointment letters at Ex . MI &M3 were the fake and forged letters which burden has not been discharged by the management much less offering the explanation as to who infact forged those documents . He submitted that Ex . Ml & M3 are the documents of the management itself and it is for the management to substantiate as to under what circumstances they have come in existence , particularly, in veiw of the contention of the management that the forgery matter has been seized by the Vigilance Commission but no vigilance report is forthcoming. He contended that a close perusal of the signatures at Ex.MI and M3 being compared with the admitted signatures of MWI on Ex.M2 , M4 and M6 would make it very clear that they are very similar in nature and are the signatures by one and the same person namely, MWI . He also took the court through various documents at Ex. W1 to W16 and that the court Exhibits at Ex . Cl to C14 including the muster rolls , extract of attendance register and the free passes issued to each ofthe workmen by the 11. Learned counsel for the management vehemently argued that the appointment letters at Ex . Ml and M3 , the basis for the claim of the First party workmen are not appointment orders issued by the competent authority and that they are created and forged one . He contended that 433 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

railway department of the management . In support of his contention that all these records could not have been created and fabricated by the poor illiterate workmen on the basis of alleged forged documents hoodwinking the officers under whom they worked for a long period of 13 months. He also took the support of the statement of WW13 , an independent witness examined on behalfofthe workmen under whom they worked during the aforesaid period and who issued the documents at Ex . W2 to W10 and W15 and also was the author of the aforesaid extract of attendance register at Ex.Cl to C14 . He submitted that there is no reason for this tribunal not to act upon the testimony of WW13 particularly in the absence of any suggestion made in his cross examination attributing any motive against him for giving evidence in favour of the workmen. He ridiculed the suggestion made to WWI that Ex . M1 & M3 were concocted by him and others with the collusion ofWW13 particularly when no such suggestion was made to WW13 himself in that behalf. He nextly contended that even for the sake of argument if it is taken granted that those orders at Ex.MI & M3 are not made by the competent authority then again the workmen must succeed in seeking the relief of reinstatement and other reliefs . They having worked for a period of 240 days and more admittedly during the above said period of 13 months, as they have been terminated from service in violation of provisions of Section 25 F of the ID Act . He submitted that though the matter has been remanded back to this tribunal mainly for the reason that there was no finding given by This tribunal on the aforesaid two additional issues , the management has failed to discharge the burden placed on it on second additional issue with regard to the forgery of the documents .

to work under CTXR Nityanandan ( WW13 ) who was the ChiefTrain Examiner. The other train examiners under whom they worked were Muniswamy, Mohan , Yusuf, Gopalakrishna and Alfred Devis who were supervising their work. They have stated that they were provided with free train passes which used to be given to any workmen under railways who worked more than 120 days continuously. They stated that after they rendered a continuous service of about 13 months their services are terminated by oral instructions and that they have not been paid wages from the date of their joining till they were terminated from service. In their additional affidavits they have stated that as per the statement of MW1 , Ex. Ml & M3 have been obtained from the vigilance department and that goes to say that they are the orders from the Office of the Divisional Personnel Officer of the Management . They have also stated that 15 days prior to their appointment same DPO office has appointed 4 persons by name Tavamani , Manjunath , Shekar and Munirathnam as Substitute Khalasis and that shows that there was a valid sanction from the General Manager or higher officials for the appointment of Substitute Khalasis . In the cross examination of these witnesses , the management put serveral suggestions disputing the alleged appointment orders and train passes but they were denied by the workmen . However, it was elicited from their mouth that they did not have the copy of their applications seeking the appointment. In his further cross examination WW1 denied the suggestion for the management that he and others have forged the documents of appointment getting their name entered to the muster roll with the collusion of the Chief Train Examiner ( WW13 ) . It was elicited from his mouth that he has not received any separate order other than Ex . MI from DPO giving them the status of temporary employee. He denied the suggestion for the management that Ex. M1 & M3 , appointment orders have been obtained with the collusion of Chief train Examiner and on the basis ofEx . MI & M3 , he entered their names to muster roll .

13. After having gone through the records , I find substance in the arguments advanced for the workmen . Before answering the points of references as noted above , I would like to record the findings on the aforesaid two additional issues and answer the first issue in the Affirmative and the second issue in the negative for the following reasons :

: REASONS

14. The management witness , the then Assistant PersonnelOfficer in Bangalore Division in his examination chiefstated that he has not issued any appointment order to these workmen. He denied the signatures found in Ex . Ml and M2 (it ought to have been M3 ) , which are in the nature ofappointment orders . He relied on two documents at Ex . M4 & M5 , the promotional orders only to show that signatures on those documents are his signatures and they are different from the signatures found on Ex. Ml and M3 . In his cross examination he has admitted that a casual workman appointed by the competent authority attains temporary status having worked continuously for 120 days and that he gets passes and medical benefits. He also stated that Khalasis and Substitutes are recruited from open market . Now therefore , in the light of the above, the first question to be determined by this tribunal would be "whether the workman prove that they have been employed by the management as contended by them vide first additional issue" . The fact that first party workmen have been in the employment of the management during the As noted above , earlier to the remand , the workmen have examined themselves as WWI to WW12 including the wife of the deceased R. Selvan and got marked 16 documents.Whereas , the management examined said Shri C. Rangaraj as MW1 . After the remand the workmen have filed their additional affidavits by way of farther evidence and examined said witness , WW13 . WWI was cross examined by the management counsel and he adopted his statement in cross examination for all other workmen . Na additional oral or documentary evidence was produced by the management after the remand . In their cross examination chief all the first party workmen and the wife of the said deceased R. Silva have spoken in one vioce and the gist of their evidence is that they have been appointed as Khalasis by the Divisional Personnel Officer , Srikantan on the various dates referred in the said chart and they were asked [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

above said 13 months continuously has been very much admitted by the management itself and that fact also has been proved by the various documents produced by the workmen in the form of free passes , the medical test they have undergone after joining the service , the extract of attendance registers and muster rolls marked before this tribunal at Ex . WI to W16 and court exhibits Cl to C14, respectively. It is no where the case of the management that the workmen were not under the employment of the management during the above said 13 months period and this fact also could not have been denied by them for having paid wages of 13 months to each of the workmen on the basis of actual working days in pursuanceto the undertaking made by the management before the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions . Therefore , keeping in view the oral as well as documentary evidences produced by the workmen and the fact undisputed that they were in the service of the management , there cannot be any hesitation in the mind of this tribunal to come to the conclusion that the first party workmen have proved their employment under the management as contended by the them in claim Statement based on which the above said firstadditional issue was framed.

Depts . Therefore , when he was the incharge of the department under which the first party workmen, were working and he issued the promotional orders at Ex . M4 andM5 he cannot now turn around and say that he has no power of appointment and has not issued the appointment letters at Ex. MI & M3 . It was rightly argued for the workmen thatthe documents at Ex. MI and M3 which are the Xerox copies of the original orders having been produced by the management itself, it was for the management alone to establish before this tribunal that they are the forged documents . No evidence is produced to suggest that they are the forged documents and they have been forged by some authority with the collusion offirst party workmen . It is only during the course or cross examination of WWI made after the remand, a suggestion was put to him that he with the collusion of WW13 got Ex.MI & 3 forged and created. Such a suggestion was not made by any of the workmen when they were subjected to cross examination before the matter was remanded . Moreover , it is interesting to note that such a suggestion was made to WW1 but no such suggestion was made to WW13 himself when he was cross examined by the management . That apart ifwe pursue the statement of WW13 under whom admittedly the workmen were working at the relevant point of time, it can be very well found out that the theory of forgery propounded by the management is just a make belief story todefeat the case ofthe workmen. WW13 in his examination chicf in very unequivocal words stated that as per Ex . M1 andM3, 14 persons named therein have worked under him andEx. Ml (b) on Ex . MI bears his signature . He stated that he received Ex.M1 & M3 from divisional personnel office and copics have been sent to the authorities concerned as marked therein . He then stated that all the 14 first party workmen have been appointed as against the vacancies shown in Ex . W11 original of which was marked at Ex. W11 ( a) produced by the management hearing his signature. he also deposed that Ex . W2 to W10 ( free passes ) & W15 are under his signature . He then stated that 15 days prior to the appointment of the first party workmen , 4 others namely Tavamani , Manjunath , Shekhar and Munirathnam were appointed as Khalasis by the Management . In his last sentence of examination chief he stated that court documents at Ex . CI to C14 bear his signatures . The above said statement of WW13 , an independent witness still in the service of the management remains to be unshaken in his cross cxamination except to clicit from his mouth that he has not enquired under whose signature Ex.M1 & M3 issued and that he prepared the muster rolls and attendance registers without verifying and confirming the appointments under those documents . No material suggestion was made to him denying his statement in cxamination chicf . As noted above , in fact no suggestion was made to WW13 that he created Ex.M1 and M3 with the collusion ofworkmen though such a suggestion was made to WWI as noted above . Therefore, if we go by the statement of WW13 who is impartial and independent witness , that too still in the service of the management , there cannot be any doubt to suggest that these 15. Now coming to the second issue , the burden heavily and primarily cast upon the management to establish that the first party have.committed fraud as alleged in the Counter Statement . The management in order to substantiate this fact , mainly, relied upon the statement of MWI wherein he disowned his signatures on Ex.MI & M3 and the fact that he issued those appointment letters in favour of the workmen to show that Ex.MI & M3 are forged documents , the management further relied upon his statement that the signatures found on Ex. MI & M3 are Different from his admitted signatures on Ex . M2 , M4 and M5 . It was well argued for the first party workmen that above said statement of MWI is not worth credence in as much as the signatures found on Ex . MI & M3 are quite similar to the signatures found on Ex.M2 , M4 and M5 . Learned counsel for the workmen requested this tribunal to compare those signatures to find out the truth . On the perusal ofthe aforesaid documents , I do find substance in the arguments for the workmen that signatures on Ex.MI and M3 and the signatures on Ex . M2 , M4 and M5 are quitc similar which must have been signed by one and the same person . To one's naked eye it can be seen that signatures found on all the said five documents are quite identical and similar to cach other . In his examination chicfitsclfMW1 stated that Assistant Personnel Officer or Assistant Officers who have the approval of Divisional Railway Manager or the appointing authority for Khalasis . To question No. 12 he admitted that Ex.M4 and M5 are the orders issued by him . To question No. 32 he says that he was entrusted with the work of staff matters and during the period from November 1983 to 15-5-84 he has not issued any order appointing Khalasis in the Mechanical division . To question No. 33 he admitted that staff matters mean appointments , promotions , transfers , reinstatements etc , and that he was incharge of these matters of Mechanical , clectrical and Civil [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006 /पौप 24, 1927

appointment letters at EX.MI & M3 have been issued by the competent authority based on which the workmen worked with the management for a sufficient long period of 13 months without there being any action takan by the management against them on the ground that they were not the employees of the management . It is the case of the management as has come in the statement of MWI the Railway Vigilance Commission is seized of the matter with regard to the forgery of Ex.MI & M3 . As on to date the management was not in a positions to point out as to what happened to the said vigilance enquiry and what were the result of the said enquiry. As long back as 1984 itself the workmen have approved the High Court basing their claim onthe appointment letters at Ex.M1 & M3 . Now almost a decade has passed but nothing is to be heard from the management as to what enquiry was done in the matter and as to who was held responsible for forger of the said documents . Therefore , the claim of the management that Ex .M1 & M3 are forged documents has got absolutely no basis. The contention ofthe management that the workmen should have undergone medical test before entering into service again is no substance . The fact that the workmen had undergone medical test after joining the services at the instance of the management must falsify the said contention . Its contention that the workmen could not have kept quite in claiming wages for about 13 months if they were appointed under valid orders again deserves no merit . It has come in the statement of WW13 that too elicited from his mouth in cross examination that he had been sending the muster rolls claiming the salary of the workmen. Therefore, ifthe workmen were not paid any wages despite sending the the muster rolls by WW13 who was their immediate boss , they cannot be blamed for any latches on their part in not claiming the wages . Therefore , the statnient of MWI very much relied upon by the managements to speak to the fact that Ex.MI and M3 are forged documents not being worth reliable for the reasons stated above, the management fails to discharge the burden castupon it on additional issue No.2 . In the result I must record my findings on Issue No. 1 in the ' Affirmative ' and Issue No.2 in the 'Negative ' .

16. Now coming to the points of reference , it goes without saying that in the light of the above said findings on additional issues recorded by this tribunal, the action ofthe management in terminating the services of the first party workmen amountsto retrenchment . Undisputedly and so also supported by voluminous documentary evidence brought on record , the workmen have worked continuously for 240 days and more during the period of 13 months immediately before they were stopped from working. It is again not in dispute that provisions of Section 25F have not been compiled with while terminating their services . Therefore, termination tantamounts to illegal retrenchment made in violation of Section 25F read with Section 2(oo) of the ID Act . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a decision reported.in 1960 ILLJ SC 251 - State of Bombay Vs. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha as far back as 39 years , laid down the proposition of law that ' non 2 GI/06-21

435 compliance with provisions contained in Section 25F renders the retrenchment invalid , void and inoperative. ' Their Lordship of Madhya Pradesh High Court in a case reported in 1994 (2 )LLJ page 320 have held that ' termination on the ground that appointinent was invalid also could not have been passed without compliace of Section 25F of the ID Act' . Even in the case of alleged fraud , Central Administrative Tribunal in a case reported in 1990 (2) 80J between Refi Ram and others Vs. Union of India and others laid down the principle ' the delinquent is entitled for a show - cause notice before termination of his services . In a similar situation in case reported in 1991 ( 1 ) 880J page 326 between M. P. Singh Vs. Union of India , CAT New Delhi bench held the view that services of the workmen who obtained appointment by way of fraud and misrepresentation could not have been terminated without issuing show - cause notice ' . Therefore , even for the sake of argument if we attach some weight to the case of the management that the workmen have committed fraud in getting documents at Ex.MI & M3 viz the appointment letters , then again their services could not have been terminated without the compliance of Section 25F of the IDAct and without following the principles of natural justice issuing show - cause notice to them. There was no show - cause notice issued to the workmen for the alleged fraud nor any enquiry was conducted. Therefore , on this count also the action of the management in terminating the services of the workmen shall have to be set aside as illegal and inoperative . Therefore , it can be held that the management is not justified in terminating the services of theworkmen.

17. It is on record that the workmen except the said R. Selvan ( since deceased ) have been ordered to be continued in service during the pendency of these proceedings. Therefore, relief of reinstatement is not called for. Relief of back wages also cannot be granted as the workman are in the employment of the management under the orders of High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions .As far as workman , Sclva in CR No. 142/87 as noted above , his LRs have been brought on record and therefore , his LRs . namely, wife , son and daughter shall get the benefit of full back wages from the date of termination till the date ofhis death i.e. till 2-4-89 . Accordingly reference is answered and following award is passed.

AWARD

The management is directed to continue the services ofthe first party workmen except R. Sclvan , workman in CR No. 142/87 and shall pay them the salary as per pay scale mentioned in Ex.MI and M3 . LRs of the deceased R. Selvan shall get full back wages due to him from the date ofhis temination till his death i.e. 2-4-89 . Copy ofthe award be kept in CR Nos. 107/87, 142/87 , 145/87 , 146/87, 147/87 and 22/88 . No order to cost .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 8th December, 2005. )

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 दिसम्बर, 2005

services of Shri H. S. Krishnamurthy, a probationary Junior Clerk w.e.f. 20-1-86 is justifiable ? If not, what relief Shri H. S. Krishnamurthy is entitled to ?" का. आ. 194.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चित्रादुर्गा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय वंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संध्या सी आर ६१/ 39 ) को प्रतिक है, जो श्रीय सरकार को 12-2005 को प्राप्य दुस

सएएन--12011/44/89- आई आर ( बी 1) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

2. The case of the first party workman in his original Claim statement filed before this tribunal , in brief, was that he is an Ex - employee of the Chitradurga Grameena Bank (hereinafter called the management ) and lus services with the management deserved appreciation . But to his surprise the management without issuing him any chargesheet and without complying the provisions of natural justice have illegally terminated his services w.e.f. 20-1-1986 ; that his appeal against the above said termination order also came to be dismissed . He raised the dispute and the conciliation proceedings having been resulted into a failure report , the present reference has been made . He requested this tribunal topass an award declaring the order of termination as illegal with a direction to the management to reinstate him in service with continuity of service and other benefits along with cost of Rs . 1500 /- . In his additional Claim Statement filed(after remand) under the permission of this tribunal , he requested this tribunal to add paras 2 (a ) and 2 (b ) after para 2 in his earlier Claim Statement . Para 2 (a ) and 2 (b) read as under : --

S.O. 194. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (CR No. 69/89 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chitradurga Grameena Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-12-2005 ,

[No. L - 12011/44/89 - IR (B -I )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE

Dated : 12th December , 2005

PRESENT :

SHRI A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 69/89

IIPARTY

The Chairman,

IPARTY Shri H. S. Krishnamurthy, C/ o Anant P. Savadi , Advocate , Room No. 8 , II Block , 111 Floor, SuperMarket . Hubli - 5800020

Chitradurga Grameena Bank, Srikadlisringeri , Mahasamsthanam Building, P. B. No. 70 , Joginutti Road, Chitradurga

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub -section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order. No. L - 12011 /44/89 - IR (B - 1 ) dated 27th September, 1989 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

" 2 (a) that the management by its letter Dated 30-10-1985 has specifically stated that the first party workman is unauthorisedly absent and by invoking the Regulation 10 (2) (a) (ii ) of Chirtradurga Grameena Bank ( Staff) service Regulations 1982 , the services ofthe claimant came to be terninated. However , the management has admitted the facts of illness of the mother of the first party. The mother of the first party was seriously ill during the relevant time i.e. during July, 1985 and thereafter she had a paralytic stroke and she was totally bed ridden , subsequently, she died. In view of the above circumstances , and genuine reason the first party workman could not attend the duties. It is relevant to point out here that the mother of first party was treated by the medicine given by Villagers for the paralytic stroke and there are no certificates for having treated her by the Villagers . However, it is pertinent to state here that the allegation narrated in the notice issued by the Management i.e. unauthorized absent without permission is misconduct under Regulation 22 of Chapter 4 of the Regulation . Therefore , when the allegation amounts to misconduct there should have been a chargesheet and an enquiry was required to be held before terminating the services of first party workman . Therefore , the action taken by the management without issuing a chargesheet and without conducting proper enquiry is illegal and unsustainable and it is in outright violation of their own Regulations governing the service conditions of the employees like the first party. Therefore , the

termination order which was not preceded by a "Whether the action taken by the Management of Chitradurga Grameena Bank in terminating the 437

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

chargesheet and an enquiry is illegal and arbitrary. "

recalling him for work but without any response from him to the said notice . His services at the said two branches during the above said short span were not satisfactory rendering him as unsuitable to the post; that having regard to his unauthorized absence and unsuitability a final memo dated 30-10-85 came to be issued, but the first party neither reported for work nor gave any satisfactory explanation for his absence , Therefore , under the above facts and circumstances , the first party came to be discharged from the services on 20-1-1986 not being found suitable to the post. This action of the management is perfect , legal and justified. Keeping in view the well settled principle of law that the employce can be terminated or discharged from the services being found unsuitable to the post to which hewas appointed. The action of the management was based on the ground that first party was not suitable for the post for which he was engaged. His services were terminated by giving him pay in lieu of one months's notice in terms of Staff Regulation 2 of Regulation 10 of the said Grameena Bank Staff Regulation , 1982. Therefore, the action of the management is not in pursuance to any misconduct but for the reason that he was not found suitable to the job he was posted.

" 2 (b) that the Regulation 100 ( 2 ) ( a) ( ii ) no doubt empowers the management to terminate the services of an employee but the same has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Κ . Agarwal V/ s . Gurgaon Gramin Bank and others by order dated 20-11-87. Since all the Rural Banks have been regulated by the NABARD , the guidelines issued by NABARD , directing the Banks to amend the Regulation , which empowers the direct termination as stated supra and the NABARD has given a clear instruction to keep in mind the observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case stated above before resorting to terminate the services of employce. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the similar provision of Regulation of other Grameen Banks has struck down the validity of such Regulations as unconstitutional and hence the Regulation invoked by the 2nd party in terminating the services of the first party workman was is not in vogue . Therefore , the order of termination passed by the management is "Ab - initio void and it is liable to be set aside . The Claimant herein initially raised an Industrial Dispute before. the State Labour Court in Ref. No. 97/87 . The management has taken up a stand that the State Labour Court has no jurisdiction as the Management is a schedule Bank and only the Central Govt . is only an appropriate Govt . as contemplated under the ID Act . In such circumstances the first party workman did not prosecute the reference stated above and he did not invite any orders on merits in the said Reference . Thereafter the Claimant approached the Labour Commissioner, Central . In view of the above circumstances and the Central Government was pleased to refer the dispute in hand to this Hon'ble Court for adjudication. Therefore there is no delay on the part of the first party workman in raising the dispute."

4. While answering the two additonal Para 2 (a and b) of the Claim Statement ( by way of additonal Claim Statement ) the management denied the contention that it had admitted the fact of illness of the mother of the first party not disputing the fact that he had applied for leave on the ground that his mother was not keeping well . The management contended that in order to ascertain the fact of illness of the mother of the first party, the Branch Manager visited his residence and found out that the information given by the first party was not correct as his mother was hale and healthy. If further contended that first party was not at all evincing any interest in rendering the work during the probationary period and remained absent undisputedly from 2-5-85 . He did not respond to the recall notice dated 30-10-86 nor reported for duty. The overall performance of the first party was taken into consideration and being found totally unsatisfactory, his services were terminated giving him one months's pay in licu of the notice . Therefore, question of following the Regulation No. 22 of Chapter 4 of the regulations does not arise . He was a probationer as per Regulation 8 ( 3 ) ( a ) of the aforesaid Regulations and his services have been terminated by comploying the Regulation 10 ( 2 ) (a ) ( ii ) . The management disputed the contention of the first party that the above said regulation has been struck down by the Supreme Court of India pertaining to some other bank etc. It contended that the first party was terminated from the services of the bank w.e.f. 20-1-1986 and whereas he is quoting the case of the Supreme Court dated 20-11-1987 which is subsequent to his termination. Even otherwise the first party was a probationer and since his performance during the probationary period was found to be not satisfactory then 3. The management in its earlier Counter Statement while resisting the claim of the first party interalia contended that as per Chitradurga Grameena Bank Staff Regulation , 1982 laying down the service conditions of employees , the first party was selected for the post of Junior Clerk- Cum- Cashier in the management bank vide appointment order dated 30-1-85 as Junior Clerk- Cum- Cashier. He reported for work on 14-2-85 at Talikatte Branch ofthe management . He worked at the said branch from 14- 2-85 to 30-3-85 and then on transfer to Kitadal Branch , he worked there from 1-4-85 to 1-5-85 and while he was working at Kitadal Branch he remained absent from 2-5-85 undisputedly and never reported for work at any time thercafter; that having regard to the continued prolonged absence of the first party, he was served with a notice 438

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

there was no alternative for the management but to dispense with his services . It denied the contention of the first party that his services were terminated by way of punishment and referred to the judgment of Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 628/01 is that regard .

5. Before going to the merits of the case, I would like to bring on record the fact that earlier to this , my learned predecessor by his award dated 3rd September 1999 had dismissed the reference on hand. Aggrieved by this award the first party challenged the same in Writ Petition No. 2886/2001) dated 7-8-2000 and the Learned Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court confirmed the award passed by this tribunal . The first party then preferred a Writ Appeal No.; 5772/2000 ( L) and their Lordship of Hon'ble High Court sitting in division bench by their order dated 26th May 2004 set aside the order of learned single judge in the said Writ petition and have remanded the matter back to this tribunal to restore the dispute in its file and to decide the matter on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing the workman .

6. After the remand as noted above , the first party filed his additional claim statement followed by the additional counter statement of the Second Party and thereafter on the request of the first party, two witnesses already examined by the management as MW1 & 2 were recalled and were cross examined on behalf of the first party. The management then led additional oral evidence of the other two witnesses namely, MW3 & MW4 and in all got marked 24 documents of Ex.M1 to M24. On the closure ofthe evidence by the management, the first party filed an affidavit by way of his examination chief and he was cross examined by the management . During the course of cross examination of MW2 , a Xerox copy of the direction issued by the Manager NABARD was marked at Ex. WI . During the course of cross examination of MW3 , a letter written by him sent to the first party for attending the training of induction course was once again marked as W1 (by oversight) . During course of cross examination ofMW4 other 5 documents were marked on behalf first party at Ex . W2 to W6 .

7. The Statement of MWI in the examination chief with reference to 17 documents marked by the management is as under :

"I have been working with the Second Party for the last several years and a half. For the last 4 years , I have been working as Manager , Personnel Management Section at Head office , Chitradurga . I know the first party workman . The first party was recruited as a Probationery Junior Clerk cum Casluer during January 1985 on probation. Ex.MI is the appointment order. First party reported at Talikatte branch , in February 1985. First party gave declarations to the Bank . M2 , 3 and 4 are the declarations given by the first party Ex . M5 shows he was posted at Talikatte , and he reported there . He worked at

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Talikatte upto the end of March 1985. He was posted to Kitadal branch w.e.f. 1-4-85 . Ex . M6 is the transfer order. He worked at Kitadal branch for about a month. With effect from 2-5-85 he remained absent from duties . Ex.M7 is the copy of the report made by the Branch Manager stating therein the absence of first party.

The first party had remained absent on the ground of his mother's illness . So the head office instructed the manager of Kumbloor branch to verify and inform whether first party's mother was ill . Ex : M8 is the copy of letter written to Manager of Kumbloor branch . We received letter as per Ex . M9 informing that his mother was not, sick . Ex.M10 is the letter by head office to the Manager, Harihara directing him to take a registered Medical Practitioner to the house of the first party and examine the mother . The Manager, who went with the Doctor gave report as per Ex.M11 . Ex.M12 is the report given by the Manager, Kitadal branch.

The bank through a registered letter Ex . M13 directed firstparty to report for duty. The first party did not report for duty. The bank manager reported as per Ex . M14 to the effect that the first party had not reported for duty. The bank again issued notice by RPADto first party as per Ex . M15 directing himto report for duty within 30 days. Ex . M 16 is the postal acknowledgment. Even after Ex . M 15 first party did not report for duty. After the expiry of 30 days , in accordance with law the services of first party was terminated as per Ex . M 17 .

First party worked in the bank only for 77 days, including holidays . As per confidential reports received from the manager, the performance even during that period of 77 days was not satisfactory. Ex. M 18 containing 5 sheets is the performance report of first party. The employees of Second Party are governed by Chitradurga Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulations ( 1982). First Party's services were terminated under sub - regulation 2 of Regulation 10 .

8. Statement of MW2 in his examination chief is a follows:

At present I am working as a Manager at the Second Party Bank , Chitradurga . I know the first party workman. He was recruited as Cashier-Cum-Clerk on probation . Ex . M 19 is the attendance extract of first party at Kitadal Branch. E. M 20 is the Xerox copy of attendance register for the months of June . May and April1985 .

There is a staff service regulation , which was made applicable to our bank. We have terminated the services of this workman after giving one months notice in accordance with staff regulations of the bank. Ex. M 17 is a termination order . " 439

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Branch. It is not in dispute that he was working at Talikatte branch from 14-2-85 to 30-3-85 and then worked from 1-4-85 to 1-5-85 at Kitadal Branch on transfer. It is again not indispute that from 2-5-85 the first party did not report duty till his services were terminated. It is not in dispute that as per the above said appointment order he was put on probation . It is the case of the first party that on account ofill health ofhis Mother he sought for transfer from Kitadal branch to any branch in Davengere or Harihar Taluk vide his letter at Ex . W5 on the ground that his mother was not keeping well and he required medical treatment quite frequently in a well equipped hospital like Davengere or Harihar. It is his further case that it is on account of ill health ofhis mother he was forced to apply for leave as per the said letter at Ex. W6 for a period of 20 days from 2-5-1985 to 21-5-1985 . In his cross examination first party has admitted that he did not report for duty from 2-5-1985 onwards much less subsequentto 21-5-1985 till which date he had applied for leave and the explanation given by himwas that he could not report for duty on account ofhis mother's ill health.

9. As far as MW3 is concerned, he has filed an affidavit by way of evidence and his statement relevant for the purpose is that while he was the branch manager, Talikatte branch between 14-2-85 to 30-3-85 , the first party workedunder him and he has written his CR for the months of February and March 1985. He then stated that during the above said period the first party did not take any initiative to do the work , was not capable to prepare the returns , his behaviour towards the customer was not so good so also with the colleagues and superiors . He used to make daily traveling from branch to his residence and that he neither participated in deposit mobilization nor assisted in recovery and that his overall performance was poor. Similarly MW4 has filed an affidavit stating that first party worked at Kitadal branch under him from 1-4-85 to 1-5-85 as a Probationer and he has submitted his CR for the months of April and May 1985. He stated that first party's service was not at all satisfactory and his quality of work was poor and he also repeated the statement of MW3 as noted above . He also stated that the first party remained absent from duty from 2-5-1985 onwards affecting the branch functioning and his proceeding on leave was on an improper ground which fact he has reported to the higher authorities . He also made a report to the higher authority for his continued absence till the date of his termination .

10. The first party in his affidavit by way of examination chief has almost reiterated the various contentions taken by hini at the above said paras 2 ( a and B) of the Claim Statement therefore , need not be once again repeated.

13. Whereas , it is the case of the management that first of all the application/ letter at Ex . W6 sent by the first party seeking leave was not at all considered by the management granting him leave as sought for. On the other hand the then branch manager, MW4 reported the absence of first party to the head office vide letter at Ex . M7 reporting unauthorized absence of the first party affecting the functioning of the bank and to take appropriate disciplinary action against the first party for his absence . It is the case of the management that the management in order to confirm the information given by the first party about his mother's ill health as per letter at Ex. M8 asked the Manager, Kumbalur branch to verify the reported ill health of first pasty's mother by visiting his house and he (MWL) after having visited the house of the first party found his mother hale and healthy and accordingly reported as per Ex . M9. Thercupon the management once again asked the Manager , Harihar branch to go to the house of the first party to examine lis mother and he after having visited the house made report at Ex . M11 saying that though the mother ofthe first party was in the house but she wrongly reported that mother of first party was not in the house . Accordingly, report at Ex . M12 was also given by the Manager Kitadal branch .

11. Apart from the documents marked at Ex . M 1 to M20 , the otherdocuments at Ex . M 21 to 23 are the Xerox copics of the CR reports at Ex. M 18 scrics and Ex . M24 is the application filed by the first party secking job with the management bank . The documents marked during the course of cross examination to MW4 on behalf of the first party at Ex . W210 W6 are the certificates dated 13-4-1985 said to have been issued by MW4 . The letter dated 4-4-1985 ofthe first party seeking permission to travel daily from Hosadurga to Kitadal branch said lo be bearing the endorsement of MW4 forwarding the said letter to head office under his signature: letter dated 24-4-1985 of the first party secking casual leave on 24-4-1985 and 25-4-1985 , a letter dated 8-4-85by the first party seeking his transfer from Kitadal branch to any other branch in Davengere Taluk or Harihar Taluk and a letter dated 1-5-85 secking leave for 20days from 2-5-85 to 21-5-85 to get treatment to his mother as stated in his letter dated 8-4-85 . I would like to refer to the statements of MWI to MW4 and the statement of first party in his cross examination as well as the documents referred to supra as and when found relevant and necessary.

14. It is further case of the management that they sent a letter at Ex . M 13 dated 7-6-85 calling upon the first party to report duty immediately as he was not eligible for privileged leave and that his absence was being treated as Icave on loss ofemoluments ' . The first party did not report for duty and accordingly Manager , Kitadal branch made report at Ex.M14 about his absence from duty. It is said that thereafter the manager issued notice dated 30-10-85 by RPAD to the first party directing him to report for duty within 310 days in the background of the above said 12. The facts undisputed in tlus case are that the first partywas selected for the post ofJunior Clerk- Cum-Cashier and was given appointment order dated 30-1-85 and accordingly he reported for work on 14-2-85 at Talikatte 440

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

termination order, learned counsel submitted that the Supreme Court struck down the said Regulation by the decision referred to in the year 1987 and whereas , the termination order in this case was in the year 1986 and therefore, invoking the above said regulation in terminating the services ofthe first party was not illegal . In support of his argument that termination order in question was not bad in law particularly in the case of Probationer, learned counsel cited the following rulings :-

(1) 1993 LLR 291

(ii) 1993 LLR 121

(iii) 2003 LLR 349

(iv) 1993 LLR316

(v) 1993 LLR 317

(vi ) 2001 SOL Case No. 040 Civil Appeal No.628/01

15. Whereas , the learned counsel for the first party with equal vehemence contended that the reason given by the management in termination order regarding unsuitability of the first party to the job was an after thought and motivated as his performance during the above said period of 77 days was never found to be unsatisfactory or below the mark. He submitted that the CRs at Ex.M18 serics have been brought in existence only with a view to support the termination order. He submitted that the management in fact suspected the bonafides of the first party in seeking leave on the ground of his mother's ill health and therefore, his leave applications were not considered and this fact gets evident from the statement of MW1 and the aforesaid reports at Ex.M8 to M12 speaking to the fact that officials of the first party visited his house to ascertain the information given by the first party about ill health of his mother . He submitted that the management in fact terminated the services of the first party for his alleged unauthorized absence front duty and not for his unsuitability to the job . To support his argument , learned counsel took the court through the notice at Ex.M15 preceding the termination order and also figuring in the termination order. Wherein the management in no uncertain words dwelt upon the alleged unauthorized absence of the first party asking him to report for duty giving a period of 30 days from the date of the said notice . He also took support of the letter at Ex.M13 dated 7-6-1985 issued by the management calling upon the first party to report for duty and treating the absence as leave on loss of emoluments . Therefore , learned counsel submitted that the alleged unauthorized absence of the first party since was found basis for termination of his services , it cannot be sustained in the cyc of law not being preceded by a regular departmental enquiry as unauthorized absence amounts to misconduct . Learned counsel submitted that the order terminating the services of the first party against correspondence and the documents referred to supra . The firstparty by the above said notice was informed that in case he did not report duty within the period of 30 days fromthe date ofreceipt of the notice his name will be deleted from the pay rolls of the bank and since the first party failed to report duty despite the said notice , his services came to be terminated as per termination order at Ex.M17 paying him one month's pay in lieu of one month notice in terms of Regulation 10 (2 ) of the aforesaid Chitradurga Grameen Bank Staff Service Regulations 1982 ( hereinafter called Regulations 1982) . Therefore , now the moot question tobe considered by this tribunal is ' whether the termination order at Ex.M17 is legal and if valid' and the answer is in the Negative . To what relief the first party is entitled for. The management advocate Shri B.C. Prabhakar vehemently argued that the first party being appointed as a Probationer, it was prerogative of the management to get rid of his services after assessing his overall performance including the fact of his unauthorized absence from duty. He contended that based on the above said CRs reports at Ex.M18 series (M21-23) and the fact that the first party was not regular to his duty and remained unauthorisedly absent from 2-5-85 onwards after having worked only for a period of 77 days , the management found the performance ofthe first party unsatisfactory and first party not suitable for the job . Therefore , the management was legally justified in terms of the appointment order in terminating the services ofthe first party who was working as a probationer without any charge sheet , show cause notice or any enquiry as such to be conducted against him . Learned counsel submitted that provision of Regulation 10 ( 2) ( ii ) invoked in termination order is just to comply the condition of appointinent order giving the first party one month pay in lieu of notice and it was nothing to do with the reasons shown in the order terminating his services . He submitted that services of the first party were not terminated for his unauthorized absence amounting to misconduct and therefore, there was no need to conduct any enquiry. He submitted that the applications filed by the first party secking leave on the ground of ill health of his mother werc not based on truth and correct information and suspecting the foul pay, the management had sent two of its officers ascertaining and confirming the ill health of the mother of the first party and it was found that the information was baseless and incorrect. Therefore , Icarned counsel submitted that the conduct of the first party remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly from 2-5-85 onwards after having worked only for 77 days that too during the period of probation was quite unbecoming of an employce on probation affecting the very functioning of the bank . He contended that the management while terminating the services of the first party therefore , rightly acted upon the CRssubmitted by the respective branch managers namely, MW3 and MW4 at Ex . M18 series and was legally justified to do away with the services of the first party once and for all . As far as Regulation 1982 Clause 10 ( 2 ) ( ii ) invoked in 441 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

probationer forming the foundation of unauthorized absence cannot be justified as the allegation of unauthorized absence was not enquired into holding any enquiry. He nextly contended that the performance of the first party in fact was up to the mark and satisfactory and in can be found out from the certificate at Ex. W2 issued by MW4 and the letter at Ex. WI issued by him in sending the first party for induction course therein . Lastly, he submitted that in case the first party's performance was not up to the mark nothing prevented the management to have issued any memo or show cause notice to him about his performance but undisputedly no such memo was issued to the firstparty at any point of time. Therefore , reports at Ex. M18 series cannot be found basis for coming to the conchision that his performance was not up to mark. Learned counsel took the court through the following decisions in support of his arguments .

(i) 1999 ILLJ SC Page 1054

(ii ) 19991LLJ SC page 432

(iii ) ATR 1992 ( 1 ) Cat 667

( iv ) 1987 SCL& S page 47

(v ) 2003 SAR SC page 226

(vi ) FLR 1993 ( 67 ) SC page 111 .

(vii ) 1987 L & S SC page 691

at Ex.M15 was issued again on the allegation of unauthorized absence giving the first party 30 days time to report for duty. Till the issuance of the said notice there was no case of the management at any point of time alleging unsuitability of the first party to the job on account of his unsatisfactory performance. Neither notice at Ex .M13 says about it nor the notice at Ex.M15 nor any other document produced by the management for the period earlier to those notices . It was well argued for the first party that CRs at Ex.M18 series first ofall will not be sufficient to throw light upon the fact that performance of the first party was bad or below the mark and secondly they can not be acted upon for the reason that they should not have been CRs for every month assessing the performance recording adverse remarks without any communication to the first party. Ex.M18 series for the month of February 1985 written by MW3 is to say that he is not at all- showing any interest in internal work' . Similar are the remarks in CR for the month ofMarch 1985. In my opinion these remarks cannot be taken to be adverse remarks attributed to the performance of the first party even if they are taken by their face . CR meant for the month of May 1985 written by MW4 is to say that he is very erratic in attending the office and not at all taking any initiative in developing aspects ' . CR for the month of June 1985 says that first party within a short span of his service has gone on LOE ' . CR for the month of July 1985 says that the one month service in the branch shows that he is not interested in the work ' . First of all CRS for the month of June and July 1985 cannot be considered as admittedly first party was not in the service much less working under MW4 as per his statement in cross examination . Now the only report which is for the month of May 1985 which can be said to be some what adverse speaking to the performance of the first party . First of all such adverse remarks cannot be considered for the simple reason that they have not been communicated to the first party secking his explanation . Secondly undisputedly there was no memo or show cause notice issued to the first party asking him to improve his performance indicating that it was not up to the mark and that he was not found suitable to the job . We cannot also rule out the possbility of the management in getting the above said CRs prepared to meet the case made out in the termination order as argued for the first party. Therefore , the above said CRs in the absence of any memo or show cause notice issued to the first party and for the reasons stated above , cannot be taken as basis for the management to come to the conclusion that first party was not found suitable for the joband that it was the main reason to terminate his services . Main reason as argued for the first party was his unauthorized absence from duty. Their lordship of Supreme Court in thedecision reported in 1999 1 LLJ SC case 1054 i.c. in Dipti Prakash Banerjee's case and in Radhey Shyam Gupta's case reported in 1999 1 LLJ SC 432 have laid down the principle that in order to appreciate the terminology used in the order terminating the services of the probationer, the court has to look into the background preceding any 16. After having gone through the records . I find substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. The fact that the management proceeded rather initiated certain action for the alleged unauthorized absence of the first party as seen above , by issuing the letter at Ex . M13 and then the notice at Ex . M15 calling upon him to report duty must make the mind of the management abundantly clear that the management was very much aggrieved by the unauthorized absence of the first party. Till the notice at Ex.M15 was issued , the management it appears contemplated some disciplinary action against the first party on the ground of his unauthorized absence. If the management was not satisfied with the performance of the first party then the very notices at Ex . M13 and 15 itself would not have been issued asking him to report for duty. As seen from the records , i.c. from the pleadings and the tenor of cross examination of first party by the management that management was not accepting the information given by the first party about his ill health of his mother without any pinch of salt . That was the reason for the management in sending two of its officers to the house of the first party to ascertain the truth of the said information about ill health ofhis mother. As per the management , story of ill health of the mother of the first party was not well founded and it appears to be the reason in not sanctioning leave applied for by the first party. Therefore, till the notice at Ex . M15 was issued , the management was all along thinking about taking action against the first party on the ground of unauthorised absence and that was the reason the notice 442

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

such termination order. It is held that if foundation of the termination order is on the allegations other than the allegations made in the termination order and those allegations have been taken to be true by way of findings behind the back of the enquiry or without any regular enquiry, then such an order of termination will be bad in law. In the first case it is held by their Lordship that if findings were arrived at any enquiry for misconduct behind the back of the officer (here the workman) are without regular departmental enquiry then the simple order of termination is to be treated on the allegations and will be bad. Their Lordship of Suprem Court in the above said Radhey Shyam Gupta's case at Para 11 laid down the principle as under :--

as argued for the first party, termination order is also bad intlaw invoking regulation 10 ( 2 ) ( ii ) of the said Regulations 1982 as they have been struck down by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the case of M.K. Agarwal , Gurgaon Grameena Bank reported in 1987 SC Lab 47. He took support of the said case and the direction issued by the Manager. NABARD at Ex. W1 brought on record . There is no dispute ofthe fact that above said regulation has been set at naught by their Lordship of Supreme Court in the said decision and accordingly instructions have been issued by the Manager , NABARD . What learned counsel for the management submitted is that the decision is of the year 1987 whereas , the termination order is of the year 1986 and therefore , aforesaid decision of Supreme Court will not coine in the way of the management to invoke the said regulation . Onthis point learned counsel for the first party has stated adecision reported in 2003 SAR SC 226 to prove his point that 'interpretation of statute ( in this case regulation) cannot be held to be prospective as their lordship in the said case have held that interpretation of provision relates back to the date of the law itself and cannot be prospective ofthe judgement ' . Therefore keeping in view the above said observation of the Lordship it can be safely held that Regulation 10 ( 2) ( ii ) came to be struck down from the date on which it was regulated or legislated and not from the date their Lordship in the aforesaid decision stnick it down . In the result the termination order invoking the above said regulation cannot be sustained in the eye of law on this count also and accordingly to be quashed.

1 "Now, there are two lines of cases decided by this court which deal with the question in issue. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers, this courthas takenthe view that if the ex parte enquiry or report are the motive for the termination order , thenthe ternination is not to be called punitive merely because'principles ' of natural justice have not been followed . On the other hand , there is an ther line of cases, whether this court has held that the facts revealed in the inquiry are not the motive but the foundation for the termination of he services of the temporary servant or obationer and hence punitive as principles of natural justice have not been followed , and such orders are to be declared void . This court had held that for finding out whether a given case falls with in either of these two categories , it ispermissbile for the High Court or Administrative tribunal to go behind the order and look into the record of the proceedings , the antecedent and attendant circumstances culminating in the order of termination. "

18. Decisions cited on behalf of the management will not come to its rescue as the principle laid down therein , where under quite different context of facts and circumstances . Facts of the present case are quite different from the facts involved in the aforesaid decisions . Therefore, in my humble opinion principle laid down in those decisions are not applicable to the present case . In the result I must hold that the termination order at Ex. M17 is not sustainable in the eye of law and it is held to be illegal and void ab initio . Since termination order is held tobe illegal , the natural corollary would be the reinstatement of first party workman into the service of the management .

17. Therefore , from the reading of the above said observations and principles laid down by their Lordship of Supreme Court, it can be very well said that if the termination order was founded on the allegations of misconduct, in the instant case, the alleged unauthorized absence , simple order oftermination will be bad in the eye of law. In the instant case as noted above , the management all along had grouse against the first party in remaining absent from duty from 2-5-85 onwards as the leave application of the first party on the ground of ill health of his mother was not based on correct and true information. In fact the termination order at Ex . M17 is based on the notice at Ex . M15 which talks about unauthorized absence of the first party all along . The subject matter of the termination order by way of reference quoted was the notice at Ex . M15 . Therefore , as argued for the first party in order to avoid a regular departmental enquiry, the alleged unauthorized absence of the first party, the management have taken a short cut route issuing termination order on certain baseless allegations saying that he was not found suitable for the jobs . Secondly

19. Now, coming to the relief of the back wages , learned counsel for the management argued that he cannot be granted back wages from the date of termination till the date he raised a regular dispute by way of reference made to this tribunal in the year 1989 as the delay caused in raising the dispute on the ground that he raised the dispute first before the State Labour Court in the year 1987 and thereafter he did not press the same on account of want of jurisdiction of the Labour Court is directly to be attributed to the first party workman. His next contention was that he also cannot be granted backwages from the date of reference also since on account of latches on his part only this tribunal inthe first instance passed an award dated 3-9-99 dismissing the reference . He challenged the said award in Writ Petition 443 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the above said award and thereafter challenging the order inwrit petition by way of appeal which was disposed off by their lordship of Hon'ble High Court by order dated 6-5-2004, it is the first party who should be blamed for the delay caused in disposal of the reference on merits . Had he prosecuted the proceedings before this tribunal diligently leading oral and documentary evidence in support of his case and the award was passed by this tribunal in detail based on merits , the resultant proceedings in Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal aforesaid would not have arisen causing inordinate day in disposing off the reference on hand. Therefore , for the period elapsed between the year 1989 and the year 2004 , the management cannot be burdened with the payment of back wages to the first party as it is on account of the latches on the part of the first party the delay in disposal of the reference had occurred.

No. 2886/2000 and that came to be confirmed by the learned single judge vide order dated 7-8-2000 . He challenged the order in Writ Petition in writ appeal No. 5772/2000 and their Lordship ofHon'ble High Court sitting in division bench set aside the order passed in Writ Petition remanded the matter back to this tribunal for fresh disposal . Therefore, learned counsel, submitted that for the period elapsed between the year 1989 and 2004 also the first party cannot be granted back wages as on account of lapses on his part, as the award dated 3-9-99 was passed by this tribunal in favour of management and the management was in no way responsible for disposal of the reference on hand during the aforesaid period. He further contended that in his own admissions during the courts ofcross -examination before this tribunal , the first party admitted that he has been enrolled as an advocate in the year 1994 and therefore, itcannot be said that he has not been gainfully employed at least subsequent to the year 1994 when he started practicing as an Advocate at Harihar Courts.

20. Whereas , learned counsel for the first party argued that since award passed by this tribunal was challenged by the first party in the Writ Petition and thereafter by way of Writ Appeal , he cannot be denied backwages for the period consumed during the pendency ofthe proceedings before the High Court in Writ Petition as well as in Writ Appeal . He did not argue on the point about the delay caused in raising the dispute before the Labour Commissioner (C ) resulting into the present reference in the year. 1989 nor on the point that the first party having been enrolled as an Advocate in the year 1994has been practicing as a legal practitioner in Harihar Courts.

22. Now the question will be whether the first party can get the backwages from the month of May 2004 , the date on which the above said Writ Appeal was disposed off and onwards . It is the case of the managements that from the year 1994 onwards the first party being enrolled as an Advocate has been practicing at Harihar Court and therefore, it cannot be said that he has not been gainfully employed . The fact that the first party has been enrolled in the year 1994 of course has been admitted by the first partybut in very clear words he has denied the suggestion on behalf of the management that thereafter he had been practicing as an advocate at Harihar Court . An heavy burden cast upon the shoulders of the management to establish before this tribunal that the first party has been practicing as an Advocte and has been gainfully employed making earnings out of his legal practice. The management has failed to discharge this burden. The first party in his affidavit by way of evidence has stated that after termination he has not been gainfully employed and he is residing at Malebennur doing his agricultural work in his property. This statement of first party has not denied by the management in his cross - examination nor the management witnesses have denied the above said case of the first party in their evidence before this tribunal . Therefore, I am ofthe view that first party shall be entitled to full backwages from the date of disposal of the said writ appeal proceedings till the date he get reinstatement .

23. Coming to the relief of continuity ofservice and other consequential benefits , it was rightly argued for the management that the first party cannot be granted the above said relief as his services came to be terminated during the period ofprobation and before he was confimred in service. Accordingly the reference is answered and following award ispassed:--

AWARD

The management is directed to reinstate the first partyworkman into its service as a probationer itself. He 21. I find substance in the arguments advanced for the management. Undisputedly, in the very words of the first party in his Claim Statement in the first instance he raised the dispute before the State Labour Court in Ref. 97/ 87 and when the management took up the objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the said court , the first party did not press the said dispute and the said reference before the State Labour Court came to be dismissed. It is again not in dispute that the cafter the first party raised the dispute before the Labour Commissioner ( Central ) giving rise to the present reference in the year 1989. Therefore , for the delay caused by raising the dispute in the year 1989 the delay shall have to be attributed to the first party and therefore , he cannot claim any back wages from the date of termination till the date ofpresem reference. There is again substance in the argument for the management that during the course of trial before this tribunal , the first party did not prosecute the proceedings diligently and failed to substantiate his claim by way of leading evidence resulting in to the award passed by this tribunal rejecting his reference . Therefore, the period consumed during the course ofproceedings pending before the Hon'ble High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the first party challenging

2 G1/06-22 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

444

shall be paid full back wages since from 1st June , 2004 till the date of his reinstatement . No order to cost .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 12th December, 2005. )

A.R. SODIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 194 2005

1947 ( 1947 ---ोजना

केन्द्रीय सरर कोंकण रेलवे

नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों कारपोरेश आद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार के बीच , अनुबंध में औद्योगिक अधित्य पं . 11 , मुम्बई के पंचाट । ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जीआईटी-2 /92 ऑफ 2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41015/2/2002- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th December, 2005

S.O. 195. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award - 1 ( CGIT - 2/92 of 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II . Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-12-2005 .

[No. L -411 ) 15 /2/ 2002-1R (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT MUMBAI

PRESENT:

SHRI B.I. KAZI , Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT - 2/92 OF 2002 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD . AND

Their Worknen

APPEARANCES :

: Mr. G.R. Naik , Advocate .

Forthe Employer

For the Workman

: Mr. M.B. Anchan Advocate .

Mumbai , the 9th November, 2005

AWARD PART- I

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , by its order No. L - 41015 / 2 /2002 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 13-12-2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action the Management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. , in imposing the punishment of removal from services on Shri C. Mohan is justifed ? If not , what relief the disputant is entitled to ?"

2. The second party has filed Statement of Claim vide Ex . 11. The brief facts are that the Workman was promoted as Goods Driver by order dated 06-05-1999 . Не was issued a charge sheet dated 13-10-1999 by the Deputy ChiefMechanical Engineer alleging that while functioning as Driver of Dn BCN Goods Train 16802 + 14671 on 11/12-09-1999 had left the working Loco unmanned at Kudal Station and had left Kudal Station before the relief crew could arrive . The second charge was that while performing shunting at Nandgaon Road the Workman had dashed against the siding dead end causing extensive damage to the dead Loco No. 14563 and the dead end and it was alleged that the same exhibited careless and negligent performance . He gave a provisional reply dated 26-10-1999 and a detailed reply dated 16-11-1999 and denied the said charge and made a request for withdrawal and cancellation ofthe said charge sheet . He stated that while working on 11-09-1999 at Vaibhavwadi while working MNGT/BCN (Train ) , he had completed 16 1/2 hrs . ofworking by 6 O'clock on 12-09-1999 . He had asked for relief from the SCOR/BEL. He was informed that he would get relief at Kudal Station and upon arriving at Kudal , the Workman confirmed that his relief was coming by 0111 Dn . Train . He had by that time completed 20 1/2 hours of working and therefore, he had requested the SCOR/BEL to allow him to go by KR 06 Train to Ratnagiri . He was given permission by the SCOR/BEL, he advised his Assistant Driver to be in the Loco till the relief crew arrives . An Assistant Driver is a competent person under the rules , in whose charge the Loco can be kept till a relief crew can take over charge . Thereafter he handed over the Loco Reverser Handle and awritten report ( Note ) about the Loco and train condition to the Station Master Kudal Station , to be handed over to the relief crew . After doing that the workman was allowed to be relieved by which time the Workman had completed inore than 24 hours and 40 minutes of continuous working though the norm was only 12 houts continuous working . Therefore, he is not guilty of the said charge of leaving the Loco unmanned .

3. In respect of the second charge in the reply stated that the charge has been framed against him without holding a fact finding enquiry. He was doing the said shunting in the early hours of the day in total darkness with 3 Locomotives , as the 2 MU Locos were coupled with the dead Loco No. 14563. In the said darkness he was dependent on the Pointsman and his signal as he could not see anything in front of 3 Loco distance . It is stated that even in the said 3 Locos one was a dead Loco and the brakes of the other loco No. 14671 were isolated as per the report of SLI Ratnagiri . He never exceeded the 8 kms per hour speed during the entire shunting operation which couldbe confirmed froin the speedometer chart of the said 445 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24 , 1927

3 Locos . The charge sheet which had been framed on the basis of the report of SLI Ratnagiri was not the correct procedure since no enquiry was made from him before the said report was finalized and on the basis of the report the charge sheet was wrongly framed. Thus he requested for dropping the said charge sheet and closing the enquiry proceedings against him.

The Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to the points raised in the appeal and mechanically disposed of the said appeal . The Appellate Authority's order is illegal and requires to be set aside . After the said incident he was not suspended at any time even during the enquiry and worked for a year thereafter without any complaint . In para 3 of their say he has raised several grounds for setting aside the punishment order and prays that the Reference shall be allowed with costs.

4. After the said explanation , the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer as Disciplinary Authority appointed Mr. L.D. ' Cruz SME as the Enquiry Officer by order dated 15-01-2000 and the Workman received a letter dated 25-02-2000 from the said Enquiry Officer asking him to nominate a Defence Helper to assist the workman in the said enquiry. He appointed Mr. S. Murugan as his Defence Helper and intimated the same vide his letter dated 03-03- 2000. Mr. S. Murugan has been accepted as Defence Assistant and the letter dated 13-04-2000 was received from the Enquiry Officer. In that letter the enquiry was to be held on 25-04-2000 at 10.00 hours at AME office at Madgaon, Goa.

5. The enquiry was held on 25-04-2000 and 26-04-2000 . 8 witnesses were examined on behalf of the Management . No Presenting Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer himself also acting in a dual capacity as Presenting Officer conducted the enquiry.

7. By Ex. 12, the First Party had submitted written Statement . The brief facts are that the concerned workman was appointed as Assistant Diesel Driver on 22-02-1995 . He was promoted and posted as Goods Driver on ad-hoc basis vide:Office Order dated 06-05-1999. While working asGoods Driver on 11 / 12-09-1999 he had left the working Train Loco unmanned at Kudal Station and left Kudal Station before the Relief Crew could arrive and earlier whic performing shunting at Nandgaon Road Station he bad dashed against the siding dead end causing extensive damage to clead Loco No. 14563 which is attributed to careless and negligent working of the workman . Any minor negligent action of the Railway personnel will lead to disastrous accidents causing the damages to public property and lives of passengers . Hence strict safety norm and working procedures have been laid down . The Driver can leave the locomotive after competent Railway servani has been placed in charge of the locomotive . The concerned workman did not handover the Reverser Handle of the locomotivewhich gives control of the locomotive operation to the Assistant Driver. Thus , the Assistant Driver was not placed as the Incharge of the locomotive . He was issued with a charge sheet and enquiry was conducted by the competent authority giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority after getting satisfied himself to the extent of carelessness and negligent working ofthe Workman has imposed the punishment of removal from service as per the provisions . A charge sheet was issued dated 13-10-1999 by competent authority i.e.Deputy ChiefMechanical Engineer . The running duty time is to be consideredtfrom the time Driver takes over actual charge of the Train or Loco and upto the time he hands over the charge of the Train or Loco . The Workman demanded relief, the relief crew was arranged by the Controller from Ratnagiri . The petitioner did not handover the charge properly to the competent person . The workman handed over the Reversal Handle and B.P.C. to the Assistant StationMaster, Kudal . There was no need for a fact finding enquiry and denied that the correct procedure was not followed. The Workmar was given all the chances to defend his case and sufficient opportunity was given to theWorkman. It is denied that the Enquiry Officer himself acted in dual capacity of Presenting Officer also . Relevant documents and papers were handed over for conducting the enquiry. The Discipilinary Authority has clearly recorded in the speaking order that the ampioyee did not carry out the procedure for handing we charge of locomotive . Pointsman is a trained person for shunting/ placement of Rolling Stock. It was established that the damage caused to the locomotive at the dead end was due 6. The workman submits that none of the witnesses ofthe Management had stated that he had exceeded the prescribed 8 kms per hour speed during the entire shunting of wagons . The Workman also called for the speedometer chart in this behalf for his defence but the same were not produced by the Enquiry Officer, causing serious prejudice to the workman . Thus the evidence of Mr. Sukumar Shetty and evidence in respect of Charge No. 2 was not proved but the Enquiry Officer given a finding in respect of Charge No. 2 that the workman is guilty of violating Rule 4.62 (9 ) (i ) which was not a charge levelled against the workman in the charge sheet. The said rule pertains to maintaining a speed of 8 kms per hour during material train working. The workman gave a reply dated 28-06-2000 to Enquiry Officer and pointed out that the Enquiry Officer has not properly assessed the evidence and has come to a wrong conclusion and requested that disciplinary proceedings be closed against him by holding him not guilty of the second charge, since the Enquiry Officer had held him not guilty of the first charge . The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 15-09-2000 and imposed penalty of removal on workman. In the speaking order which was annexed to the penalty order the Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No. 1. The Disciplinary Authority did not give any prior show cause notice regarding the said disagreement and has illegally disagreed and imposed the said penalty. Thereafter theworkman filed an appeal on 06-10-2000 to the Regional Railway Manager, Konkan Railway at Ratnagiri . In the said appeal it was pointed out that the speedometer chart was not produced and as per the Accident Manual of Konkan Railway para . 303 , has to be followed and several other grounds were urged before the Appellate Authority.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

446

9. ByEx. 18 Workman has filed an affidavit and he was cross -examined by Advocate of the First Party. By Ex. 20 the Workman closes his oral evidence .

10. By Ex. 21 the First Party submitted affidavit of Shri L.R. D'Cruz and he was cross - examined by Advocate of the Second Party. By Ex. 22 the First Party has closed their oral evidence .

11. By Ex. 17 the Workman has submitted a list of documents marked 17/1 to 17/8. By Ex. 26 the Workman has submitted a further list of documents which is 26/1 to 26/5 . By Ex . 15 the first party has submitted a list of documents at15/1 to 15/8 .

12. The Second Party has submitted Written Arguments on preliminary issue by Ex. 27 and the First Party has submitted a Written Argument by Ex . 29 and by Ex. 30 list of judgment have been submitted by the First Party. By Ex. 31 the Second Party has submitted a counter reply to the written argument of the First Party.

to the negligent and careless working ofthe Driver and the shunting operation was not properly controlled by the Workman. Hence it was not necessary to call for the speedometer chart . As per G& SR 3.78 ( i ) (b ) " The driver shall not however, trust entirely to signals , but always be vigilant and cautious" . After consideration of evidence on record the Enquiry Officer come to the conclusion that Charge No. 1 is partly proved and Charge No.2 is fully proved. The Disciplinary Authority sent a copy of the enquiry report to the workman vide letter dated 22-05-2000 . The Disciplinary Authority has made observation in his speaking order and imposed punishment after considering the enquiry report . There is no disagreement between the views of Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority. The Appellate Authority confirmed the penalty and there was no need to issue a separate show cause notice . It is not mandatory to suspend an employee during the enquiry as per the DAR Rules. The principle of natural justice was not violated. Thus, it is prayed that the claim of the workman shall be rejected with costs .

13. Considering the evidence and documents submitted by the parties and on perusing the record as a whole and the written submissions the following preliminary issues are to be dicided for my considerations in this Reference.

FINDINGS

ISSUES

Partly as per the principles ofnatural justice.

1 Whether the domestic inquiry conducted against the workman was as per the principles ofnatural justice ?

Yes.

2 Whether the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse?

REASONS

14. On perusing the records of departmental enquiry it is clear that the concerned workman has demanded the speedometer chart for ascertaining the speed limit but it was not produced in the departmental enquiry. Thus , a speedometer chart is the important evidence to prove Charge No. 2 and which clearly indicate the speed of the locomotive at the relevant time . Thus , a serious prejudice was causedto the workutan in defending himself in the enquity and it is violation of principles ofnatural justice. It has also come in the evidence that the Pointsman had previously not done shunting with locomotives and mere statement of this Pointsman cannot confirm that the speed was more than 8 kms per hour. Thus , it is clear that the workman was given an untrained person for the shunting operation and due to his inexperience the incident has been occurred. Thus , the speedometer chart was the vital document to prove the speed of locomotive. Though demanded by the workman it was not produced in the enquiry. Hence , the principle of natural justice is violated partly.Hence , there is a violation of natural justice by the first party.

8. The Workman has submitted a Rejoinder by Ex . 13.He does not agree with the averments made in para . 4 Written Statement . With regard to para.2 (c) . the reasons given for extension of duty period is not supported by the Railways , Board letter dated 13-04-1992 . The Workman was made to work beyond the statutory duty hours illegally . He had completed 20½ hours working when he was asked to be relieved and completed more than 24 hours 40 minutes continuous working when he was actually relicvéd. He also denics the improper handling of the charge of the locomotive . G&SR 3.78 (i ) (b ) was not pleaded int the enquiry and denies that he was negligent in his duty while doing the shunting operation . The Controller had told the Assistant Station Master to keep the Reverser Handle and B.P.C. with him to be handed over to the Reliever. Hence , the very issue of the charge sheet in this behalf was illegal . With reference to para. 2 ( f) the Workman states that the Pointsman had not previously done shunting with locomotive. Thus , it is clear that the workman was given an untrained person for the shunting operation and due to his inexperience the incident happened. The speedometer chart would have clearly indicated the speed of the locomotive at the relevant time and would have greatly assisted the Workman in luis deience . The non - furnishing of speedometer chart has caused serious prejudice to the workman in defending himself in the enquiry and there has been serious violation of the principles of natural justice. The said shunting operation was donc at 1.00 a.m. in the night by the Workman by way of helping clear the tracks which were blocked by the dead loco . The Enquiry Officer has held the Charge No. 1 as not proved and in respect of Charge No. 2 he has held the Workman guilty of a totally different charge which was not leveled against him in the charge sheet . The Disciplinary Authority has disagreed with the Enquiry Officer both in respect of Charge No. 1 and Charge N.2 . The Workman denies ali submissions in the Written Satement and confirms the submission made by him in para . 3 (a) to (j ) of the Statement of Claim

15. Looking to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Charge No. 1 , the following observation made "from भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the above it cannot be fully proved that the charged employee Shri C. Mohan , Goods Driver /RM while functioning as Driver DN BCN Goods on 11 /12-09-1999 haddeserted the working loco. He has handed over the same manned by the Diesel Assistant Shri M.S. Reddy, who is the competent authority and who was fully available in near the loco till the relievingAssistant . Shri AnilM. Shetty arrived. " Thus , it is clear that Charge No. 1 has not been proved against the workman . However, Disciplinary Authority has not given a hearing to the concerned workman before imposing the penalty of removal. If the Disciplinary Authority differs from the findings of the Enquiry Officer then it is mandatory on the part ofthe Disciplinary Authority to issue a show cause notice and to hear the delinquent and without that an order of punishment cannot be passed. The Disciplinary Authority has failed to follow that procedure . Thus it is a great prejudice to the workman that without giving the opportunity for unproved charge he was held guilty by the Disciplinary Authority.

16. If we look to the evidence furnished in the departmental enquiry, Shri A. V. Shetye, Witness No. 1 of the management, in answer to Qn . No. 11 , it is clear that while crossing the Station the speed of the loco was working speed . In the cross , examination he admitted that the Pointsman argued with the Driver . Shri Bharat T. Dhadve Witness No. 2 in the reply of Qn . No. 23 says that I have stabled only RMV, CSM machine in the TTM siding but not dealt with any loco . Thus , it is clear that the Pointsman has not stabled any loco in TTM siding or done any shunting of locos in NAN Yard . In the reply of Qn . No. 29, he says that he cannot tell perfectly how much time took to cross first SPI signal and point No. 105. And in reply of Qn . No. 30, he admitted that he could not do anything and the Assistant Driver could have seen the signal .

17. Shri B. N. Bose , Witness No. 4, in reply to Qn . No. 55, admitted that Shri Mohan told him it was the control telephonic order, hence he left the loco. Looking to the evidence of Shri M. S. Reddy, he met the Relieving Crew near the loco and informed him that the Reverser and BPC was handed over to the Station Master and therefore for want of Wedges , Stones were placed under the loco wings and he did not desert the loco. During the shunting he was in the second trailing loco i.e. third loco at the rear. In the answer of Qn . No. 61 , he says that the Pointsman did not execute a signal while crossing the first SPI . In answer to Qn . No. 68 and 69 , he says that the Pointsman did not show any study signal and he has not seen any danger signal while passing Point No. 105. In the answer of Qn . No. 70, he told that he could see the signal shown by the Pointsman and he was along with the Driver side . After the danger signal the Driver stopped the train and he heard a sound . In the answer to Qn . No. 77 he said that the speed of the loco while pushing towards the TTM siding was around 8 kms per hour and on seeing the danger signal the Driver can stop the movement within 3 to 4 meters . In reply to Qn . No. 80 , he stated that the speed of the movement was not more than 8 kms . per hour and in the answer to Q.No. 82 stated that no adequate distance for breaking available after the exhibition of danger signal . He has

447 submitted that in reply to Qn. No. 83 that the Driver cannot judge the distance between the dead loco and the dead end from the driving seat in the third loco . In reply to Qn . No. 86 and 87 , it is clear that there was no adequate distance when the Pointsman exhibited danger signal and the dead loco was 1 to 1.5 meter from the dead end. Thus , looking to the witness it is clear that the Charge No. 1 and No. 2 is not established . Looking to the evidence of Shri P. V. Dicholkar, Witness No. 8 , it is clear that the Charge No. 1 is not established against the workman. Looking to the evidence of Shri Anil M. Shetty, witness no . 6 , the Train was stable onthe second loop line at Kudal . Hence , Shri Reddy was shunting near the loco and stones were placed on the loco wheels for want of wedges and hand brakes were not working. Shri Sukumar Shetty witness no . 7 admits that the Section Control informed him orally to relieve Driver C Mohan . Thus looking to the evidence the Charge No. 1 and Charge No. 2 are not proved against the workman. Thus looking to the above evidence it is clear that the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge No. 2 is not based on evidence and the findings are perverse. As the speedometer is the vital evidence to know the speed of locoand in replyto the charge sheet the concerned workman has demanded the speedometer chart of all those 3 locos , the Charge No. 2 of his careless and negligent working is not proved. Thus , the domestic enquiry conducted against theworkman is not as per the principles of natural justice because he was not given full opportunity of defence when he has specifically asked for the speedometer chart in respect of locomotives which had dashed against the dead end and which was the vital piece of evidence to defend ChargeNo. 2. Not only that before imposing the punishment proper opportunity was not given by the Disciplinary Authority to the workman when the Disciplinary Authority does not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer .

18. Thus , the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman was not as per the principles of natural justice and the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding the workman guilty of Charge No. 2 are not based on evidence and the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding Charge No. 2 is perverse.

19. The first party relied on the several judgments in BrihanMumbai Municipal Corporation and Jagnarayan M. Kahar 2001 ( 1 ) LLN page 687 , it was held that enquiry cannot be vitiated on ground that there was no Presenting Officer and that EnquiryOfficer himself has conducted the enquiry. InNathu Mahadev Nigade and Pune Municipal Transport Corporation 2001 ( 1 ) LLN page 670 Petitioner challenged the punishment imposed on him on the ground that Enquiry Officer was not competent to issue charge sheet and impose punishment . The Hon'ble High Court rejected the contention on the basis of delegated powers by Transport Commissioner under Section 69 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act . In the present case the first party has not submitted any document that the powerwas delegated to Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer . to issue the charge sheet . As per Rule 9 of the D and A Rules of Konkan Railway Corporation only the appointing authority can be the disciplinary Authority and it is 448

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

Disciplinary Authority after November 20 , 1990 shall be governed by the Rules of furnishing of copy of the Report and Service of notice to the delinquent to show cause why penalty should not be imposed. Thus in the present case it was mandatory to give the delinquent show cause notice before imposing the punishment . No show cause notice has been given by the Disciplinary Authority to the workman in the present case . In 1997 ( II) LLN page 887 it was held that the Supreme Court has categorically held non-furnishing of enquiry report before the order of punishment is passed and without giving an opportunity to the delinquent to submit his explanation on the enquiry report would vitiate the order of punishment . Thus it was necessaryto hear the concerned workman before imposing the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. In 2001 Lab IC 2379 it was held by the Apex Court that non- furnishing ofenquiry report to delinquent employee and no prejudice caused to delinquent disciplinary proceedings is not vitiated. However, in the present case the Disciplinary Authority differed from the Enquiry Officer hence it was necessary to hear the delinquent. 2002 Lab I C 2364 SC is not helping the first party because there was a prejudice or injustice , because a vital document i.e. speedometer chart was not produced in the enquiry and without production of such document the speed of loco cannot be established. Thus the demand of speedometer chart is not purely procedural in character. In AIR 1999 SC 2407 it was held that re-appreciation of evidence like Appellate Court not permissible . Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with Enquiry Officer giving reasons for disagreement and recording findings on evidence available then findings cannot be interfered with by Court . In the present case Disciplinary Authority has not given reasons for disagreement based on evidence and his findings are not as per the evidence.

20. Thus looking to the observations and looking to the evidence furnished in the departmental enquiry it is clear that the departmental enquiry held against the workman not fair and proper because a document demanded by workman for ascertaining the speed of loco i.e. speedometer chart was not produced in the enquiry and he was not given a show cause notice and he was not heard by the Disciplinary Authority before imposing the punishment. Thus the action of the Disciplinary Authority is illegal and improper. Hence the departmental enquiry held against the workman is not fair and proper . Looking to the evidence in the enquiry the findings by the Enquiry Officer that Charge No.2 has been proved is not based on evidence . Hence, the finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding proof of Charge No.2 is perverse . Hence , I hereby pass the following order :--

ORDER

The enquiry held against the workman is not as per the principles of natural justice and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse.

Next hearing ofthe proceedings will be on 09-01-2006.

B.I. KAZI, Presiding Officer submitted by the workman that the Chief Mechanical Engineer is the appointing authority in his case . The judgment cited by the first party i.e. 1996 ( I ) LLN page 337 and 1968 ( I ) LLJ page 49 , is not relevant to decide this preliminary issue . Also 1996 ( II) LLJ page 487 is also not relevant. Similarly, 1998 ( 1 ) CLR page 35 is also not relevant at this stage because no charges have been proved against the workman looking to the evidence of the departmental enquiry. In Banaras Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. 1972 (25) FLR page 45 it was held by the Apex Court that an Industrial Tribunal could not be justified in characterizing the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry as perverse unless it canbe shown that such a finding is not supported by any evidence or is entirely opposed the whole body of the evidence adduced before it . As I have gone through the evidence of the enquiry it is clear that the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding proof of Charge No.2 is not supported by the evidence and it is entirely opposed to the whole body of the evidence . In the present case the finding of the Enquiry Officer is based on no evidence to prove Charge No.2 . In the departmental enquiry what is required is preponderance ofprobability and not the proof beyond reasonable doubt. But to prove the charge , evidence should be acceptable to prove the misconduct. In Bank of India and Anr . v/ s . Degala Surya Narayan 1999 ( II ) CLR page455 it was held by the Apex Court that Enquiry Officer heldRespondent not guilty of all the Charges. Disciplinary Authority however disagreed with Enquiry Officer in respect of Charge No.1 (B ) after hearing Respondent delinquent Disciplinary Authority held him guilty of Change 1 (B) and awarded punishment of reduction ofpay. Itwas held that the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority setting out the evidence and reason for the finding was immune from interference within the limited scope of power of judicial review available to the Court and hence High Court's order to the extent is set aside . But looking to the enquiry papers in the present case it is clear the delinquent was not heard by the Disciplinary Authority and without hearing him he held guilty of Charge No. 1 and 2.Hence, the conduct of the disciplinary Authority of not hearing the delinquent regarding Charge No. 1 the speaking order of the Disciplinary Authority does not show the evidence that proved the Charge No.1 . Not only that he has not assigned reason for not agreeing with the Enquiry Officer regarding the decision of Charge No. 1. Thus there isno clear finding setting out the evidence he has recorded by the disciplinary Authority in the present case . Hence, this decision is not applicable in the present case because no opportunity was given to the delinquent and there is no evidence on which the Disciplinary Authority relies that the Charge No.1 as proved is recorded in the speaking order. 1995 ( I ) CLR page 108 is not relevant because Sub Regulation 4 of Regulation 37 was amended away with the second show cause notice , hence enquiry was not vitiated . In the present case there is no such evidence to show that the amendment has been done by the first party in D and A Rules so that there is no need of second show cause notice . Inthe present case Mohd Ramzan Khan case is applicable because it is prospective in operation and provided that the orders of punishment which are passed by the 449 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर , 2005

legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

का. आ. 196.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । श्रम न्यायालय नं.- I , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 269/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012 /115/2001- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th December , 2005 .

S.O. 196. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 269/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2005

[No. L-40012/ 115/2001 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. Workman filed claim statement pleading therein that he is BA Part - II and fully eligible to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (hereinafter called as EDDA) . It is submitted that after adjudging his suitability the applicant was appointed as EDDA - III w.e.f. 10-7-1997 against a regular vacant post vide order No. B /5 / 19 on temporary basis . After working with the management for two years , 4 months and 13 days , suddenly the management illegally retrenched him w.e.f. 24-1-1999 without complying the provisions of Section 25F and 25G ofthe I.D. Act as neither any notice of retrenchment was served nor any reasons for retrenchment were communicated and he was also not paid in lieu of notice although he has completed more than 240 days of service in one calendar year preceding to the date of termination. It is submitted that the management retrenched his service onlyto defeat his claim for regular appointment which is also amounts to unfair labour practice . The applicant made representations against his retrenchment but with no result . The dispute was raised and conciliation proceedings also failed and hence the presence reference. He also regularisation of his service as he has completed more than two years of continuous service . It is prayed thathe maybe reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits .

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 269/2001

Sh . Narinder Pal , S/o Sh . Sohan Lal , 7/211 , Gali Kucha Bhai Nihal Singh , Adda Bazar,

Tarn Taran- 143401

Applicant

Versus

The Sr. Supdt . of Post Offices, Amritsar Division.

Amritsar (Punjab )-143001 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Forthe workman

Shri A.L. Vohra

K.K. Thakur

For the management

AWARD

Passed on 26-10-2005

Central Government vide No. L - 40012/ 115/2001 / IR( DU) da ( ed 11th July, 2001 has referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication:-

3. Management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that appointment of the applicant was in the nature of stop gap arrangement which was made without following due procedure and without inviting any applications from various eligible employees . It is further pleaded that Kanwaljit Singh EDDA - III Tarn Taran was engaged as wash boy in tiffin room on 4-7-82 and said Kanwaljit Singh provided one Sukhchain Singh as his substitute to work vice him at his own risk and responsibility but said Sukhchain Singh was disallowed to work due to his satisfactory work and conduct. Then the applicant in order to carry out the work of EDDA - III was engaged on purely temporary and stop gap arrangement w.e.f.11-7-1997. It is further submitted that due to decrease in the work a proposal has been sent by the SSP Amritsar to CPMG, Chandigarh for abolition of the post of EDDA - III and the proposal was duly approved by the office ofCPMG on 24-12-2001 and due to abolition of the post it is not possible for the management to reinstate the workman and the termination of the workman isperfectly legal and justified . On merits it is submitted that the applicant was never appointed as EDDA- III . The applicantworked as EDDA - III Tarn Taran from 11-7-1997 to 24-11-1999 on purely stop gap arrangement and applicant is not a workman and not entitled to -reinstatement to the post of EDDA - III .

4. Rejoinder also filed by the workman reiterating the claim made in the claim statement .

"Whether Sh . Narinder Pal , EDA is a workman, if so , the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of Post Offices , Amritsar Division , Amritsar in terminating the services of Sh . Narinder Pal S /o Sh . Sohan Lal is just and 450

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSĄ 24 , 1927

5. In evidence , workman filed his affidavit alongwith documents . Management also filed affidavit of purshotam Lal as M1 . Both the witnesses were cross- examined at length by the parties.

6. Arguments heard at length. The reference sent by the Competnent Authority is in two parts first whether the applicant is a workman and second whether termination of his services by the management is just and legal . Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that for the appointment or regularization of service as EDA department of communication P & T vide notification dated 10-9-64 as approved by the Central Govt. framed rules which it self a complete code which provide rules for all categories. In these rules which are called as the Post and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (conduct and Service) Rules , 1964 provide for appointing authority, pension , leave, termination ofservice , nature of penalties ,. procedure for imposing a penalty, appeal , period of limitation for appeals , form and contents of appeals etc. There was a clause that if any doubt arises as to who is the appropriate appointing authority in any case , the matter shall be referred to the Govt. whose decision thereon shall be final .

Supreme Court has held that daily wagers and ad-hoc employees do not hold any regular post. They are appointed for some specific work . Their appointments are in violation of Article 14 in as much as they are not appointed by any competent authority in accordance with the rules and procedure . Such appointments are void ab- initio being opposed to public policy. Their service conditions are not determined. They can not claim regularization/permanency against regular posts . 1988 S.C. page 1700 Miss A Sundarambal Vs. Govt. ofGoa, Daman andDiu and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though School is Industry, teacher is not workman, dispute of termination of service of teacher can not be referred under the ID Act. In 1999 ( 4 ) SCT 731 Rajesh Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, it is held that under I.D. Act , 1947 , Section 25F and G, daily wagers -short term appointment on daily wage basis without following the procedure prescribed in recruitment rules workers appointed against a specific work for a specific period not in accordance with the procedure prescribed are not entitled to the benefits of Section 25F and G of I.D. Act if they are not allowed to continue any further, authority is not obliged to comply with the said provisions , 2005.

8. While suming up his arguments learned counsel for the management submitted that earlier also the learned predecessor has held that the post of the workman was that ofextra departmental agent and they are civil servant. He submitted that as the workman Narinder Pal in view of the law referred, despite his completion of240 days he is not entitled to any relief being he is a civil ; servant. He submitted that reference may kindly be decided in favour ofthe management holding that work man is not entitled to any relief and in view of the latest law of 2005 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court workman is also not entitledto any back wages .

9. In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel of the management , learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman was appointed on 10-7-97 and his services were terminated on 24-11-99 he worked for more than 240 days . He also submitted that JT 1996 ( 2 ) of the Supreme Court page 457 is held no more a good law in view of 1997 (7 ) S.C. page 437 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the decision of the seven Judges Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case where it is held that in a establishment / management some staff can be workman and in view of the judicial discipline , the above judgment is to be followed and the law laid down in Theyyam Joseph case can not be treated as correct law. He also submitted that as workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination and this fact has not been disputed by the management also and the services of the workman were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F, the termination 7. He submitted that in view of the above rules , the condition of services applicable on the workman Narinder Pal , despite the fact that workman has completed 240 days , is not entitled for any relief. There was no violation of provisions of Section 25F, G and H and any other provisions . He submitted that Narinder Pal is a civil servant and not entitled to any relief. He also submitted that therefore , relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble S.C. JT. 1996 (2 ) S.C. 457, wherein it is held that workman is a civil servant despite that the management is an industry but workman is a civil servant . He further submitted that the post was filled up after following the due procedure through exmployment exchange and as the name of the applicant was not sponsored by the employment exahange his name was not considered . He also referred to a latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2) S.C. Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai & Anr . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Courtwas pleased to hold that grant of full back wages mere as a consequence of reinstatement , is no more a good proposition in the change circumstances . Industry is not to be compelled to pay for the period the workman was not working for it . Management also relied on JT 1997 (4 ) S.C. 560 Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors . Vs. State of Bihar & Ors . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that termination of service of temporary employees who were only daily wagers held daily wager had no right to posts and their disengagement is not arbitrary since they are temporary employees working on daily wages , their disengagement from service can not be treated under I.D. Act , 20t) 5 ( 1 ) SCT, Mahender Lal Jain Vs. Indore Development authority , the Hon'ble 451

भारत काराजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

wages ordered.

10. While summing up his arguments learned counsel for the workman submitted that in view of the above law referred by him and that workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination which is not disputed by the management although , there are separate rules made by the P&T Department but these rules are to be ignored if inconsistent with the provisions of the I.D. Act. These rules are silent and inconsistent in view of the provisions ofSection 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. Learned Counsel for the workman further argued that in view of the above law referred by him, the workman who has completed 240 days ina preceding year from the date of his termination , which is not disputed by the management . That besides completing of 240 days , the provisions of Section 25F were not complied with at the time of termination of the workman , the management has failed to prove that the action of the management of Senior Superintendent of PostOffices , Amritsar Division , Amritsar in terminating the services of Sh. Narinder Pal S /o Sh . Sohan Lal is just and legal ? As regards payment of wages , in view of the law referred by the management the workman has left to the court to decide and they did not argue further.

11. In view of the above submissions now main dispute between the parties remains as also agreed firstly that whether applicant comes under the definition of workman under the I.D. Act 1947 ( ii ) whether rules related to the conditions of services of the post and Telegramme EDA are complete code in itself and provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable , ( iii ) whether workman is entitled for the relief claimed by him as he has completed 240 days and the management is not justified in terminating his services.

12.Both parties are in agreement that workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination on 24-11 99. Both the parties are also in agrcement that there are rules relating to conditions and service of the post of EDA. The post of BPM is one of an employce appointed under the above rules . Management has contested this case submitting that workman was appointed on adhoc basis and that he is a civil servant and the above service rules are complete code in itself is applicable on the workman. Further that applicant is not a workman defined under the 1. D. Act 1947 being civil servant. In view of the law referred by the workman , I am of the considered view that applicant is covered under the definition ofworkman as defined under Section 2 ( s) of the I.D. Act 1947 as he is fully covered under the above definition. As regards applicability of the provisions ofthe 1.D. Act 1947 workman has relied also on section 25J ofthe I.D. Act 1947 i.e. effect of law in consistent with this chapter.

13. As I already held above that petitioner is a workman so the next question referred is whether action of the management in terminating the services of Shri Narinder Pal is just and legal . In brief facts , are not disputed that isbad and the workman is liable to be reinstated . He further submitted that where provisions of the I.D. Act override the provisions of other law, other law is to be ignored. In This regard he firstly referred to I LLJ 1982 Bhaskaran Vs. Sub Divisional Officer page 248, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has decided in the writ petition two questions in a awrit filed by the P&T Department ( 1 ) whether the P&T department is an industry and (2) whether the Govt . employees , who are governed by the service rules, are outside the preview of the I.D. Act . He submitted that both these questions were decided in favour of the workman holding that provisions of Section 25F, G & H have over riding effect . Anything inconsistent contained in any other law which can not be given effect to . They have simply to be ignore , if the establishment in question is an industry. It is for the state to act if it thinks that Government servant who are also workmen, should not get double benefits . It can amend the I.D. Act or bring in other legislation . , AIR 2001 S.C. 672 Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal and another, wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court service regulations do not prevail over Industrial Disputes Act , 1996 (4 ) SCT 697 Hans Raj Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Patiala , 1999 ( 1 ) RSJ 58 Trishla Devi V's . The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh wherein it is held that appointment of the petitioner for fixed period of 89 days again and again with gaps is an unfair labour practice. Similar view has been taken in 1998 (2) RSJ 55 Shimla Devi V's . P.O. Labour Court Bhatinda and others, 1998 ( 1 ) RSJ 703 Bhikku Ram V's . The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Rohtak in which it has been held that the job continue to be required by the employer. Held that einployer has not excercised his right to terminate the services ofthe petitioner in good faith and the work did not ceased amounts to unfair labour practice, 2003 ( 2 ) SCT 1013 S.M. Nilajkar and Ors . V's . Telecom District Manager Karnataka wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that termination ofservices of workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning ofsub -clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied (i) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration , ( ii ) the employment was on a contract , and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employinent shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project ; and ( iii ) the employment came to an end simultaneously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract , ( iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at the commenccinent of employment . 2000 ( 84 ) FLR 896 State of UP Vs. Rajendra Singh Butola and another wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wagers worked for years , his services were dispensed with without following procedure provided . procedure for retrenchment was required to be followed- termination order set aside , reinstatement with full back

2 G1 /06-23 452

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

also on record and proved that still there is post lying vacant.

15. In the circumstances when services of the workmanwere terminated on 24-11-1999 and proposal to abolish the post was seny only on 11-7-01 i.e. after about two years, it was not expected from the model employer like post office that services of the workman was disengaged despite the fact that his work and conduct was satisfactoryto prove that this post become surplus . Model employer follows statutory rules and continuing entploymment from 1992 till 2001 does not speak that the present workman was appointed on a stop gap arrangement . he was already a workman held as above . I am of the considered view that in the circumstances , workman was not appointed in a stop gap arrangement . Therefore, the compliance of the provisions of Section 25F was mandatory and due to non compliance the termination order become viod abinitio .

workman was appointed on 1-7-1997 and terminated on 24-11-1999 and thus worked for two years four months and 13 days . Appointment was not in writing nor termination. Management's case is that Kanwaljit Singh was engaged by Post Master Tarn Taran Head Officer on 4-2-92 . Kanwaljit Singh provided on Sukhchain Singh as his substitute to work against him and in view of his unsatisfactory work and conduct he was disengaged on 11-7-97 and in order to carry out work of EDA , present workman Narinder Pal was engaged on purely temporary basis and stop gap arrangement w.e.f. 11-7-97 at the risk and responsibility of one Ashwani Kumar the then steno to Supdt. Post Office Amritsar . As regard disengagement of the present workman , the case of the management is that as the work decreases considerably a proposal was submitted to Post Master general vide letter dated 7-11-01 for abolishing the above post and that proposal was duly approved on 24-11-01 . The workman who was terminated earlier in the year 1999 was not entitled for reinstatement . The management has constested this claim of the workman on the ground that services rendered by the workman under a stop gap arrangement whereas the contentions of the workman are that there was no such stop gap arrangement and since 1992 this system was going on and he was appointed on 10-7-97 and his services were terminated on 24-11-1999 after completing 240 days in a calandar year from the date of his termination.

16. Further in view of the above , the also found that as, management's witness admitted that still there is a post lying vacant and the proposal to declare the post as surplus and to abolish the same is malafide and unfair labour practice. In the circumstances as I have already held that termination is in violation of Sectift 25F as the management has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act 1947, therefore , the order of termination is not just and legal . The management is directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service as the post is still lying vacant as admitted by MW1 . As regards back wages is concerned in view of latestjudgement referred by the management of 2005, where the conduct ofthe management who has stated tobe model employer not acting in accordance to the image ofmodel employer , the workman is entitled to backwages but in view ofthe judgement referred by the management, he is entitled to 50% of the backwages . The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record .

Chandigarh.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 197 . औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं.- I, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 65/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-40012/328/2001- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th December , 2005 14. Now the case as per submission of both parties , evidence produced on record and documents , if it is stop gap arrangement, the workman is not entitled for any relief and termination was just and legal . The workman has admitted in his evidence as WWI that his name was not sponsrored by any employment exchange . But his interview tookplace. There was no advertisement in newspaper . MW 1also admitted that workman was appointed on 11-7-1997 and that he completed 240 days in a calander year proceeding to the date of his termination and one post is lying vacant and no compensation was given at the time oftermination. MW1 has made a satement on 12-9-03 in the court and in view of the law referred by both the parties , I am ofthe considered view that if the appointment was for stop gap arrangement , then workman is not entitled for any reliefas under these circumstances disengagement shall not be covered under the provisions of I.D. Act. , 1947 . I have also found that management being a Govt. department is a model employer. The management failed to produce any evidence to prove their contention that workman wss appointed against a stop gap arrangement rather pleaded that work of Sukhchain Singh was not found satisfactory and thereafter he was disengaged and the present,workman was appointed further more he has worked during the period continuously and last calandar year he worked for more than 240 days . I have also found that proposal for abolishing of the post was sent only on 11-7-01 i.e. about after two years which was accepted to disengage the services of the present workman which is

S.O. 197. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central 453 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 65/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Post and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 20-12-2005 .

[No. L-4001: 2 /328 /2001 - IR (DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VIERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT -IL, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 65/2002

Sh . Gopal Singh S/o Sh . Niranjan Singh , 181 -Gaushala Plot , Near Gaushala,

Applicant

Sangrur- 148001.

Versus

The Supdt. of Post Offices

Respondent

Sangrur- 148001 .

APPEARANCES :

Shri A.L. Vohra

For the workman:

However at the time of his appointment the workman was assured that the above undertaking was only a technical formality or otherwise his appointment was on regular basis as Shri Gurbakshish Singh was not likely to return from Army Postal Service and due to this the workman has also not tried for any other job and continued to work as EDP at Anaj Mandi Post Office Bhawanigarh . It is further submitted that the management department is Industryunder the I.D. Act 1947. It is also contended that without any reason all of a sudden his serices were retrenched on 22-6-01 without complying the provisions ofSection 25F and 25G ofthe I.D , Act as neither any notice of retrenchment was served nor any reasons for retrenchment were communicated and he was also not paid in lieu ofnotice although he has completed more than 240 days of service in one calendar year preceding to the date oftermination . The management has retrenched his services onlyto defeat his claim for regular appointment which is also amounts to unfair labour practice as permanent incumbent to the post Shri Gurbakshish Singh has not returned fro Army Postal Service . The applicant made representations against his retrenchment but with no result . The dispute was raised and conciliation proceedings also failedand hence the presence reference. He also claimed regularisation of his service as he has completed more than two years of continuous service . It is prayed that he may be reinstated in service with full back wages and continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.

Shri Namit Kumar and K.K. Thakur

For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 26-10-05

Central Govt . vide No. L-40012/328/ 2001 /IR (DU) dated Ist April , 2002 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether EDP is workman or not, if so, the action of the management of Superintendent of Post Offices , Sangrur in terminating the srvices of Sh . Gopal Singh S/o Sh . Niranjan Singh, EDP w.e.f. 22-6-2001 is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ?"

2. Workman filed claim statement pleading therein that he is fully eligible to the post of Extra Departmental packer. It is submitted that after adjudging his suitability the applicant was appointed as EDP w.e.f. 29-12-1998 in the vacancy caused by Shri Gurbakshish Singh who was sent on deputation to Army Postal Service as Group D and Shri Gurbakshish Singh is still continuing in Army Postal service. It is submitted that before allowing him to join duty as EDP, an udnertaking was taken from him by the management which is as under :

3. Management filed written statement raising preliminary objection that appointment of the applicant was in the nature of stop gap arrangement which was made without following due procedure and without inviting any applications from various eligible employees . It is further pleaded that since Gurbakshish Singh was sent on deputation toArmy Postal Service as Group D and in his placeworkinan was engaged as stop gap arrangement and his services were disengaged on 22-8-01 as one one Raghubir Singh was declared surplus has to be accommodated and thus the services ofthe workman were disengaged. Singh the workman was appointed purely on stop gap arrangement and applicant is not a workman and not entitled to reinstatement to the post as the permanent incumbent of the post Bakshish Singh has also written to the department and willing to join his post . It is further submitted that the applicant was not given any assurance about his continuance or regularisation nor any authority was competent to give such assurance to him . This disengagement of the services of the applicant was fully justified and was in the intrest of administration and the workman did not have any vested right to continue in stop gaparrangement till the return of Shri Gurbakshish Singh from Army Postal Service . Merely on completion of 240 "I hereby undertake that the post of EDP A.M. Bhawanigarh would be vacated, if Shri Gurbakshish Singh discharged from APS and wanted to join this post again and as such 1 will not claim permanent absorption."

days of continuous service , the applicant is not entitled to any relied as the disengagement of the workman is not amountto retrenchment and he is not entitled to any relief [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 454

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

and no protection of Section 25F is available to the workman as the workman was engaged in stop gap arrangement. No unfair labour practice has been adpoted by the management . It is also submitted that EDAs are not workman under the I.D. Act as the disengagement of the applicant was in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 6 of the ED Agents (conduct & Service ) Rules .

4. Rejoinder also filed by the workman reiterating the claim made in the claim statement .

5. In evidence , workman filed his affidavit . Management also filed affidavit of Jarnail Singh Spdt. Post Office as M1 . Both the witnesses were cross -examined at length by the parties.

and Ors . Vs. State of Bihar & Ors . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that termination of service of temporary employees who were only daily wagers- held dailywager had no right to posts and their disengagement is not arbitrary- since they are temporary employees working ondaily wages , their disengagement from service can not betreated under I.D. Act, 2005 ( 1 ) SCT. Mahender Lal Jain Vs. Indore Development Authority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wagers and adhoc employees do not hold any regular post . They are appointed for some specific work. Their appointments are in violation of article 14 in as much as they are not appointed by any competent authority in accordance with the rules and procedure. Such appointments are void ab initio being opposed to public policy. Their service conditions are not determined . They can not claim regularization/permanency against regular posts . 1988 S.C page 1700 Miss A Sundarambal Vs. Govt . ofGoa, Daman and Diu and others , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though School is Industry, teacher is not a workman, dispute of termination of service ofteacher cannot be referred under the I.D. Act . , In 1999 (4) SCT 731 Rajesh Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Chandigarh, it is held that I.D. Act 1947, Section 25F and G; daily wagers -short term appointment on daily wage basis without following the procedure prescribed in recruitment rules -workers appointed against a specific work for a specific period not in accordance with the procedure prescribed are not entitled to the benefits of Section 25F and G of I.D. Act if they are not allowed to continue any further, authority is not obliged to comply with the said provisions, 2005.

6. Arguments heard at length . The reference sent by the Competent Authority is in two parties first whether the applicant is a workman and second whether termination of his services by the management is just and legal . Ld. Counsel for the management submitted that for the appointment or regularization of service as EDA department of communication P& T vide notification dated 10-9-64 as approved by the Central Govt . framed rules which it selfa complete code which provide rules for all categories. In these rules which are called as The Post and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents ( Conduct and Service ) Rules 1964 provide for appointing authority, pension . leave , termination of service , nature of penalties , procedure for imposing a penalty, appeal , period of limitation for appeals, form and contents of appeals etc. There was clause that if any doubt arises as to who is the appropriate appointing authority in any case , the matter shall be referred to the Govt.. whosedecision there on shall be final .

8. While summing up his arguments learned counsel for the management submitted that earlier also the learned predecessor has held that the post of the workman was that ofextra departmental agent and they are civil servant . He submitted that as the workman Gopal Singh in view of the law referred, despite his completion of 240 days he is not entitled to any relief being he is a civil ; servant. He submitted that reference may kindly be decided in favour ofthe managment holding that workman is not entitled to any relief and in view of the latest law of 2005 ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court workman is also not entitled to any back wages.

9. In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel of the management , learned counsel for the workman submitted that workman was appointed on 29-12-1998 and his services were terminated on 22-6-2001 he worked for more than 240 days . He also submitted that JT 1996 ( 2 ) of the Supreme Court page 457 is held no more a good law in view of 1997 (7 ) S.C. page 437 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in view of the decision of the seven Judges Bench in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board case where it is held that in a establishment/management some staff can be workman and in view of the judicial discipline, the above judgment is to be followed and the 7. He submitted that in view of the above rules , the conditions of services applicable on the workman Gopal Singh. despite the fact that workman has completed 240 days . is not entitled for any relief. There was no violation of provisions of Section 25F. G and H and any other provisions . He submitted that Gopal Singh is a civil servant and not entitled to any relief. he also submitted that therefore. relying on the judgement of the Hon'ble S.C. JT 1996( 2 ) S.C. 457, wherein it is held that workman is a civil servant despite that the management is an industry but workman is a civil servant. He further submitted that the postwas filled up after following the due procedure through employment exchange and as the name of the applicant was not sponsored by the employment exchange his name was not considered . He also referred to a latestjudgement of the Hon: ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 ( 2 ) SCT, Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai & Anr . wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that grant of full back wages mere as a consequence of reinstatement , is no more a good proposition in the change circumstances. Industry is not to be compelled to pay for the period the workman was not working for it . Management also relied on JT 1997 ( 4 ) S.C. 560 Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi 455 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

commencement of employment . 2000(84) FLR 896 State of UP Vs. Rajendra Singh Butola and another wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wagers worked for years , his services were dispensed with without following procedure provided , procedure for retrenchment was required to be followed-termination order set aside, reinstatement with full back wages ordered.

10. While summing up his arguments learned counsel for the workman submitted that in veiw of the above law referredby him and that workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination which is not disputed by the management although , there are separate rules made by the P& T Department but these rules are to be ignored if inconsistent with the provisions of the I.D. Act . These rules are silent and inconsistent in view of the provisions of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act 1947. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that in view of the above law referred by him, the workman who has completed 240 days in a preceding year from the date of his termination, which is not disputed by the management . That besides completing of240 days, the provisions of Section 25F were not complied with at the time of termination of the workman, the management has failed to prove that the action of the management of Superintendent of Post Office , Sangrur in terminating the services of Sh. Gopal Singh S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh EDP w.e.f. 22-6-2001 is just and legal ? As regards payment of wages , in view of the law referred by the management the workman has left to the court to decide and they did not argue further .

11. In view of the above submissions now main dispute between the parties remains as also agreed firstly that whether applicant comes under the definition of workmanunderthe I.D. Act 1947, (ii) whether rules related to the conditions of services of the Post and Telegram EDAare complete code in itself and provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable , ( iii ) whether workman is entitled for the reliefclaimedby him as he has completed 240 days and the management is not justified in terminating his services.

12. Both parties are in agreement that workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination on 22-6-2001 . Both the parties are also in agreement that there are rules relating to conditions and service of the post of EDA. The post of EDP is one of an employee appointed under the above rules . Management has contested this case submitting that workman was appointed on ad- hoc basis and that he is a civil servant and the above service rules are complete code in itself is applicable on the workman. Further that applicant is not a workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947 being civil servant. In veiw ofthe law referred by the workman , I am of the considered view that applicant is covered under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 ( s ) ofthe I.D. Act 1947 as he is fully covered under the above definition . As regards applicability of the provisions of the law laid down in Theyyam Joseph case can be treated as correct law. He also submitted that as workman has completed more than 240 days in a calendar year preceding tothe date oftermination and this fact has not been disputed by the management also and the services of the workman were terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25F, the termination is bad and the workman is liable to be reinstated. He further submitted that where provisions of the I.D. Act override the provisions of other law, other law is to be ignored. In this regard he firstly referred to I LLJ 1982 Bhaskaran Vs. Sub Divisional Officer page 248, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has decided in the writ petition two questions in a writ filed by the P&T Department ( I ) whether the P&T department is an industry and (2) whether the Govt . employees , who are governed by the service rules, are outside the preview of the I.D. Act. He submitted that both these questions were decided in favour ofthe workman holding that provisions of Section 25F, G & H have over riding effect . Anything inconsistent contained in any other law which can not be given effect to.They have simply to be ignored, if the establishment in question is an industry . It is for the state to act if it thinks that Government servant who are also workmen , should not get double benefits . It can amend the I.D. Act or being in other legislation, AIR 2001 S.C. 672 Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal and another, wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court service regulations do not prevail over Industrial Disputes Act , 1996 (4) SCT 697 HansRaj Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court Patiala, 1999(1 ) RSJ 58 Trishla Devi Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, UT, Chandigarh wherein it is held that appointment of the petitioner for fixed period of 89 days again and again with gaps is an unfair labour practice . Similar view has been taken in 1998 ( 2 ) RSJ 55 Shimla Devi Vs. P.O. Labour Court Bhatinda and others , 1998 ( 1 ) RSJ 703 Bhikku Ram Vs. The Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court. Rohtak in which it has been held that the job continue to be required by the employer. Held that employer has not exercised his right to terminate the services of the petitioner in good faith and the work did not ceased amounts to unfair labour practice , 2003 (2) SCT 1013 S.M. Nilajkar and Ors . Vs. TelecomDistrict Manager Karnataka wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that termination of services of workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied ( i ) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme of temporary duration , ( ii ) the employment was on a contract , and not as a daily wager simplicitor, which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project; and (iii ) the employment came to an end simulatancously with the termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract , (iv ) the workman ought to have been apprised of made aware of the above said terms by the employer at the 456

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

and joined vide letter date 21-7-2003 and that letter is on record and not questioned by the workman.

I.D. Act 1947 workman has relied also on Section 25J ofthe I.D. Act 1947 i.e. effect of law inconsistent with this chapter.

13. As I have already held above that petitioner is a workman so the next question referred for adjudication is thatwhether action of the management of Superintendent ofPost Offices , Sangrur in terminating the services ofGopal Singh w.e.f. 22-6-2001 is just and legal and if not what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date .

14. In this case admitted facts are that as per workman despite being fully eligible , he was appointed as EDP on 29-12-1998 in the vacancy casued by Gurbakshish Singh who was sent on deputation to Army Postal Service . That before allowing him to join duty as EDP an undertaking was taken by the management which is as under :

"I hereby undertake that the post of EDP A.M. Bhawanigarh would be vacated, if Shri Gurbakshish Singh discharged from APS and wanted to join this post again and as such I will not claim permanent absorption. "

17. In this regard learned counsel for the workman has submitted that management has disengaged the workman and brought Raghubir Singh in his place just to make workman unemployed . The workman has also given an undertaking and it is not disputed by the workman that he was engaged in a stop gap arrangement in place of Gurbakshish Singh who went on deputation to Army Postal Service. PostOffice is a Government department and model employer who is bound to follow statutory rules and regulation and should have acted as a model employer . The management is taking two grounds for disengagement ofworkman (i ) that one Reghubir Singh became surplus at another place and that now Gurbakshish Singh was also seeking his return and joining the above post in dispute. Although there is no written agreement but there is implied agreement between the parties i.e. contract as not dispute that workman has been appointed as a substitute on a vacant post ofGurbakshish Singh who joined Army Postal Service on deputation. It was ensured to the workman that hewillwork till Gurbakshish Singh joins . The management has no where has specifically denied this plea of the workman that workman has submitted an undertaking to the department . Present workman worked for more than two and half year and in a Govt . department there is an appointment and no termination letter and no contract of his appointment as a subsititute of Gurbakshish Singh . The management is totally silent about the undertaking given by the workman. Hence the conduct of the management is malafide and unfair labour practice . Has Gurbakshish Singh joins his post , the situation would be different, but this can not be said as stop gap arrangement , but workman worked for two and half years and also completed more than 240 days in a clander year proceeding to the date of his termination , hence compliance of Section 25F and Gare mandatory for the management . Admittedly there is no compliance of Section 25F, therefore , the termination is void ab initio and workman should be reinstated with full back wages .

15. That workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to the date of termination and has almost coinpleted more than two years but all of a sudden on 22-6-2001 without complying the provisions of Section 25F and G his services were terminated and in his place appointed one Raghubir Singh and the management appointed the said Raghubir Singh to defeat the claim of the workman for regular appointment . The case of the management is that workman was engaged only as a substitute in stop gap arrangement due to as Shri Gurbakshish Singh had been sent on deputation to Army Postal Service as Group D. It is further stated that such employees are engaged as substitutes who are not entitled to any regularisation . The applicant was appointed only as a substitute against regular incumbent on stop gap arrangement and his discharge is not retrenchment and is not entitled to any relief. He was also not given any assurance . That since the vacancy caused on account of deputation of Sluri Gurbakslush Singh was likely to continue for a long period, the competent authority deemed it appropriate to fill up the post on regular basis and in the interest of exigencies of administration , one Raghubir Singh who was rendered surplus at Bhaika Pishore Office was posted as ED Packer in the vacancy caused by the deputation of Shri Gurbakshish Singh , where the applicant was working in stop gap arrangement and thus his disengagement was fully justified and as such the workman is not entitled to any relief.

17. On the other hand the learned counsel for the management submitted that although the workman appointed as a substitute in a stop gap arrangement on the post ofGurbakshish Singh who joined Army Postal Service. As one Raghubir Singh become surplus , and to accomodate the said Raghubir Singh , workman Gopal Singh was terminated an in his place Raghubir Singh was posted. He also submitted that Gurbakslush Singh has also written to the management that he is coming back to the department and he may be allowed to join . He wrote this letter on 21-7-2003 . In case workman was not terminated for Raghubir Singh , even then, services of the workman would be terminated as Gurbakshish Singh is willing to join and also has written about joining the parent department and the post in dispute which he vacated for workman . He submitted 16. In view of the admitted facts above that workman was appointed as a stop gap arrangement on a vacancy causedby Gurbakshish Singh and it has taken considerably long time and that one Raghubir Singh fell surplus and the workman was disengaged to accommodate that surplus person Raghubir Singh. Gurbakshish Singh also returned 457

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

date oftermination till the date ofjoining of said Gurbakshish Singh. The reference is answered accordingly. Central Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.

that there is no malafide and the workman is not entitled to any relief. As regard about the compliance of provisions of the 1.D. Act, 1947 these are not required to be complied with.

Chandgarh

Dated26-10-2005

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 20 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 198. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/97/98- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th December , 2005

S.O. 198 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 121/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Deptt . of Post and their workman, which was received by the Central Government inon 20-12-2005

[No. L -40012/97/ 98 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT - I , CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 121/99

Sh . Pancham Lal , S/o Sh . Ram Harak, H. No. 16/5 , Behind B.D. Floor Mill, Patelnagar,

Ambala Cantt . (Haryana)-133001 .

..... Applicant

Versus

The Chief Postmaster General , HaryanaCircle,

.....Respondent

Ambala Cantt. (Haryana)-133001

APPEARANCES :

For the workman: Shri B.M. Sharma

For the management : ShriK.K. Thakur

18. In view of the submission of both the parties , I have found that management has taken a stand that services ofthe workman were to be terminated on the joining ofthe person who vacated the post for the workman who went ondeputation to Army Postal Service . The services ofthe workman were terminated in order to accommodate one Raghubir Singh who was rendered surplus . The management also taken a stand that in case Raghubir Singh was not appointed and workman is not terminated at that this now Gurbakshish Singh has written to the management that he is joining his post and coming back and he may be allowed tojoin. So now workman services were liable tobe terminated if not done earlier . Therefore , the workman is not entitled to any reinstatement as this is a stop gap arrangement. I have found that there was a implied contract between the parties that workman is appointed as a substitute and as the management has taken two stands. One that workman was terminated because Raghubir Singh had become surplus and management also took a stand that in case Raghubir Singh was not appointed and services of the workman were not terminated now his services are likely to be terminated as Gurbakshish Singh is likely to joinhis post on his return from Army Postal Service . From the submissions and my persual of documents and record and law, I have found that till no evidence has come that said Gurbakshish Singh has joined and has come back to jointhe management . In these circumstances and in view of the implied contract between the parties which was ought to be respected management being model employer and Govt . department it can be said that conduct of the management in termination of the workman as they are doing in other cases , it is malafide and as well as unfair labour practice even as per their implied contract between the parties, they have to comply it . As there is no evidence on record to show that Gurbakshish Singh has joined the department, in the circumstances it can not be said that management can terminate the services of the workman arbitrarily. The workman has also completed more than 240 days and if stop gap arrangement is not complied, then the management is bound to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act , 1947. Further in the interest of justice and in compliance of the contract and that termination is bad in view of above , it can not be said just and legal . The workman has a right to continue in his service till Gurbakshish Singh joins the postal department . Hence the management is directed to reinstate the workman on the post on which Gurbakshish Singh was working till Gurbakshish Singh joins and pay all the full back wages to the workman . If the said Gurbakshish Singh alreadyjoins , then the workman is entitled for the full wages from the [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

458

AWARD

4. Rejoinder also filed by the workman reiterating the claim made in the claim statement .

(Passed on 26-10-2005)

Central Govt. vide No. L-400 12/ 97/98 / IR(DU) dated 6th May, 1999 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

5. Inevidence , workman filed his affidavit alongwith documents . Management also filed affidavit of Sh . J.C. Sehgal as M1. Both the witnesses were cross - examined at length by the parties counsels .

"Whether the action of the Chief Postmaster General , Haryana Circle , Ambala Cantt . in terminating the services of Sh . Pancham Lal S/o Sh. Ram Harak is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled?"

6. Arguments heard at length . Ld . counsel for the managment submitted that for the regularization of service as EDA Department of Communication P& T vide notification dated 10-9-64 as approved by the Central Govt. framed rules which itself a complete code which provide rules for all categories. In these rules which are called as The Post and Telegraphs Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service ) Rules , 1964 provide for appointing authority, pension , leave , termination of service , nature of penalties , procedure for imposing a penalty, appeal , period of limitation for appeals , form and contents of appeals etc. There was a clause that if any doubt arises as to who is the appropriate appointing authority in any case , the matter shall be referred to the Govt. whose decision thereon shall be final.

2. In his clam statement the workman submitted that he was employed as a mali in the office of the respondent forthe period from 25-8-92 to 14-1-1997 on daily wage basis but paid monthly basis and his work and conduct was satisfactory and there was no complaint against him. His services were terminated under colourable exercise of powers without serving any notice or payment of salary and no compensation was paid. He was also not served with any charge-sheet and the managment also not complied with the principle of first come last go and after his termination the post has been filled up by an outsider in violation of Section 25H . He prayed that he may be reinstated in service with all benefits including backwages .

7. He submitted that in view of the above rules , the condition of services applicable on the workman Pancham Lal,despite the fact that workman has completed 240 days , is not entitled for any relief. There was no violation of provisions of Section 25F, G and H and any other provisions . He submitted that Pancham Lal is a civil servant and not entitled to any relief. He also submitted that therefore, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble S.C. JT 1996(2) S.C. 457 , wherein it is held that workman is a civil servant despite that the management is an industry but workman is a civil servant . He further submitted that the postwas filled up after following the due procedure through employment exchange and as the name of the applicant was not sponsored by the employment exchange . He also referredto a latest judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2005 (2 ) SCT, Allahabad Jal Sansthan Vs. Daya Shankar Rai & Anr . Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that grant of full back wages mere as a consequence of reinstatement , is no more a good proposition in the change circumstances. Industry is not tobe compelled to pay for the period the wokman was not working for it . Management also relied on JT 1997 (4 ) S.C. 560Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and Ors . Vs. State ofBihar &Ors wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that termination of service of temporary employees who were only daily wagers -held daily wager had no right to posts and their disengagement is not arbitrary-since they are temporary employees working on daily wages , their disengagement from service cannot be treated under I.D. Act , 2005 ( 1 ) SCT, Mahender Lal Jain Vs. Indore Development Authority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that daily wagers and ad hoc employces do not hold any regular post. They are appointed for some specific work. Their appointments are in violation of Article 14 in as much 3. In written statement the managemnt has taken preliminary objection that there is no relationship of employer and employee, the applicant was deployed only in stop gap arrangement in lieu of a part time Mali . Therefore, the applicant is not a workman. His appointment was made without following the recruitment rules for group D non test category. The names were not requistioned from the employment exchange. The deployment of the workman was in stop gap arrangement till a suitable substitute was appointed in place of Shri Harbans Lal part time Mali . Thus the services of the applicant were bound to be dispensed with immediately on the joining of substitute of Harbans Lal . There is one post of full time Mali and one parttime Mali with the managment . Shri Suraj Kumar, brother of the workman has been appointed against the full time post of Mali and for part time Shri Harbans Lal was appointed . The said Harbans Lal absented himself unauthorisedly from his duty in August, 1992 and the workman was engaged verbally in his place as part time Mali that his deployment would be purely on temporary basis till the above said Harbans Lal resume duty or suitable successor of the absentee is appointed in accordance with the departmental instructions . The workman was told that he would have no claim for his regular appointment against that post as he was engaged purely on stop gap arrangement . Efforts were made to fill up the vacancy through employment exchange and during this period the workman was allowed to continue . The services of the workman were disengaged on 15-1-1997 and later on one Ram Lakhan who was sponsored by the employment exchange was appointed as part time Mali vide order dated 15-7-1997.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

459

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

as they are not appointed by any competent authority in accordance with the rules and procedure . Such appointments are void ab - initio being opposed to public policy. Their service conditions are not determined . They cannot claim regularization/permanency against regular posts. 1988 S. C. page 1700 Miss A. Sundarambal Vs. Govt . ofGoa, Daman and Diu and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that though School is Industry, teacher is not workman, dispute of termination of service of teacher cannot be referred under Act , 1999 ( 4 ) SCT 731 Rajesh Sharma Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , Chandigarh . It isheld that I. D. Act , 1947 , Section 25F and G, daily wagers- short term appointment on daily wage basis without following the procedure prescribed in recruitment rules- workers appointed against a specific work for a specific period not in accordance with the procedure prescribed are not entitled to the benefits of Sections 25F and G of I. D. Act if they are not allowed to continue any further, authority is not obliged to comply with the said Provisions , 2005.

8. While summing up his arguments learned counsel for the management submitted that carlier also the learned predecessor has held that the post of the workman was that of extra departmental agent and they are civil servants. He submitted that as the workman Pancham Lal in view of the law referred, despite his completion of 240 days he is not entitled to any relief being he is a civil servant . He submitted that reference may kindly be decided in favour of the management holding that workman is not entitled to any relief. In view of the latest Law of 2005 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , workman is also not entitled to any back wages.

Hon'ble Kerala High Court has decided in this writ petition two questions in a writ filed by the P& T Department ( 1) whether the P&Tdepartment is an industry and (2) whether theGovt. employees , who are govened by the service rules , are outside the preview of the I.D. Act . He submitted that both these questions were decided in favour ofthe workman holding that provisions of Sections 25F, G & H have over- riding effect. Anything inconsistent contained in any other law which cannot be given effect to. They have simply to be ignored , if the establishement in question is an industry. It isfor the State to act if it thinks that Government servant who are also workmen , should not get double benefits . It can amend the I.D. Act or bring in other legislation , AIR 2001 S.C. 672 Vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal and another , wherein it is held by the Hon'ble S.C. serviceregulations do not prevail over Industrial Disputes Act , 1996 (4) SCT 697 Hans Raj Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, 1999( 1) RSJ 58 Trishla Devi Vs. The Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , UT, Chandigarh wherein it is held that appointment of the petitioner for fixed period of 89 days again and again with gaps is an unfair labour practice . Similar view has been taken in 1998 ( 2 ) RSJ 55 Shimla Devi Vs. P.O. Labour Court , Bhatinda and Others , 1998( 1 ) RSJ 703 Bhikku Ram Vs. the Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Rohtak in which it has been held that the job continue to be required by the employer. Held that employer has not excercised his right to terminate the services of the petitioner in good faith and the work did not ceased amounts to unfair labour practice , 2003 ( 2 ) SCT 1013 S. M. Nilajkar and OrsVs. Telecom District Manager, Karnatka wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that termination of services of workman engaged in a scheme or project may not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of sub clause (bb) subject to the following conditions being satisfied ( 1 ) that the workman was employed in a project or scheme oftemporary duration , (ii ) the employment was on a contract, and not as a daily wager simplicitor , which provided inter alia that the employment shall come to an end on the expiry of the scheme or project ; ( iii ) the employment came to an end simultaneously with he termination of the scheme or project and consistently with the terms of the contract and ( iv) the workman ought to have been apprised or made aware of the above said terms by the employer at the commencement of employment , 2000 (84) FLR 896 State of UP Vs. Rajendra Singh Butola and another wherein the Hon'ble S. C. has held that daily wagers worked for years, his services were dispensed with without following procedure provided , procedure for retrenchment was required to be followed- termination order set aside , reinstatement with full back wages ordered .

10. While summing up his arguments learned counsel for the workman submitted that in view of the above law referredby him and that workman has completed more than 240 days in calendar year preceding to the date of termination which is not disputed by the management 2 G1 /06-24 [PART II-SEC. 3(i)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

460

wasappointed on part -time mali against a sanctionedpost onoral instructions till Harbans Lal resume duty or suitable successor of the absentee is appointed. Workman Pancham lal on his appointment on the above post in August 1992 was disengaged in Jan. 1997 and a new workman Ram although , there are separate rules made by the P&T Departmentbut these rules are to be ignored if inconsistent with the provisions of the 1.D. Act . These rules are silent and inconsistent in view of the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947. Learned counsel for the workman further argued that in view of the above law referred by him, the workman who has completed 240 days in a preceding year from the date of his termination , which is not disputed by the management. That besides completing of 240 days, the provisions of Section 25F were not cimplied with at the time of termination of the workman , the management has failed to prove that the action ofthe ChiefPost Master General Haryana Circle, Ambala Cantt. in terminating the services of Sh . Pancham Pal S/o. Sh . Ram Harak is just and legal ?. As regards payment of wages , in view of the law referred by the management the workman has left to the court to decide and they did not argue further.

11. In view of the above submissions now main dispute between the parties remains as also agreed firstly that whether applicant comes under the definition of workman under the 1.D. Act, 1947 ( ii) whether rules related to the conditions of services of the post and Telegram EDAare complete code in itselfand provisions of I.D. Act are not applicable , ( ii ) whether workman is entitled for the relief claimed by him as he has completed 240 days and the management is not justified in terminating his services.

vide letterdated 15-7-97 who joined on 17-7-97. Contentions of the management are that it is a stop gap arrangement and there is no violation of any provisions of the I.D. Act 1947 as workman was told orally thatHarbans lal in whose place has appointed is absenting unauthorisedly from August 1992, till , he joined or a regular incumbent through a legal process is appointed, he shall be kept as a part -time mali . Borther of workman is also working as Full -time mali . It is also not disputed that Harbans Lal has not joined his duty at all. It is also admitted byMW1 J.C. Seghal who admitted on oath that Ram Lakhan wasappointed against a regular vacancy while workman wasworking on leave vacancy of Harbans Lal . Management hasalso not disputed that till the termination ofHarbans Laland till appointment of Ram Lakhan who was appointed as his name was sponsored by the employment exchange meand after holding the interview. Although it took about five years but the dispute of Harbans Lal who absented took five years and in his place workman Pancham Lal was continuing w.e.f. August, 1992 till 17-7-97 and it was a stop gap arrangement . Pancham Lal was not appointed after due process of law and his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange and hence he was not considered for regular appointment and after the appointment of Ram Lakhan and termination of Harbans Lal workman disengaged on oral instructions .

12. Both parties are in agreement that workman has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding to his termination on 14-1-1997. Both the parties are also in agreement that there are rules relating to conditions and service ofthe post of EDA. The post of BPM is one of an employee appointed under the above rules . Management has contested this case submitting that workman was appointed on ad hoc basis and that he is a civil servant and the above service rules are complete code in itself is applicable on the workman. Further that applicant is not a workman as defined under the I.D. Act 1947 being civil servant. In view ofthe law referred by the workman, I am of the considered view that applicant is covered under the definition of workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the 1.D. Act 1947 as he is fully covered under the above definition. As regards applicability ofthe provisions of the 1.D. Act 1947 workman has relied on Section 25 J of the I.D. Act 1947 i.e. effect of law inconsistent with this chapter .

14. Learned counsel for the management submitted that in case workman is allowed to be continued it shall be abackdoor entry and seeking appointment by unfair means. Itwas specifically told and explained to the workman that hisappointment is temporary and is on a stop gap arrangement till Harbans Lal joins his duty or regular appointment is made through legal process . Unfortunately it took five years in deciding the case of Harbans Lal who remained absent and till that period Pancham Lal was engaged. Although there was no written assurance but oral contentions was also not challanged and there is implied agreement between the workman and the management and workman Pancham Lal felt no difficulty in earning his livelihood during the five years . The management did not consider it fair to disengage himearlier and allowed him to continue till services of Harbans Lal wereterminated and thereafter adopted legal procedure in appointment of Ram Lakhan. The name of the workman was not considered as his name was not sponsored by the employment exchange and his name can not be considered asper rules .Hence there is one malafile on the part ofthe management and there is no unfair labour practice by the management and it was a stop gap arrangement and despite the workman has completed 240 days he is not entitled to get benefit of the provisions of Section 25F ofthe I.D. Act 13. In view ofthe oral submission written arguments and oral evidence and documents and my persual of law referred and my observations above, I am of the considered view that only a short controversy between the parties is that whether the termination of Pancham Lal is legal and justified, and if not to what relief the workman is entitled. It isnot disputed by the management rather admitted that workman who was appointed in August 1992 on a lien vacancy as one Harbans Lal was appointed who absented unauthorisedly from August 1992 in his place Pancham Lal 461

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

reference is answred accordingly. Central Governmentbe informed.

and other benefits . Hence workman is not entitled to get any relief and his termination was legal and justified.

Chandigarh

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2005 15. On the other hand learned counsel for the wokman submitted that it is not a stop gap arrangement and after completion of 240 days in a year preceding to his termination, the management is bound to follow procedure asprovided U/ s 25F as his services were terminated without notice, pay in lieu of notice and without compensation , hence termination is void ab initio and workman should be reinstated in service .

का. आ. 199. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 50/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल -12012/89/96- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st December , 2005

S.O.199.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.50/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Mumbai No. I , shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-12-2005

[No. L- 12012/189/96- IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , MUMBAI

Present

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-50 of 1997

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India .

AND

Theirworkman .

16. In view of the above submissions I am of the considered view that in this case it is not disputed that workman continued for five years only due to continued legal proceedings against Harbans Lal in whose place as a substitute Pancham Lal workman was appointed. It is also not disputed or challanged that contentions of the management are not true and management witness was not cross examined on this pointed at all it is therefore held that services of the workman Pancham Lal were disengeged only after services of Harbans Lal were terminated and in his place on a regular basis Ranı Lakhan was appointed. In the circumstance 1 do not find any malafide intention or unfair labour practice or any bad intention to harm the workman by the management. Workman Pancham Lal working as a substitute of Harbans Lal till his termination and till appointment of a person who is duły appointed after following due procedure of recruitment . Therefore , in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi Vs. State of Bihar 1999 (4 ) SCT and in Rajesh Kumar Vs. P.O. Labour Court a judgement of our own Punjab and Haryana High Court wherein it is held that in case of stop gap arrangement and ad hoc appointment or a short term appointment, the management can defer compliance of Section 25F. It is also not an unfair labour practice . Though provisions of I.D Act Sec . 25 -F It is the contentions of the workmen that termination of his service is in violation of Section 25F of the l . D. Act 1947. The question is whether termination can be said to be in violation of the Section 25F , it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such termination can not come under the provisions of the 1.D. Act 1947 and hence plea that it is in violation of Section 25F of 1.D. Act are not correct . Hence 1 hold that disengagement is not arbitraty.

APPEARANCES :

For the Management Shri R.N. Shah , Adv. ,

Forthe workman Shri J. Sawant

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 9th day of December, 2005 AWARD

21. In view of the above law and facts it is proved by the management that the workman was appointed on ad hoc basis till regular arrangement is made , though the workman has completed more than 240 days of service but his case is not covered U /s 25F of the I.D. Act . In view of the above , it is held that termination of the workman is not illegal and there is no violation of Section 25F of the 1.D. Act 1947. Therefore , the action of the Chief Post Master General Haryana Circle , Ambala Cantt . in termination of the services of Shri Pancham Lal son of Ram.Harak is legal and justified and workman is not entitled to any relicf. The

[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi . , Order No. L- 12012 / 1 / 189 / 96IR( B - II) dated 23-6-1997 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in retiring Shri P.G. Sawant , Accounting Machine Operator w.e.f. 1-8-95 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workman is entitled? "

showing the date ofbirth as 10-7-1936 are not relevant or conclusive proof of the age of the workman . The Bank issued the Circular in the year 1981 and 1988 and still the workman kept silent. The certificate obtained by the workman after receiving retirement notice cannot be taken to be admissible as a proof of date of birth . The workman did not file the School Leaving Certificate which , iffiled would have been authenticated proof of the date of birth. Thus , the date of birth as recorded in the service record is correct.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the oral as well as documentary evidence . The entire record is perused by me .

5. In view ofthe above the short controversy in the instant reference as to whether the date of birth as recorded inthe service record which admittedly bears the signature of workman has to be taken as correct or date of birth as recorded in PF statement maintained by the bank as per information furnished by the workman at the time of fulfilling the nomination form for provident fund/gratuity has to be taken as correct .

6. Admittedly, the service record of the workman goes to show that date of birth 10-7-1935. It admittedly bears the signature of the workman , It leaves no room for any doubt about the correctness of the date of birth . The workman never disputed with his date of birth was being incorrectly recorded.

7. Admittedly, the bank issued the circular in the year 1981 & 1988. All the employees of the bank were informed by circulation of the circulars about furnishing the correct date of birth . Admittedly, the workman did not take any action thereupon . It is immaterial as to whether the circulars were personally served upon the workman or not but the issuance of this circular has been referred to by the workman himself in his statement of claim .

2. The case of the workman Shri P.G. Sawant (hereinafterreferred to as " workman " in brief is that he had joined the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as "Bank" for short ) on 15-2-1956 as sub - staff a lowest category ofworking staff . At that time he was not insisted specifically about the birth certificate. After few years , the Bio-data green form was obtained by the Bank from the workman in his own hand writing . It is alleged that in the saidBio -data green form the workman had furnished his date ofbirth as 10-7-1936 which consequently reflected in statement of Provident Fund Account . Thus , workman attained the age of superannuation on 01-8-1996 . The workman was issued notice by the Bank dated 09-3-1995 wherein he was shown to retire on 01-8-1995 instead of 01-8-1996 . The contention of the workman is that his date ofbirth was shown as 10-7-1936 correctly in the Provident Fund Statement issued by the Bank to him regularly. Hence, theworkman took it to be correct and accepted his date of birth as 10-7-1936 . He was arbitrarily and incorrectly retired by the bank on the basis of the date of birth as 10-7-1935 in the service record and denying the statement of Provident Fund . The Bank issued circular No. 302 dated 0.1-5-1981 for disclosing the date of birth correctly but did not take any action since he presumed that his correct date of birth has been recorded in PF statement . The Bank issued another circular dated 17-6-1988 over riding the earlier circular dated 21-5-1981 and thereby calling upon the employees/ workmen to declare date of birth but the workman did not take any action since he was not disclosed the date of birth as recorded in the service record and he presumed the Date ofBirth recorded in the PF /Gratuity nomination form as 10-7-1936 is correct . On receiving the retirement notice , the workman obtained birth certificate front Granı Panchayat , Health Department , Taluka Devgad Gram Panchayat, Dist . Sindhudurg and Collector, Taluka Devgad, Dist. Sindhudurg , State of Maharashtra for showing date of birth as 10-7-1936 but the Bank did not accept and illegally retired the workman holding that his date of birth was 10-7-1935 . Thus , the workman has been retired a year before the actual date of retirement .

8. Admittedly, the workman did not file the School leaving certificate or High School Certificate for showing the date of birth till date either before the Bank or before this tribunal meaning thereby the workman does not possess the authenticated certificate issued by any school. The certificate obtained by the workman after the receipt ofthe retirement notice , from concerned Gram Panchayat or the Collector cannot be taken to be as admissible conclusive proof for ascertaining and holding date of birth as 10-7-1936 . The entries made by the bank in the Provident Fund statement go to show that date of birth of the workman is 10-7-1936 . The laws clear on this point that this entry with respect to date of birth cannot be taken to be conclusive proof ofthe age of the workman . These entries are being recorded on the basis of the information given by the workman while fulfilling the nomination form for receipt ofamount of provident fund/gratuity.

3. The Bank has filed the written statement . The contention is that the workman had joined the services of the Bank in the year 1956. The service record was prepared and maintained on the basis of information received from the workman. This service record bears the signature of the workman . It specifically shows that the date of birth of the workman is 10-7-1935 . The workman never disputed the date of birth recorded as such . The entries of the PF

9. In a case reported in 1990 I CLR 900 between UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd. , V/ s . Dy. Labour [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

463

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

management ofUnion Bank of India in retiring the workman cannot be saidto be illegal or unjustified . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

Commissioner, Gorakhpur ( U.P. ) the Honourable High Court of Allahabad held that the date of birth as recorded in Form-2 under Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous provisions Act will not be conclusive to determine the age ofretirement.

15. The reference is accordingly answered. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 200.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय चण्डीगढ़ नं. 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं एल-12012/168/2004- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st December, 2005

S.O. 200 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court Chandigarh No. II , as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workman , received by the Central Government on 21-12-2005

10. The Honourable Supreme Court in case ofBurn Standard.Co . Ltd. , vs. Dinabandhu Majumdar & Anr . 1995 SCC (L & S ) page 952 held that " The fact that an employee of Government or its instrumentality who remained in service for over decades , with no objection whatsoever raised as to his date of birth accepted by the employer as correct, when all of a sudden comes forward towards the fag end of his service career with a writ application before the High Court seeking correction of his date of birth in his service record, very conduct of non raising of an objection in the matter by the employees should be a sufficient reason for the High Court, not to entertain such applications on grounds of acquiescence , undue delay and laches . Moreover, discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court can never be said to have been reasonbly and judicially exercised if it entertains such writ application . Therefore , there should be no hesitation in holding that ordinarily High Court should not , in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction , entertain a writ application/petition filed by an employee of the Govt . or its instrumentality towards the fag end of his service , seeking correction of his date of birth entered in his " service and leave record " or service register with the avowed object of continuing in service beyond the normal period of his retirement" .

[No. L - 12012/ 168/2004 - IR (B - II )] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

11. In the case reported in 1996 (72) FLR 834 between Union Bank of India vs. Ranı Sua Sharına , the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated that A Court or Tribunal at the belated stage can not entertain a claim for the correction of the date of birth duly entered in the service records . "

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT - IL, CHANDIGARH

SHRI KULDIP SINGH Presiding Officer Case No. L.D. No. 58/2004 Registered on 71-1-2005 Date ofDecision 12-12-2005

Petitioner 12. In a case reported in 1987 LAB IC 579 between Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Industrial Court , Indore , the Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that " If the employees are allowed to challenge their date of birth in such a manner at any point of time at their whim it would amount to an interference the terms of the contract of service hence the circular issued by Company was reasonable and application of employee was liable to be rejected."

Sh . Shashi Bhan S/ o Sh . Rulia Ram & P.O. Uchana , Tehsil and Distt. Karnal.

V/s.

The Branch Manager ,

Respondents

UCO Bank, Karnal .

APPEARANCES

For the workman : Mr. Naveen Daryal , Advocate

13. Keeping in mind , the entire evidence oral as well asdocumentary on record and the discussions made above , I conclude that the date of birth as recorded in the service record as 10-7-1935 is to be taken as correct and the date of birth as shown in the Provident Fund Statements or in the certificate issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat or Collector, cannot be accepted as correct and is wholly insufficient to rebut the entry with respect to date of birth as shown in the service record bearing the signature of the workman himself.

For the Management : Mr. N.K. Zakhmi , Advocate

14. In this view of the matter, the workman has been rightly retired on 1-8-1995 and hence the action of the [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

464

AWARD

an amount of Rs . 5320 /- , as wages , upto the date of termination of his services on 17th of January, 2002.

Government of India vide its notification No. L- 12012/ 168/2004 -IR(B -II) , dated 17th ofDecember, 2004 referred the followingdispute for the adjudication of this Tribunal

"Whether the action of the Management of UCO Bank interminating the services of Shri Shashi Bhan S/o Sh . Rulia Ram, Jeep Driver w.e.f. 17-1-2002 is just and legal ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"

The workman has claimed that the order of his termination is bad as it has been passed in violation ofthe order of Industiral Tribunal dated 7th of October, 2001. Thatsince the workman had served the Management for more than 480 days as he had served them continuously for 11 years , therefore , he was required to be brought on regular establishment; that the workman was entitled to gratuity since he served the Management for more than 5 years and the order of termination without paying the gratuity is bad . That the Management made fresh recruitment on the post ofDriver as per circular dated 28th ofJune 1991. Thus the new appointees were junior to the workman and the claim of the Management that there is no post ofDriver with the Management is false for that reason; that the termination is bad for the reason that the Management did not prepare seniority list of the daily paid workers, as was required under Rule 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act, Central Rules , the Management failed to do thatbefore dispensing with the services of the workman, thus the order of the Management is bad. Lastly, the workman has claimed that the Management terminated the services ofthe workman without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act. They resorted to unfair labour practice, as they dispensed with the services of the workman with retrospective effect , which is bad and illegal .

The reference was received in this Tribunal and was registered on 17th of January, 2005. The notice of the reference was given to the parties , who appeared through their representatives on 10th of February, 2005. The workman filęd claim petition on 10-2-2005 , a copy ofwhich was provided to the Management on the same day. The Management filed written statement on 7th of April , 2005 , a copy ofwhich was provided to the workman, who filed rejoinder there to on 15th of April , 2005. The parties were thendirected to file their affidavits and they filed the same on different dates and exchanged the copies thereof. The workman appeared as witness for himself whereas the Management has produced Sh . A.D. Arora , the Branch Manager as their witness . It may be noted here that the Manager had filed the affidavit of their another witness Subhash Chander Batra , but they could not examine him as he was transferred , before his statement could be recorded.

The Management has opposed the claim of the workman saying that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the matter stand already settled by an Award of the Labour Tribunal dated 7th of September 2001 and the Management has complied with that and has satisfied the said Award therefore , the workman has no cause of action to maintain the present petition. According to them the workman had gone to the High Court for quashing the order dated 17th of January 2002 by which the services of the workman were dispensed with, without re - instating hinu in service. However the Hon'ble High Court decided the petition in the terms that since the payment ofwages has been made to the workman, therefore , the Awarddated 7th of September 2001 has become infructuous . In view of that the workman cannot claim relief already granted by the Hon'ble High Court .

On merits the Management has claimed that the workman was engaged by a contract on daily wages @ Rs. 41) per day, for driving the Bank's vehicle as and when required basis. The services of the workman was utilised in emergency mostly on working days . Claiming that the workman was not engaged against a regular post it is submitted by them that the vehicle was withdrawn from the Karnal Branch and there remained no reqüirement of a Driver. As such the services of the workman were dispensed within on 21st of October 1994 .

The claim of the workman as made out by him in his claim statement , is that he was engaged by the respondent asJeep Driver on daily wages on 11th of June, 1991 and he served them upto 21st of October, 1994, thereby he rendered three years continuous service to the Management and in any case he worked for the Management for 240 days , a fact which was proved before the Labour Tribunal in a petition, filed by him earlier. That the Management dispensed with the services of the workman without following the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act , as the Management neither issued him one month's notice nor paid him salary for the notice period , before the termination of his services. The workman challenged the termination before the Assistant Labour Commissioner , upon whose failure report the reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal which held that the termination was bad and treates the workman in continuous service till the date of award. In persuance of that the workman submitted his joining report to the Management i.c. before the Manager , Karnal Branch , but the concerned Manager vide order dated seventeenth of January, 2002 dispensed with the services ofthe workman saying that no post of Driver was available . The workman then filed a civil writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, claiming the wages for the period till the date of award and in compliance to the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court , the Management paid 465

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

parties had full opportunity to cross -examine the person who appeared as witness for the parties .

Taking the support of authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 1998 ( IInd LLJ 15) , it is claimed by the Management that since the workman was appointed on thebasis ofneed of work his discharge from service cannot mean to be retrenchment in terms of Section25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 , hereinafter to be referred to as " Act" . They have also taken the plea that the reference isbad since the principal employer has not been arrayed as aparty.

The Management has replied the paras of the claim petition claiming that the workman was disengaged in accordance with the provisions of the Act . They have admitted the contents of Paras 1 , 2 , 4, 5 6 as a matter of record and submitted that the contents of Paras No. 7 , of the claim petition , are wrong. The Award passed by the Labour Tribunal became infructuous after the payment was made and accepted by the workman on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court . They have also denied the claim of the workman for regular appointment and stated that the matter ofgratuity cannot be looked into by this Tribunal as the same has not been referred to it . They have also denied that after the passing of the Award, by the Industrial Tribunal, the post of Driver was never filled up as no such post ever existed with the respondent . They have also denied that the junior of the workman was retained in service . For that reason also there was no necessity to determine the seniority of the workman. The Management also did not indulge in unfair labour practice .

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The ordeal, the workman has undergone started in October 1994 when his services were dispensed with by the Management . The workman approached the labour authorities of Government of India, on whose recommendation a reference was made to the CGIT-cum -Labour Court , Chandigarh, by the Government ofIndia, under reference No. L- 12012/05/96 . IR dated 22nd ofApril 1997. The Labour Tribunal vide its Award dated 7th of September, 2001 held that the termination of services ofthe workman by the Management was unjustified and illegal. The Tribunal further held that the workman will be deemed to be incontinuous service of the Management from the date oftermination of his services . The pleadings ofthe parties show that the Management neither challenged the Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal nor they implemented the same . Aggrieved by this conduct of the Management, the workman approached the Hon'ble High Court,byway ofwrit which was registered as CWP 3782 of 2002. The Hon'ble High Court disposed off the said writ onMarch 1st , 2004. During the course ofthe hearing ofthe saidwrit theManagement paid an amount of Rs . 5320/-by pay order, representing the wages due to the workman upto 17th of January 2002 , that is , from the date ofAward passed by the Labour Tribunal and the date on which the services of the petitioner were retrenched . In view of that payment, the Hon'ble High Court held that the Award passed by the Labour Court on 7th of September, 2001 has been rendered as infructuous, but simultaneously their lord- ships opined that in the view of their lordships, it would not be just and appropriate to deal with the variety of compensation paid to the petitioner (workman) under Section 25 - F, of the Act , while retrenching him from employment, once again , by order dated 17th of January, 2002. They allowed the workman to challanged the said impugned order under the provisions of Act . The workman has come to this Court through the authorities under the Act to challenge the order of his termination , on a number ofgrounds.

The workınan filed the rejoinder and re - aterated the facts stated in the claim petition . It is claimed by the workman that interpretation given " to the satisfaction of the, Award" , passed by the Industrial Tribunal , is wrong as the Hon'ble High Court had given option to the workman to challenge the impugned order under the Act . He has further claimed that the pension scheme has been introduced inter- alia , in the Management Bank and the workman having rendered 11 years of service , is entitled to that . He has further claimed that the Management has not denied the issuance of circular regarding the post of Driver and thus has accepted the claim of the workman ; that the Management did not prepare any seniority list and retained the juniors of workman in the service while terminating the workman. They also resorted to unfair labour practice since despite the Award they did not appoint the workman and terminated him from the service with retrospective effect .

The workman has filed his own affidavit in support of his pleadings and the documents brought on record by - him . The Management has filed the affidavit of their witness namely A.D. Arora , Senior Manager. The Management has also placed on record the affidavit of Subhash Chander Batra , another Senior Manager of the Management, but he was not produced for the cross - examination of the workman . Both workman Shashi Bhan and Management's witness A.D. Batra , also came in the witness box and the

It is the claim of the workman that as per the Award, passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal , on 7th of September 2001 , he was deemed to be in continuous service from 11th ofJune, 1991 till 7th of September, 2001 , the date onwhich the Award was passed . The workman submitted his joining report, in persuance of the said Award , on 19th ofNovember 2001 , but the Management, instead of allowing him to join his duties , dispensed with his services vide order dated 17th of January 2002 , on the grounds that no post of Driver existed in the concerned Branch . In substance, the workman has challenged the termination of his services , by an order dated 17th of January 2002, on the grounds that since the workman had rendered service to the Management , actual as well as , by virtue ofthe Award passed in his favour, for more than 11 years , therefore , he 466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

wasrequired to be brought on regular establishment having rendered continuous service for 240 days . He was also entitled to the gratuity since he had rendered service for morethan 5 years . According to him , the payment ofwages in lieu of notice could not legalise the action of the Management so long they did not follow the procedure laid down by Section 25 -F of the Act . Thus, the termination of services of the workman on 17th of January 2002 , was illegal and unjustified . He has also claimed that the circular issued by the Management , on 28th of June 1991 , proves that the Management had made the appointment ofa Driver and that belies the claim of the Management that there existed no post of Driver with the Management . They also violated the provisions of Section 25 of the Act as they retained the juniors of the workman in service while terminated the services of senior . They further violated the provisions of Rule 77 of the Industrial Dispute ( Central Rules 1957) as they did not prepare seniority list of the category to which the workman belonged , before terminating his services nor they posted a copy of the said seniority list on a conspicous place within its premises seven days before the termination of services of the workman. According to him the Management also adopted unfair labour practice , by not following the procedure laid downby theAct. which was required to be followed in the case ofworkman, like the manner , it is followed in the case of regular employees of the Management .

TheManagement has on the other hand maintained that the Hon'ble Higlt Court of Punjab and Haryana vide its judgment passed in the civil writ petition No. 3782 of 2002 , decided on March 1st , 2004 rendered the Awarddated 7th of September 2001 , as infructuous as the same was fully complied with by the Management and since the Award was complied within full there remained no cause with the workman to come up with the present petition nor he can claim relief refused by the Hon'ble High Court . The Management has further claimed that since the workman was engaged on contract , as daily wager. @ Rs . 40 per day. as and when need basis , in emergency circumstances , he cannot claim relief as he was not appointed against a regular post. Morcover, the vehicle for driving of which he was engaged, was withdrawn from the concerned branch . therefore there remained no requirement of Driver . As such his services were dispensed with. Taking a support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court , reported as 1998 ( Ilnd LLJ 15 ) . It is submitted by the Management that the disengagement of a temporary employce, engaged on daily wages , on the basis of need of work , cannot be termed as retrenchntent , if the said workman is not appointed on a regular post in accordance with rules . As in this case the petitioner was not appointed in accordance with the rules and was engaged on need of work basis therefore , his disengagement could not be retrenchment under the Act . The Management has also taken the plea that the reference is bad since the principal employer has not been made party in the refcrence .

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] I have considered the submissions of the Management threadbare . I do not agree with the Management that the Award passed by the Labour Tribunal on 7th of September 2001 , was rendered infructuos after the Management paid the compensation to the workman in the High Court . The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court , rendered in CWP No. 3782 of 2002, dated March 1 , 2004, has to be read as a whole and reliance cannotbeplaced on isolated paras , as is being done by the Management . If we read the last paras of the judgment, in conjunction , it clearly shows that the Hon'ble Division Bench left it open to the workman to challenge the varecity of compensation , paid to him by the Management under Section25 -F of the Act for terminating his services on 17th ofJanuary 2002. No doubt the Hon'ble Devision Benchin last but one para of the judgment opined that the Award passed by the Labour Court dated 7th of September 2001 was rendered infructuous after wages were paid to the workman yet it allowed the workman to challenge the order oftemination. The workman has come up with the present proceedings to challenge the payment of due compensation to him by the Management at the time of terminating his services on 17th of January 2002 on grounds of non- payment ofdue compensation besides other grounds taken byhim.

Ifwe look at the amount of compensation paid to the workman in the High Court , in the amount ofRs . 5320 , it is clear that the same was nothing but the wages for 4 months and few odd days @ Rs . 410 per day, that is , for the period from the date of Award till the date his services were dispensed with on 17th of January 2002.

It isan admitted fact that the services of the workman were dispensed with on 17th of January 2002 second time . It also stand unrebutted and final that the workman had rendered services for 240 days before the termination of his services first time and in view of the Award he continued tobe in service till 7th of September 2001. As per the claim of the Management the services of the workman were terminated second time on 17th of January 2002. It is now claimed by them that the workman had not reported for duty, after the passing of Award . By admitting that the services of the workman were terminated second time on 17th ofJanuary 2002, they admitted him to be in continuous service till that date . Thus the workman served the Management for more than ten years by actually rendering the services or by the conduct of Management in not allowing himto work till 17th of January 2002 , when his serviceswere terminated second time. As per the provisions ofSection 25- F of the Act , the workman was entitled to be paid the retrenchment compensation equivalent to the 15 days average pay for every completed year of continue service or past thereof, in excess of six months . Besides the Management was also required to serve a notice on the appropriate Government or an authority so authorised by it by a notification in the Official Gazettee . There is nothing on record to show that the Management followed 467

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

was bad in law. In this regard I get support from the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court passed in civilwrit petition No. 16418 of 1996 decided on 13-7-1998 . Reported in 1998 ( 4) Services Cases today 495 and by another judgmnt passed in CWP No. 3971 of 1981 decided on 31st of January 1997 .

the provisions of this Act on 17th of January 2002 , when they dispensed with the services of the workman second time. TheManagement having failed to do so has rendered the termination of services of the workman as bad in law again . The disengagement of workman on 17th of January, 2002 was therefore, void abinitio and he is deemed to in service all through this period till date.

The Management has relied upon a number of judgments in support of their claim that since the appointment ofthe workman was not in accordance with the rules, therefore, his disengagement was not bad in law. They have relied upon the judgments reported as 2003 (5 ) service lawreporter page 766, 2002 ( 4 ) service cases page 696 and on another judgment passed in CMWP No. 861 of 1986 decided and No. 3 , 2003 and reported as 2004 - II -LLJ 117. I have gone through these authorities and find that in the facts and circumstances of this case these authorities have no bearing. In the present case the Management has failed to show that the engagement of workman was by a personwho was not competent to engage. They have also failed to show that the officer who engaged the workman was issued memo or chargesheet for having not followed the rules and thereby burdened the Bank with a liability. It isalso not denied by the Management that the engagement of workman came to the notice of higher officers of the Management, to the Manager, who engaged him and if it came to their knowledge their tacit conduct approved the action ofBranch Manager and that made the engagement good in the eyes of law.

Now the question comes as to what relief the workman is entitled to. The workman in his statement has claimed that he is not doing any job at present . However, during the course of proceedings culminated in Award dated 7th of September 2001 , he was found to be engaged gainfully and was getting wages more than the wages he was getting from the Management . In the claim petition he nowhere claimed that he is without a job. It was only on a question put by the representative of the Management that he claimed that he is without job at present since when hedid not say. If he was without job he should have claimed that in his claim petition and would have elaborated claim onthe question ofthe Management . I am , therefore , ofthe opinion that he is gainfully engaged and so he is not entitled to any back wages . However , inview of the conclusions arrived at by me I hold that the termination of services ofthe workman on 17th ofJanuary 2002 was illegal and unjustified, therefore , he is deemed to be in continuous service of the Management till date .He is , therefore, entitled toall the benefits except the monetory benefits due to him under rules , as if he had been in the service of Management all through this period. The Award is passed in these terms. Let a copy of it be sent to the appropriate Government for necessary action and the file be sent to record after due completion.

KULDIP SINGH , Presiding Officer Theworkman has also challenged his termination on the grounds that the Management failed to comply with the provisions of Section '24 --G ' and ' H ' as they did not prepare a seniority list of the employees of his category nor they followed the principle of last come first go rather they retained the juniors of the workman but retrenched him, who was senior to them . It is also alleged that at the time of making fresh appointments , they did not call the workman although he was entitled to preference over the other persons . The Management has denied this claim of the workman. According to them there was no regular post ofDriver with the Management so the question of re- employment ofthe workman was futile. This submission of the Management has been challenged by the workman with the help ofa circular No. CIO/PAD/5 / 91 dated 28th of June 1991. According to this circular , which was issued under the hand of Mr. M.S. Aulakh, Deputy General Manager , UCO Bank Zonal Office , Chandigarh, there were posts of Drivers available in three branches of the Management Bank , including the branch of the Management Bank at Karnal where the workman was initially engaged. According to this notification, the option was given to the eligible employees in the subordinate cadre and personal Drivers engaged with the officers of the Bank for the Banks Car . This notification was issued on 28th of June 1991 , when the workman was in the employment ofthe Management Bank. The Management neither in their pleadings nor in the statement of their witness disputed the existence of such a circular. Rather their witness A.K. Arora , admitted that three posts ofDriver were notified in 1991 and the workman was working with the Management on 11th of June 1991. The claim ofthe Management , therefore , is belied by their own witness that their existed no post of Driver with the Karnal Branch oftheManagement Bank and therefore, the workman could not be retained in service . Although it has not been shown as to how many Drivers were working with the Management Bank on the day the services of the workman were retrenched, but the circular brought on record shows that the posts of Drivers were available in three Branches as contained in the notification , referred to above , and it can be presumed that if these three Branches had the posts of Driver, the other Branches must also be having the same unless show otherwise , and therefore , there were other Drivers also working for the Management at the time the services of the workman were dispensed with . The Management, therefore, made further lapse in not preparing the seniority list of the Drivers working with them and also notby following the principle of last come first go . On this ground also the termination of services of the workman

2 G1 / 06-25 468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ.201.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/256/99- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

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

You have been working as Clerk at our Super Market Branch , Gulbarga since 27-7-1984 and that while working there as such ; you were entrusted with the Cashier's duties w.e.f. 18-1-1996 .

सी. गंगाधरांण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 21st December , 2005

S.O.201 . - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum-Labour Court , Bangalore as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-12-2005.

[No. L- 12012/256/99 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE.

Dated: 5th December, 2005

PRESENT

Shri A.R. Siddiqui , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 11/00

It is now alleged against you- that while you were performing the duties of Receipt Cashier on 27-4-1996 , you received an amount of Rs. 5745 from Shri M.B. Mugali , Pigmy Agent which was remitted by him for the credit of Pigmy Suspense Account . Shri M.B. Mugali while preparing the credit slip , though he had written the details of denominations totalling to Rs.5745 and rémitted such amount , in the column meant for " Rupees in words " and " Rupees in figures " erroneously wrote as Rs.4745 . You, while accounting the said transaction, gave the credit of Rs.4745 to the Pigmy Suspense Account , resulting in excess cash of Rs . 1000 on account of the transactions referred to above.

As per Para No. 24.6.2 (i ) of Manual of Instructions (Volume- II ) , whenever there are instances of excess cash, the matter is to be brought to the notice of the Manager and the excess cash found is to be credited immediately to the Suspense Account .

on That when the branch while tallying Pigmy Suspense account and Pigmy deposit account , noted that the Pigmy Agent, Shri M.B. Mugali had deposited

II PARTY

1 PARTY

27-4-96 Rs . 1000 less than what he had collected on 26-4-1996, directed the Pigmy Agent on 7-5-96 to offer his explanation for remitting less cash on 27-4-1996. Shri M.B. Mugali submitted an explanation to the effect that he had paid Rs.5745 on 27-4-1996 and by oversight , he prepared the credit slip for Rs . 4745. Subsequently, on the same day, i.e. on

Zonal Manager,

Syndicate Bank

Zonal Office,

Bangalore - 560 022

Shri L.K. Digamber, S/o Lakshman Rao , H.No. 348, CIB Colony, Gulbarga Karnataka .

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order. No. L- 12012/256/ 99 /IR (B- II ) dated 31st January, 1999 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank Head Office , Manipal is justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service on Shri L.K. Digambar, Workman , if not to what relief the workınan is entitled to ?"

2. A chargesheet dated 12-6-1996 was issued against the first party by the management as under :-

7-5-1996 , you prepared a credit slip for Rs . 1000 and credited the amount to cash excess account .

The above circumstances goes to indicate that though you received excess cash of Rs . 1000 while performing the duties of Receipt Cashier from Shri M.B. Mugali , the Pigmy Agent on 27-4-1996, you failed to report the matter to the Manager and also did not credit the excess cash found to suspense account . That you credited the excess cash found on 27-4-1996 , to the cash excess account only on 7-5-1996 after the Pigmy Agent enquired with you . Thus , you had retained with you unauthorisedly the cash of Rs . 1000 due to the Bank and misappropriated the same temporarily.

The above act of your part is highly objectionable and ainounts to gross misconduct under clauses No.. 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement . We , therefore , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

charge you with the gross misconduct of "doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank" vide clause No. 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement .

Your explanations , if any, in defence shall be submitted within 7 days of receipt of this chargesheet.

3. In response to the said chargesheet, the first party submitted his explanation dated 16-8-1996 and his explanation not being found satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was ordered and conducted against him resulting into the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of the charges of misconduct as levelled in the aforesaid chargesheet . His Defence Representative made a submission in writing dated 29-8-97 in response to the enquiry report seeking exoneration of the misconduct alleged to have been committed by him stating that there was no financial loss caused to the bank in crediting the amount in question with a delay of 10 days . The Disciplinary Authority not being convinced of the explanation and submission made on behalf of the first party, issued a show cause notice dated 8-9-97 proposing the punishment of dismissal from service . Thereafter on 16-10-97 the disciplinary authority had given an opportunity of personal hearing and once again not being satisfied by the explanation offered by first party, confirmed the punishment of dismissal and passed the impunged punishment order dated 15-1-98 .

4. The first party workman in his claim statement , in the first instance challenged the enquiry proceedings contending that proceedings of enquiry suffered from violation of principles of natural justice with a further contention that findings of the enquiry are not based on sufficient and legal evidence and that punishment of dismissal not only was unwarranted but was disproportionate keeping in view the gravity of alleged misconduct committed by him.

5. The management by its Counter Statement however, maintained and asserted that charges of misconduct levelled against the first party have been proved not only in the oral and documentary evidence pressed into service but also in the very admissions of the first party of retaining the amount in question with him without crediting to the Suspense Account or returning back to the Pigmy Collector for a period of about 10 days from the date he received the said amount from the said Pigmy Collector and then credited with the bank after the Pigmy Collector brought to his notice of the management issuing him the notice of less payment made by him with regard to the collections made on 26-4-1996 . The management further contended that enquiry was conducted in a fair and impartial manner giving reasonable and sufficient opportunity to the first party to defend himself. It contended that findings of the enquiry were considered and appreciated in their proper

469

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

perspective by the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct, the punishment of dismissal passed against the first party was legal and justified not to be interfered at the hands of this tribunal .

6. Having regard to the contentions of the respective parties in respect to legality and validity or otherwise of the Domestic Enquiry proceedings , this tribunal took up the above said question as a Preliminary Issue. During the course of trial , the management examined the Enquiry Officer as MW1 and got marked six documents at Ex . Ml to M6 and whereas , no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the first party workman.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the management (counsel for first party remained absent) , this tribunal by its order dated 22-2-2005 recorded a finding on the above said issue holding that the enquiry conducted by the management against the first party workman is fair and proper. Thereupon the matter came to be posted to hear the learned counsels for the respective parties on the point of the perversity of the findings and the quantum of the punishment . Learned counsel for the first party filed his written arguments and whereas, learned counsel for the management submitted his oral arguments. In his written argument the first party once again reiterated the various contentions taken by him in his Claim Statement and attacked the oral and documentary evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry as not sufficient and satisfactory to hold him guilty of the charges . He also once again submitted than punishmnt of dismissal was not proportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct committed by him. His next contention was that he had no intention to misappropriate the amount in question and he had explained the circumstances in his explanations submitted to the management giving out the facts as to what prevented him not to deposit the above said amount with suspense account or not to return back to the Pigmy Collector after having come to the notice that he had received excess amount of Rs . 1000 from the said Pigmy Collector on 27-4-96 . Не also contended that since he has already credited amount with the bank though with a delay of 10 days , there has been no financial loss to the bank and therefore , it was not a fit case to hold him guilty of the charges of misconduct of misappropriation and then to punish him by way of dismissal order.

8. Whereas, learned counsel for the management argued that findings of the enquiry are well based on oral and documentary evidence supported by the very admissions made by the first party workman. He contended that the first party in his explanation to the chargesheet and in response to the enquiry findings, in no uncertain terms, has admitted the fact of receiving of Rs . 5745 from the Pigmy Collector on 27-4-96 and took [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] 470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

into account of the bank only Rs . 4745/- retaining with him an excess amount of Rs . 1000/- and that he credited said amount of Rs. 1000/-to the bank only on 7-5-1996 when the Pigmy Collector was called upon to explain the less payment of Rs. 1000/- collected by him on 26-4-96 and deposited on 27-4-96 . Therefore, it was a clear case oftemporary misappropriation of the above said amount ofRs . 1000/- belonging to the bank and in the result he was hauled up during the course of enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry finding holding him guilty of the charges , was rightly and justly dismissed from service . He also contended the punishment of dismissed was very much proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party. Learned counsel cited the decisions reported in AIR 2000 SC 3028 and 2002. ILLJ page 345 in support of the argument that punishment was proper and proportionate not to be interfered at the hands of this tribunal .

9. After having gone through the records , I find substance in the arguments advanced by the management as far as proof of the misconduct committed by the first party. From the persual of the proceedings of enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer holding the first party guilty of the charges , by no stretch of imagination , it can be said that those findings are suffered from perversity . The oral and documentary evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry would make it abundantly clear that the charges of misconduct levelled against the first party have been proved to their hilt and the reasonings given by the enquiry officer in coming to the above said coriclusion are very cogent and valid supported by the said evidence . In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties , I would like to bring on record the very reasonings of the enquiry officer under the heading Analysis of evidence from pages 8 to 11 of the enquiry report running as under :-

Analysis of Evidence

The allegation against the CSE is that he has temporarily misappropriated an amount of Rs . 1000/- while working as cashier at the branch . The deposition of MW1 , who is the Manager of the branch , along with the documentary evidence indicate that the CSE was entrusted with the duties of cashier at the branch vide MEx : 1 and he was working as Receipt Cashier on 27-4-1996. This is not disputed by the defence. It is further established that vide MEx . 2 , the Manager , MWIcalled for the explanation of the CSE for the excess cash found by him on 27-4-1996. In this letter, the Manager has clearly spelt out that the pigmy agent , Shri M.B. Mugali has remitted Rs . 5745/- on 27-4-96 towards his Pigmy suspense account which was paid by him to the CSE, but by

oversight, the pigmy agent had prepared the credit slip for Rs.4745/- . The Manager has also informed that an explanation was called for from Shri Mugali also and he has clarified the position stating that he has remitted Rs . 5745/- on 27-4-96. This letter MEx . 2 also alleges that the CSE has neither returned the excess amount to the pigmy collector or brought this to the notice of the concerned cash officer and also did not credit the amount to cash excess account and remitted this amount only on 7-5-96 and thus misutilised the said amount of Rs.1000/- for 10 days . In reply, the CSE vide his letter dated 11-5-96 (MEx . 14) has stated that Mr. M.B. Mugali , Pigmy agent had handed over the amount and slip towards pigmy suspense account on 27-4-96 and after verification of cash, he found that there was an excess cash of Rs . 1000 , but could not return it to the pigmy agent because by that time he had left the office . Further, the CSE states that since he knew pigmy collector, he has not credited the amount to cash excess account with an intention to return the amount to him in the evening and he could not meet him in the evening. Further, he clarifies that due to 2 days holiday, he kept the amount in his house and had forgotten the same and when he rejoined the branch on 7th May, 1996, he came to know from the pigmy agent that an explanation has been called for from the pigmy agent for short remittance of amount on 26- 7-1996 and immediately remembered having received the excess cash from the pigmy agent and credited the amount to cash excess account . The CSE further reiterates that the amount which he had kept to himself was with an intention to retum it to the pigmy collector and because of the intervening 2 days holiday, he has forgotten the same. The cross examination of MWI has brought on record through MEx . 15 which is the attendance register copy of the branch for the month of April and May 1995 that the CASE was present in the office on 27th April 1996 and 28th and 29th April 1996 were holidays and the CSE has attended the office on 30th April 1996. The attendance register of the branch for May 1996 reveals that first and 2nd May 1996 were holidays and on 3rd May 1996, the CSE was on leave . Further the CSE was present on 4th , 6th & 7th May 1996 and 5th May, 1996 sunday and was a holiday for the branch. Thus , it is established from the own admissioon of the CSE that he had received an excess cash of Rs . 1000/- and he was well aware at that moment as to who has remitted the amount and he did not remit it to the bank on 30th April 1996 or 4th and 6th May 1996 , when he attended the bank and worked as cashier. Contrary to his contentions in MEx. 14, the CSE while replying to the charge -sheet 471 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

on 27-4-96 on the left side of the said challan, the particulars of the denominations and the total thereof is very clearly mentioned, according to this , the total is Rs . 5745/- and it is clearly visible and legible. The branch manager, MWI also enquired with the pigmy agent for the discrepancy in the amount remitted by him on 27-4-96 and the entries made in Pigmy Suspense collection vide MEx. 5 and the said pigmy agent vide MEx. 6 has clarified that the actual amount of collection on 26-4-96 was Rs . 5745/- and he has written the denomination totalling to Rs . 5745/- correctly in MEx. 4 and has paid the said amount to the cashier, i.e. the CSE even though he has written Rs . 4745/- in the challan (MEx.4 ) and requested the Manager to get the excess amount of Rs . 1000/- adjusted from the CSE to his Suspense account . The CSE in his letter, MEx. 14, confirms that he has come to know that an explanation was called from Shri M.B. Mugali , Pigmy agent for short remittance of Rs . 1000/- on 27-4-96 and he remitted the amount immediately. Thus , there is no doubt that the CSE has not only received the excess cash of Rs . 1000/- on 27-4-1996 , but definitely known as to from whom he has received the excess cash, and did not make any attempt to remit to the bank immediately or did not inform his superiors also. Even though the CSE has attended the office for 3 days between 27-4-96 and 7-5-96 , hẹ did not even inform the pigmy agent about this excess case . Thus , his intention is clear. Further , MEx. 7 which is scroll maintained by the CSE for 27-4-96 , states that the he had accounted amount of Rs . 4745/- only out of the amount paid by Shri M.B. Mugali towards Pigmy suspense vide Sr. No. 32. Similarly, MEx. 8 which is the cast scroll maintained by the officer revels that the same amount of Rs . 4745 /- has been accounted there also . Thus , the cash was tallied on that day without any difference . MEx . 9 , which is a credit slip for Rs . 1000/- towards cash excess account remitted by the CSE by preparing the challan himself on 7-5-96 confirms beyond any doubt that the CSE had received the excess cash on 27-4-96 as narrated in the said challan (MEx . 9 ) and remitted it on 7-5-96, MEx. 14 and 17 which are the letters given by the CSE also confirms this payment made on 7-5-96 . MEx. 12 and 13 are the adjustment slips of this Rs. 1000/- remitted by the CSE which was debited to Cash Excess Account vide MEx . 12 and credited to Pigmy Suspense Account of Shri M.B. Mugali vide MEx. 13. The defence could not alter the evidence of the management , except that the pigmy supervisor had authenticated the amount of Rs . 4745 in MEx . 4 and the hypothesis that PD vide MEx.17 has stated that he had counted the cash given by the pigmy agent along with the credit slip prepared for Rs.4745/- but by oversight he might not have noticed the excess of Rs. 1000/- and at the closing hours, he found Rs.1000/- excess and presumed that Shri Mugali , the pigmy agent has given this amount by oversight and wanted to return the same to him as stated in his letter at MEX. 14. Thus , it is clear that there is difference of excess cash vide his letter MEx . 14 and Mex . 17. Further, in the third paragraph of MEx . 17 , the CSE states that on 4-5-96 he informed of excess cash to Shri U.V. Manjunath, Asst . Manager, MW.2 and wanted to hand over the same to him under information to the pigmy collector, but MW2 refused to accept this cash or allowed him to hand it over to the pigmy agent , but suggested that the amount should be remitted only after Manager resumed duty, since he was on leave, etc. MW2 during his deposition has clearly denied this statement of the CSE which goes on record undisturbed . Further, this claim was not stated in the CSE's LETTER, MEx. 14 which is dated earlier to the date of MEx . 17. The defence did not cross examine MW2 to disprove this deposition and did not examine any evidence to prove this point made out by the CSE in MEx . 17 Therefore , I consider that this particular statement of the CSE in MEx. 17 is purely an afterthought . Thus , the 'evidence examined by the management establishes that the CSE had received excess cash on 27-4-1996 and did not remit it to the Cash excess amount/suspense account on the same day required under MEx . 16 which is an extract of Manual of Instructions . Further , the CSE did not remit the excess amount to the bank on the next available opportunity, i.e. on 30th April , 1996 or even on 2 other days i.e. on 4th and 6th May 1996 when he attended the bank . It is significant to note that he remitted this amount of Rs . 1000/- held by hint from 27-4-1996 to the Bank only on 7-5-1996, that too when Shri M.B. Mugali , Pigmy agent alleged that he has paid the correct amount of Rs . 5745/- to him on 27-4-1996 as per MEx . 4 where the total of denomination is correctly mentioned as Rs . 5745/-. MEx. 3 which is the folio of pigmy suspense register shows that the total collections made on 26th April 1996 is Rs . 5745/- and the Manager , MWI has clearly stated in MEX . 2, letter addressed to the CSE that as per the pigmy collection cards and pigmy collection register , the correct amount of collection made by Shri M.B. Mugali on 26-4-1996 is Rs . 5.745/- . Eventhough an amount of Rs . 4745/-is mentioned in MEx. 4 , as the amount remitted to the bank by the pigmy agent , Shri M.B. Mugali 472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] agent some times may remit less amount to pigmy suspense account by oversight and there is no alteration in figures of Rs . 4745 in MEx . 4 and the CSE was on leave for few days and there were some holidays between 27-4-1996 and 7-5-1996 etc.

bank . He then stated that he presumed that Shri Mugali (Pigmy Collector ) had given him this amount by oversight, therefore , he wanted to return the same to him as stated by him in his letter dated 11-5-1996 . In his claim statement before this tribunal also the first party has not disputed the fact of receiving a sum of Rs . 5745 from the said Pigmy Collector on 27-4-1996 and remitted back the same with the bank on 7-5-1996 . At para 6 of the Claim Statement he comes with the version that he found the excess amount of Rs . 1000 only at the closing hours and thought that he would return the sanie to Shri Mugali . He took further contention by saying that he informed the said excess amount to the Assistant General Manager on 4-5-1996 since the General Manager was on leave and therefore , he had no intention to make unlawful gain of the amount in question . As argued for the management , the above said explanation offered by the first party is neither plausible nor acceptable . His defence and explanation has been rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer by giving sufficient and cogent reasonings in his findings rendered after conducting the due enquiry in the matter .

Thus it is clear from the evidence tendered by the managements that the CSE while working as Receipt Cashier at the branch on 27-4-1996 received Rs . 1000 excess from Shri M.B. Mugali , Pigmy Agent and even though he knew it immediately he did not make any attempt either to return the amount to Shri Mugali or to inform the Cash Officer/ Manager - in- charge of the branch as is expected of him. Instead, he remitted this amount to the Bank only on 7-5-96 , i.e. after a delay of 10 days . The explanation given by the CSE in this connection vide MEx . 14 and 17 are contradictory to each other and is not substantiated by any evidence . In fact , no evidence was examined by the defence to disprove the case of the management.

}

F 10. Moreover , it was well argued for the management that, apart from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the management in order to prove the charges of misconduct levelled against the first party, the very explanation submitted by the first party in the first instance in response to the memorandum dated 7-5-96 issued to him , the explanation offered by him to the charge sheet dated 16-9-96 and the written submission made on his behalf by his Defence Representative on the enquiry report would make it abundantly and explicitly clear that he committed the misconduct of temporary misappropriation in not crediting the amount of Rs . 1000 with the Suspense Account of the bank and in not returning the same to the Pigmy Collector after having come to know that he had received excess amount of Rs . 1000 from the said Pigmy Collector on 27-4-1996 when he deposited a sum ofRs . 5745. under Challan filled by him . It was rightly argued for the management that the explanation offered by the first party that he could not credit the amount with suspense account as provided under Manual of Instructions vide Para No. 24.6.2(i ) . On the next working day also and that he could not return back the amount to the Pigmy Collector immediately as he forgot to do so having kept this amount in his house is an improved and after thought defence taken by him to come out of the clutches of the likely punishment to be imposed upon him. In his explanation at Ex . M2 marked during the course of enquiry submitted in response to the charge sheet, the first party in no uncertain words admits that no doubt he had counted the cash but by oversight he might not have noticed the excess of Rs . 1000 and that he found Rs . 1000 in excess at the closing hours of the

11. Learned enquiry officer has very valid and convincing reasoning as to why the explanation offered by the first party is not acceptable . He noted in his finding that the first party did not reveal the excess amount to the bank the next working day i.e. on 30-4-96 or even on two other days i.e. on 4th & 6th May, 1996 when he attended bank . Learned Enquiry Officer was also right in holding that the first party infact credited the said excess amount of Rs . 1000 on 7-5-1996 only after the Pigmy Agent questioned him about the less remittance of his collection and brought to his notice of the fact that the bank has called upon him to explain about the less payment of pigmy collections . The learned enquiry officer also noted the fact that when the bank noticed the fact of less payment of Pigmy collections made by said Pigmy Collector on 26-4-96 and called upon him as to why on 27-4-96 he deposited only Rs . 4745 though collected a sum of Rs . 5745 on 26-4-96 . It is thereafter the said Pigmy Collector approached the first party and told him about the amount paid by him and not taken into account by the first party and it is thereafter only the first party credited the said excess amount of Rs . 1000 with bank on 7-5-1996 . Therefore , from the above conduct of the first party in retaining the above said excess amount with him for a period of about 10 days and not crediting the same either to the Suspense Account or returning back the same to the Pigmy Collector and the fact that he credited the said amount with bank only after the Pigmy Collector was called upon by the bank about the less paymet and in turn the Pigmy Collector called the first party bringing notice to this fact . If really the first party was honest and had no intention of committing misappropriation of the said [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

amount, he was not prevented to have return back the said amount either on the very date he received from the Pignty Collector or atleast on the subsequent day when the bank opened . He infact as per above said instructions in the manuals should have credited the said amount with suspense account on the next working day of the bank after having brought this fact to the notice of the Manager. He did not do so. In his very admissions he had counted the amount deposited by the Pigmy Collector and therefore he cannot be allowed to say that he came to know about the exess amount only at the closing hours of the bank . It also cannot be believed that he forgot to deposit the amount with the bank or return to the Pigmy Collector after having kept the same in his house . His explanation that he had brought this fact to the notice of Assistant Manager (Examined as MW2 during the enquiry) on 4-5-1996 itself and that he could not deposit the amount with bank as the Manager was on leave again cannot be attached any credence as MW2 in his cross examination during the enquiry made it clear that first party never apprehefided him on 4-5-1996 and brought to his notice of the said excess amount . Moreover, as observed by the enquiry officer, nothing prevented the first party to have credited the said amount with suspense account either on 30th April or on 4th , 6th May, 1996 when he attended the bank. Therefore , in my opinion, the learned enquiry officer was quite right and justified in discarding and rejecting the defence explanation offered by the first party and at the same time , he rightly came to the conclusion that the charges of misconduct of temporary misappropriation of Rs. 1000 by the first party has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. Therefore, it cannot be said that findings of the enquiry suffered from perversity.

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

473 period or service he rendered under the management . No order to cost .

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 5th December 2005 ) .

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ.202.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बड़ौदाके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चड़ीगढ़ नं०-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 183/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-12- 2005को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/173/1997- आई आर ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st December, 2005 S.O. 202. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 183 / 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour- Court , Chandigarh No.1 as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-12-2005:

[No. L - 12012/ 173/1997 - IR (B - II )]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. - 183/1997

12. Now coming to the question quantum of punishment, now it is well settled principle of law that in the case of misappropriation of the funds , no sympathy can be shown and no lenient view can be taken against the culprit concerned. However, keeping in view the very charge of temporary misappropriation of the funds levelled against the first party and so also keeping in view the fact undisputed that the first party had unblemish service record of more than 13 years , it appears to me that ends of justice will be met if order dismissing him from service is modified by an order of termination of his services so as to enable him to get service benefits for the services he already rendered under the management . Reference is answered accordingly and following Award is passed.

AWARD

The impugned punishment of dismissal passed against the first party is hereby modified by order terminating his services w.e.f. the aforesaid punishment date . He shall be entitled to the service benefits for the Shri Surjit Singh C/o Sh . Tek Chand Sharma , 25 , Sant Nagar, Civil Lines ,

Ludhiana .

Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda,

Sector - 17 , Chandigarh .

Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman : None.

For the management Shri . Arun Sharma [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 474

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

Between :

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2005

1. The Management of the Garrison Engineer ( I ) Ministry of Defence R& D, Chandipur, Dist. Balasore-756025.

2. M/s . Mookerjee &

Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 173/1997 IR (B - II ) dated 22-10-1997 has referred. the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

Company, Contractor,

Regd. Office, 61 ,

IstParty-Managements

Meleod Street , Kolkata - 17

And

"Whether the action of the management of Bank ofBaroda in terminating the services of Sh. Surjit Singh, S /o Sh . Gian Singh, w.e.f. 25-1-95 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled to and from what date ? "

Their Workman represented through the Secretary, Defence Contractors Workers

Union, Chandipur,

2nd Party-Union

Balasore 756025.

APPEARANCES :

None

For the 1st Party-Mgt No. 1 and 2

Shri Sarathi Behera

ForHimself- 2nd Party-Union

AWARD

2. Rep . of the management submitted that workman is not appearing from the last several dates and appears not to be interested to pursue with the present reference and better employed somewhere . He submitted that no useful purpose will be served in keeping this case pending further. In view of the above , since workman is not appearing for the last several dates and it appears thatworkman is not interested to persue with the present reference . In view of the same , the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed. File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh. 11-11-2005

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2005

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) have referred the following dispute for adjudication vide their Order No. L-27011/6/2001 - IR (M), dated 12-7-2001/3-08-2001 :-

का. आ. 203.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार गैरीसन इंजीनियर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/57 / 2003- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ]

कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2005

"Whether the action of the Management of Garrison Engineer ( I ) R&D , Chandipur, Balasore in terminating the services of Shri Sarathi Behera with effect from 12-12-2001 who was engaged as Pump Operator and maintenance work in the establishment though pad through contractors including M/s. Mookerjee & Co. without following the provisions of I.D. Act , 1947 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to?"

S.O. 203. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 46/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Garrison Engineer and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2005.

[No. L- 14012/57/2003 - IR (DU) ] KULDIPRAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri N.K.R. Mohapatra,

2. Being engaged by different contractors from time to time the workman was working as a water pump operator in the establishment of Management No.1 , a military establishment at Chandipur in the district of Balasore in Orissa . While working as such he appeared in the recruitment test for the post of Chowkidar in the establishment of Management No. 1 once in 1987 and again in 1997. It is allegedby the 2nd Party - Union representing the workman that eventhough the workman came out successful in the above interview of 1997 the Management No. 1 in ignoration of the same gave appointment illegally to two other persons who had ranked below the workman . Therefore , he made a representation to the higher authority of Management No. 1. As a result the said Management tried to get false allegation against him through the previous Secretary of the Union and on 12-12-2001 did not allow him to enter the main gate and took away his gate pass in consequence whereof the contractor- Management No. 2 who had deployed the workman in the establishment of Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T. -cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneshwar. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 46/2004 Date of Passing Award- 25th November 2005 475 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927:

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Management No. 1 also refused to keep him on job . As such refusal was done without payment of retrenchment compensation or notice pay as required under section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act the Union raised an Industrial Disputes before the Asst . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) culminating the same in the present reference . Thus the reference.

The notices being sent neither of the Management appeared for which they were set expert.

3. The workman alone has adduced his expert evidence besides producing several documents . Most of these documents are in form of certificates granted to him by various officers of Management No. 1 as to his sincerity to job . The workman has also filed a note book in the form of a duty book to show his entire engagement period .

ignorance of the same had refused him entry into his premises on 12-12-2001 resulting his termination from the job. But his further evidence indicates that while working under different contractors in the premises of Opp. Party No. 1 he had appeared twice in the recruitment test held for the post of watcher in the establishment of Opp . Party No. 1. His evidence further indicates that in the last test held in 1997 he not being able to her that job had brought voluminous allegations against Opp. Party No. 1 when two other persons were appointed . His claim statement further makes one to infer that during working hours he was resorting to some unhealthy practices detrimental to the interest of Opp . Party No. 1. Therefore, there seems sufficient ground was there for Opp . Party No. 1 to prevent his entry into the premises on the alleged date as on principal employer would ever tolerate a worker of the contractor playing tricks with him . In these premises the action of the Opp.. Party No. 1 in refusing the workman to enter his premises appears justified, and the same does not amount to an act of termination on his part.

6. From the evidence of workman it appears that on the basis of the above action of Opp . Party No. 1 his immediate employer (Contractor ) has removed him from the roll without payment of any retrenchment compensation eventhough the Duty Note Book (Ext. -4) shows that he was under his employment for a continuous period over 240 days by then. This action of the Opp. Party No. 2 is no doubt not within the purview of the term of reference . But as the said action of the Opp. Party No. 2 is the direct outcome of the action of the Opp . Party 'No. 1 and both the actions being simultaneous and interlinked the later action of the immediate employer ( Contractor ) part takes the character of a matter ancillary to the main terms of reference . As such it is held that the Opp . Party No. 2 was not justified in refusing further engagement to the workman on the basis of the action of the Opp . Party No. 1.

7. Thus in the result the action of the Management No. 1 in not permitting the workman to work within his premises is held to be not bad under law but the action of the Management No. 2 in refusing to provide further engagement to the workman without due payment of retrenchment benefit is held to be bad. There being no evidence on record as to the present status of Opp . Party No. 2, 1 feel that a monetary compensation if paid to the workman would meet the ends of justice .

8.Accordingly the Opp. Party No. 2 is directed to pay to the workman a consolidated amount of Rs . 80,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and back wages within six months from the date of this order failing which the workman would be entitled to recover the same in due process of law together with 6% interest per annum from the date of this award.

4. Before dealing with the evidence it should be made clear that a labour supply contractor stands in a different footing from a contractor who has taken a job contract. In the later case the contractor becomes the immediate employer of the worker engaged by him while the establishment who has given such contract becomes their principal employer. The principal employer has the discretion to prevent or refuse unruly or undesirable workers being deployed by the contractor . This action of the Principal employer though primafacie appears as refusal of employment to the worker but it can never be termed as retrenchment within the meaning of the term as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act . Under the definition of the term it is the employer (immediate employer) who is responsible for all sorts of termination amounting to retrenchment. The expression "Termination by the employer of the service of workman for any reason whatsoever" has been interpreted by the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India Versus Shri N. Sundaramoney ( 1976-1 - LLJ - 478 ) . According to it a termination takes place by either active steps of the master or running out of the stipulated term and such termination embraces not merely the act of termination of the employer but the fact of termination howsoever produced. Therefore , where a principal employer refuses to entertain a particular worker or prevents him from entering his premises on the ground of security and other administrative reasons he can not be said to have terminated the worker thereby when there is no employee and employer relationship between them. But if on the basis of such act of the principal employer the immediate employer ( Contractor ) equally refuses further engagement to the worker elsewhere or when he terminates him forthwith from the roll without considering his length of service period or payment of any retrenchment benefit , such action of the contractor would amount to retrenchment of the worker and for this the Contractor himself can alone be held responsible for all legal consequences .

9. Accordingly the reference is answered ex parte against both the Opp. Parties .

N. K. R. MOHAPATRA, Presiding Officer 5. In his evidence the workman has claimed that through he had rendered good services from time to time to Opp. Party No. 1 (the principal employer) while working under different contractors the said Management in

295/06-26 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2005

"Whether Sh . L. Nagaraj , former daily paid worker is eligible to claim regular employment under the Regional Bio Fertilizer Development Centre , Bangalore ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

का. आ.204.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रीजनल बायो फर्टिलाईजर डेवलपमेन्ट सेन्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण बैंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या .29/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-12- 2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012 /68/2000 - आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2005

S.O. 204. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Regional Bio Fertilizer Development Centre and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 22-12-2005 .

[No. L-42012/68/2000- IR (DU)]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 5th December, 2005.

PRESENT : Shri A R SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer

2. The case of the I party workman (herein after called the ' Workman ' ) as made out in the Claim Statement , briefly, stated is that he belonged to SC community and studied up to S.S.L.C. He was selected and appointed as a casual labourer during October 1992 against a substantive and sanctioned post and his services were utilized continuously without interruption upto July 1995. He maintained a clean and blemishless record of service and put in 240 days of service in each ofthe twelve preceding months . The fact that he worked as an employee of the management is evident from the Character Certificate dated 01-12-1998 ; that the Management indulged in worst kind of unfair labour practice and continued to engage I party in different names changing his name quarterly and monthly and so on with an intention to avoid legal complications of his absorption in service ; that when things stood thus, the management all of a sudden without assigning any reason and without giving any notice as per Section 25 (F) of the I. D. Act refused employment to him since August 1999. His request to the management to allow him to continue in service fell on deaf ears but with an assurance that he will be reinstated in service . Therefore the action of the Management being in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 25 (F) and 25 (G) of the ID Act amounts to retrenchment and therefore the management must be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequer Hal benefits .

C.R. NO . 29/2000

IIParty

IParty

Sh. L Nagaraj,

The Regional Director,

S/ o late Sh. Lingappa , Regional Bio Fertilizer Devpt. Centre, No.34, V Main Road , Hebbal,

No. 73 , Guddadahalli , R.T. Nagar Post , Bangalore560 032 .

Bangalore - 560 024.

APPEARANCES :

Sh. AGopinath,

IParty

Advocate

II Party

Smt . Madhushri M Swamy,

Advocate.

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by Clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section/ 2A/of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred this dispute vide Order No. L -42012/68 / 2000 / IR ( DU ) dated 09-08-2000 for adjudication on the following Schedule :

3. The Management by its Counter Statement denied almost all the allegations made by the workman in his Claim Statement . It is denied that he worked with the Management from 1992 till 1995 continuously without interruption and that he maintained a clean and unblemished record of service having put in 240 days of service in each of the calendar year. It denied the contention that the Management all of a sudden refused employment to the workman since 01-08-1999 and that the above said action of the Management amounts to retrenchment and was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25 (F) and 25(G) of the ID Act. The Management had thus contended that there is no sanctioned post of casual labourer nor appointments were made against substantive post as casual labourers by the Management . It is contended that in order to meet the work of intermittent nature , daily paid labourers were engaged earlier whenever work was required but as per the change of policy of the Government no causal labourer was engaged there being no requirement for them by the Management . The Management then denied the contention of the workman that he was appointed as a casual labourer against a substantive and sanctioned "post . At para 7 , the management contended that its 477

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14 , 2006/पौष 24, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

activities do not fall under the definition of Industry and therefore , the present dispute is not maintainable under the provisions of I D-Act . Now therefore , in the light of the above this tribunal is to decide the points of reference as noted above .

4. It is to be noted that this tribunal by its award dated 15-10-2001 had allowed the reference on hand with a direction to the Management to reinstate the workman to the post in which he was working without granting the back wages and other reliefs. The Management approached the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 10173/2002 challenging the abovesaid award and his Lordship of our Hon'ble High Court set aside the award on the ground that it was an experte award and the Management may be given an opportunity to meet the ends of justice . The matter, therefore , has been remitted back to this tribunal to dispose of the reference on hand giving opportunity to both the parties to submit their claim and counter-claim and to lead evidence at their command.

5. After the remand , the management after having filed their Counter Statement , adduced oral evidence of MW 1 by way of Examination - in - Chief and got marked Nine documents at Ex M - 1 to Ex M - 9 . As a rebuttal, the I Party in addition to his earlier statement in Examination in Chief, filed his additional affidavit by way of further examination in chief and got marked 14 documents at Ex W-4 to Ex W - 17 . The documents produced by the management marked at Ex M- 1 to Ex M- 9 vide list dated 22-07-2005 are as follows :

Particulars

SI . No.

1. Sanction of post of RBDC, Bangalore 2. List of No. of days worked by Sri L. Nagaraj 3. Statement submitted by Sri L Nagtaraj to Court

4. NCOF, Ghaziabad letter regarding draft reply RBDC , Bangalore letter with statement regarding number of days worked by Sh . L. Nagaraj

5. Wages Bill along with Attendance Sheet of March 96 to August 99

6. Transfer orders from NBDC , Gab of Sri Mahaveer Singh

7. Employment exhange letter for recruitment of Chowkidar

8. Recruitment of Peon

9. Return of ID Card by Sri M. Nagaraja , Chowkidar.

6. The documents produced by the 1 party vide list at Ex. W - 4 to Ex. W- 17 are as follows:

2 G1/06-27

SI . No.

Particulars

Transfer certificate and Marks Card 1.

2. Caste Certificate

3. Employment Exchange Card of the Ist party 4. Application to Central Labour Commissioner Dt.02-02-2000

5. Additional Statement of Facts by Ist party 6. Conciliation reports Dt : 29-02-2000 by the Asst. Labour Commissioner

7. Letter by Ministry of Labour Dt: 09-08-2000

8. Notice to IInd Party Dt: 09-08-2000 9. Joining Report Dt : 28-12-2001

10. Letter by Asst . Labour Commissioner Dt: 24-12-2001

11. Letter by Asst . Regional Labour Commissioner Dt: 22-03-2002

12. Legal Notice Dt : 27-02-2002

13. Copy of W.P. No. 18173/2002 , along with Annexures .

14. Objection Statement by the 2nd Party Management to IA in W.P. No. 18173/2002, filed by 2nd Party to demonstrate case of the 1st Party Workman in favour of him in the interest of justice and equity.

7. The other three documents which were marked during the course of statement of the workman recorded earlier to the remand are Ex. W - 1 to Ex W- 3 , are the attendance sheet, copy of extract showing the working days of the workman from 1992 onwards and a wound Certificate. Another document again marked Ex W- 1 (By oversight ) in the cross -examination of MW I is a Character Certificate dated 01-12-1998 . I would like to refer to the statements of MW 1 and the I party in their cross -examination and the aforesaid documents marked on their behalf as and when found relevant and necessary..

8. Learned counsel for the I party as will as the learned counsel for the Management have submitted their written arguments .

9. The management counsel in her arguments once again repeated the various contentions taken by the Management in their Counter Statement and also referred to the statements of WW 1 in his cross - examination suggesting that he did not work with the management either as a peon or chowkidar or Laboratory Assistant as stated in his affidavit. She also referred to the statement of M. Nagaraju examined as witness for the I Party not supporting his case . She then referred to the observations made by their Lordship of Supreme Court [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14 , 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

478

Particulars

SI . No.

in SLP (civil ) No. 2224/2000 in the Case of Union of India and another versus Mohan Pal etc.

FULL BENCH JUDGEMENT (CAT. Vol . 2)

10.

11. 1999 ( 1 ) LLJ Page 1012 para 5 & 8

12. 1985 (2 ) SCC 136 , para 15

13. 1985 LIC 1733 , para 7 & 8

14. AIR 1968 SC ( 1 ) 1413 para 5

15. 1982 ( 2 ) SCC L & S 42

16. 1950 LLJ 921 page 948

10. Learned counsel for the I party in his arguments again has repeated the various contentions taken by the workman in his claim statement with an additional contention that he worked under the Management as a Peon , Field Man , Chowkidar and also as Lab Assistant on daily wages of Rs . 25.00 ( Rupees Twenty five only ) during the year 1992-1993 and his wages were increased to Rs. 29.20 (Rupees Twenty Nine and Twenty paise only ) per day in the year 1994-1995 . He got Rs . 42.60 (Rupees Forty Two and Sixty paise only ) during the year 1996-1997 and in the year 1998-1999 then it was increased by Rs . 60.10 (Rupees Sixty and Ten paise only ) per day. He contended that the management did not produce the relevant documents from 1992 onwards but produced Nine Xerox copy documents unconcerned and incomplete not based on the original Casual Labour Register and Attendance Register . Therefore , he contended that the Management has held back the documents relevant and helpful to the case of the workman in order to defeat his claim and therefore adverse inference shall have to be drawn against him. He quoted a ruling reported in AIR 1987 SC 695 supporting hisarguments . He also contended that the management has been regularizing the services of other casual labourers such as Mahaveer Singh , M. Nagaraju and Ramesh but in the case of the workman discrimination has been made in not regularizing his services despite the fact that he worked with the Management for a period of more than seven years continuously . Learned Counsel also relied upon the decisions noted below:

Particulars

SI . No.

2005 AIR SCW 3594 GajanKumar 1. Union of India v/ s

2. v/s Mohd . Hazi Latief AIR 1968 SC 1413 Gopalakrishnaji Ketkar

3. 1985 (2) SCC 136 - Workman of Food Corpn. , of India v/s. Food Corpn.

4. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ( C.A. No. 1279/ 99, Dt: 26-02-99- Shamista Dube v/s city Board Etawa and others

5. 1985 LAB , I , C , 1733 , H.D. Sing v/ s Reserve Bank of India

6. 1979 (2 ) SCC 80 , Hindustan Tin Works Pvt , Ltd. v/s The Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt .

7. C.R. No. 86/97 , Gen. Secretary, Indian Employees Union Aeronoutical Development v/s The Admn . Officer Aeronoutical Devpt . Establishment , ( Tried and Disposed of on 25-07-2001 , by this Tribunal )

8. AIR 1988 SC 37

9. 1989 (2) LLJ 110

11. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties, in the first instance , now the points to be determined by this tribunal would be " Whether the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days immediately preceding refusal of work to hiin by the Management w.e.f. 01-08-1999 , " if so , whether the action of the Management tantamounts to retrenchement as defined under section 2 (00 ) of the ID Act read with Section 25 ( f) ( a &b ) thereof . The fact that the workman did work with the Management during the period from 1992 1995 as per the statement at Annexure 4 marked at Ex M -4 is not the point in dispute . However, as per the case of the workman he worked in the above said period i.e. each calendar year continuously for a period of 240 days and where as according to the management as per the above said statement he worked for a period of 11 days in 1992, 225 days in 1993 , 217 days in 1994 179 days in 1995. We are not very much concerned here as to whether the workman completed work of 240 days continuously in any one of those years . As noted above , we are here required to find out whether the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days during the 12 calendar inonths preceding the date of refusal of work . There are no vouchers or pay slips as such produced by the I party to evidence the fact that he was in the employment of the Management during the aforesaid 12 months and he worked for a period of 240 days in the above said period . However the workman in support of his statement before this tribunal got marked the statment prepared by him showing the period and the number of days he worked during the period from 1992 to July 1999. This statement of the workman was marked at Ex . W-2 and it is interesting to note that it has not been challenged nor its genuineness has been disputed by management during the course of cross - examination of the workman . There was no suggestion made to the workman that he did not work from 1992-1999 and that he did not work continuously for a period of 240 days immediately before he was refused work by the Management . On the other hand it has been elicited from the mouth of the workman that he approached the authority for reinstatement subsequent to August 1999 and was given promises for work and it was also elicited from his mouth that he was doing the job of field man as well as Peon. There was again a statement elicited from his mouth in his cross- examination that he has been working continuously from 1992-1999 . No suggestions were made on behalf of the 479

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006/ पौष 24, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

in the light of the averments made in the affidavit of 1, the stand taken by the Management that I party was not in his service subsequent to the year 1995 or that he did not work continuously for a period of 240 days immediately before refusal of work as noted above cannot be a stand correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

12.Now a question arises as to whether he worked continuously for a period of 240 days during the 12 calendar months immediately preceding the refusal of his work by the Management . A perusal of Ex W-2 would suggest that the workman during the year 1998 worked for a period 271 days and whereas during the year 1999 he worked for 157 days. If we count the days backward from July 1999 to August 1998 , the total period of days worked by the workman under the Management would be265 days. If we proceed on the assumption that the workman was refused work w.e.f. 01-08-1999 then there cannot be any doubt to come to the conclusion that during the 12 calendar months preceding the date 01-08-1999 on which date he was refused work he did work continuously for a period of 240 days and more and therefore he fulfills the condition of one year service as contemplated under provisions of Section 25 (B ) of the ID Act. It is in this view of the matter, the next question to be considered wouldbe "Whether the action of the Management amounts to retrenchment ? " as per Section 2 (oo) of the ID Act read with section 25 (F) (a and b) there of. There is no dispute of the fact nor it is the case of the Management that they have complied with the provisions of 25 ( a and b) of the ID Act while refusing work to the workman . Therefore, there cannot be any hesitation to draw a conclusion that not compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25 (F) would render the retrenchment of the workman as illegal and void ab initio and accordingly the action of the management in refusing work to the management since amounts to illegal termination , it is to be set side on this count itself. Since the above said action of the Management tantamount to illegal retrenchment, so to say, illegal termination of the service of the workman, the resultant corollary would be his reinstatement in service. The next question to be considered would be whether the workman is entitled to allied benefits like Back wages , Continuity of Service etc. He being a Casual Labourer benefit of continuity of service cannot be extended to him, coming to the relief of Back Wages the primary burden to show that he hasbeen gainfully employed from the date he was refused work, cast upon the management. The management has failed to discharge the said burden similarly is the case with the workman . No where in his Claim Statement nor in his affidavit he uttered a single word to suggest that he is without any job or without any gainful employment when he was away from the service of the Management. Therefore, keeping in view the latches both on the part of the Management as well as the workman on the above said point, it appears to me that ends ofjustice will be met if the workman is ordered to be reinstated in service with 25% of the backwages w.e.f. 15-10-2001 , the date of Management denying the aforesaid statements made by the workman in his cross - examination . The only suggestion by way of denial made on behalf of the management was to suggest that documents referred in the affidavit have been created by him to suit his purpose. There was again no suggestion to make it clear as to what are all the documents mentioned in his affidavit have been created to suit his purpose . Admittedly, many of the documents mentioned in the affidavit by the workman are the documents admitted and they are the Official documents. The genuineness of which could not have been challenged by the management . Apart from the above said documents , the next important document is the Character Certificate marked at Ex W- 1 . A Perusal of the said certificate would disclose that the then Regional Director of the Management Certified the Character of the workman as on 01-12-1998, the date on which the certificate was issued. Of course from this certificate it cannot be made out that the workman was in the service of the Management and worked for certain period but at the same time it cannot be denied that certificate must have been issued to him by the Regional Director of the Management when he was in the employment of the management as on 01-12-1998 . It is again interesting to be noted that there has been no positive and specific case made out me the Management to suggest as to actually till what date or up to what point of time workman was under the employment of the Management . The averments made in the Counter Statement are just by way of denial putting forth no positive and specific case. Similarly is fate with the averments made by MW 1 in his affidavit . In his affidavit at Para 2 , the witness just disclosed the number of days worked by workman during the year 1992-1995 . There was no denial of the fact that the workman did not work beyond 1995 up till August 1999 and that he was refused work we.f. 101-08-1999 . Whether the management engaged casual labourers on daily wages subsequent to 1995, there is again no clear stand takenby the Management . The vague contention taken by it is that they have not engaged daily wagers because of change of policy of govemment and for the reason the management did not require the services of the Casual Labourers (refer para 6 of the counter Statement ) . The fact that the management had been engaging casual labourers through out and this practice continued up till 1999-2000 has been very much established by the Management itself in the various Wage bills along with the Attendance Sheet of the Casual Labourers ranging from the 1996-1999 . It was rightly argued for the workman that the aforesaid Ex M- 5 namely Wagebills etc. which do not disclose the name of the Workman as one of the Casual Labourer engaged by the Management during 1996-1999 cannot be relied upon as this piece of evidence goes against the pleadings of the management where they have contended that because of the change of the policy of the government they have stopped engaging the Casual Labourers. Therefore, in the light of the statements of the workman in his Examination-in- chief as well as cross -examination referred to supra and 480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24, 1927

which the earlier Award was passed by this tribunal . Accordingly, the reference is answered and following award is passed:-

ORDER

The management is directed to reinstate the workman in service as a Casual Labourer and shall pay 25% of the Back Wages as the Rate of Daily Wage of Rs . 60.10 paise ( Sixty Rupees and paise Ten only) he was getting as on the date he was refused work under the Management . The Management is at liberty to terminate the service of the party workman in accordance with law. No order to cost .

(Dictated to L D C, transcribedby him, corrected and signed by me on 5th December , 2005)

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 15 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ.205.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डिवीजनाल इंजीनियर ( फोन्स) के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/ एल सी/आर/212/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011/5/90- आई आर ( डी. यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2005 S.O.205. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 212 / 90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Divisional Engineer (Phones) and their workman, which vvas received by the Central Government on 15-12-2005.

[No. L-40011 / 5/90- IR(DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMAA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/212/90

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI C.M. SINGH Shri Dilip Kumar and 3 others ,

C/o Shri S. N. Shukla , Divisional Auditor, All India Telecom Employees Union

(Line Staff and class -IV) ,

Telephone exchange ,

Workmen/Union Wright Town, Jabalpur

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

Versus

The Divisional Engineer (Phones )

Jabalpur, Wright Town,

Management

Jabalpur.

AWARD

Passed on this 30th day of November, 2005 .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide notification No.L - 40011 / 5/ 90- IR ( DU) dated 24-10-90 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of Divisional Engineer (Phones) , Jabalpur in terminating the services of ( 1 ) S /Shri Dalip Kumar, (2) Sakeel Ahmed (3 ) Rakesh Kumar, Ex-casual labourers w.e.f. 31-3-88 and Shri Ashok Kumar w.e.f. 30-3-88 is justified ? If not , what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to and from what date ? "

2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 31-10-90 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim. It appears that the Secretary ofthe Union/workmen filed the statement of claim on 28-12-90 . Thereafter the management filed their written statement on 29-8-91. It further appears from the record that the workmen Shri Dalip Kumar and Shri Rakesh Kumar filed their so called affidavits on 2-11-94 . These documents are not affidavits in the eye of law because the documents donot bear proper stamp duty and have not been sworn in accordance with law. The record further reveals that since 15-12-03 till 28-11-05 the date when the reference was closed for award, the workmen remained absent inspite of sufficient service of notice on them . Therefore on 16-8-05, this tribunal ordered that the reference shall proceed exparte against workman and fixed 28-11-05 for exparte evidence of management . On this date , the parties remained absent . As the result , this tribunal was left with no other alternative but to close the reference for award and accordingly on 28-11-05 , the reference was closed foraward .

3. It is clear from the above that the parties are not interested in prosecuting this reference . It appears that there is left no dispute between the paries . Under the circumstances, it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award .

4. In view of the above no dispute award is passed without any order as to costs .

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 14, 2006/पौष 24, 1927

481 आदेश

और जबकि न्यायविद् श्री एस. सी. पाण्डेय का कार्यकाल 08-09-2004 को समाप्त हो गया ।

नई दिल्ली , 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 206.- जबकि केंद्रीय सरकार की यह राय थी कि भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधन और उनके कामगारों के बीच औद्योगिक विवाद विद्यमान था;

और जबकिकेन्द्रीय सरकार की यह राय थी कि उपरोक्त विवाद में राष्ट्रीय महत्व का प्रश्न अन्तर्ग्रस्त था;

इसलिए अब , एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया जाता है जिसका मुख्यायालय मुबई में होगा तथा जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायविद श्री घनश्याम दास होंगे और उपरोक्त विवाद को इस निदेश के साथ न्यायनिर्णन के लिए उपरोक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के पास प्रेषित किया जाता है कि न्यायविद श्री घनश्याम दास उस स्थिति से न्यायिक कार्रवाई शुरू करेंगे जहां पर न्यायविद श्री एस. सी. पाण्डेय द्वारा उसे छोड़ा गया था और उसे कानून के अनुसार निष्पादित करेंगे ।

[सं एल.- 12011/15/94- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] और जबकिकेन्द्रीय सरकार की यह राय थी कि उपरोक्त विवाद का राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के द्वारा न्यायनिर्णयन किया जाना चाहिए;

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी

ORDER

New Delhi , the 28th December, 2005.

S.O. 206. Whereas the Central Government was of the opinion that an Industrial Dispute existed between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen;

And Whereas the Central Government was of the opinion that the above dispute involved a question of national importance ;

और जबकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 की धारा 7 (ख) (1947 का 14 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय के आदेश संख्या एल-12011/15/ 94-आई आर ( बी -1) , दिनांक 07-11-1994 के तहत एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में रखा गया है और इसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में न्यायविद् श्री आर.जी. सिन्धाकर को नियुक्त किया और उपरोक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 1 क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उपरोक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपरोक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के पास प्रेषित किया ।

And Whereas the Central Government was of the opinion that the above dispute should be adjudicated by aNational Industrial Tribunal;

और जबकि श्री आर . जी. सिन्धाकर का कार्यकाल 11-05-1995 को समाप्त हो गया।

AndWhereas the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 7B of the I.D. Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) constituted a National Industrial Tribunal vide Ministry of Labour Order No. L- 12011 / 15/94 - IR(B1) dated 7-11-94 with headquarters at Mumbai and appointed Justice R.G. Sindhakar as its Presiding Officer and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 1A) of Section 10 of the said Act , referred the said Industrial Tribunal to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication.

और जबकि एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया गया था जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में था तथा जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायविद् श्री आर. एस. वर्मा थे और उपरोक्त विवाद को इस निदेश के साथ न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपरोक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के पास प्रेषित किया गया था कि वह उस स्थिति से न्यायिक कार्रवाई शुरू करेंगे जहां पर न्यायविद् श्री आर. जी. सिन्धाकर द्वारा उसे छोड़ा गया था ।

Andwhereas, the term of Shri R. G. Sindhakar expired on11-5-1995.

और जबकि न्यायविद् श्री आर.एस. वर्मा का कार्यकाल 07-01-1998 को समाप्त हो गया ।

And whereas , a National Industrial Tribunal constituted with headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri R. S. Verma as its Presiding Officer and the said above dispute was referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication to proceed with the proceedings from the stage atwhat it was left by Justice R.G. Sindhakar .

Andwhereas, the term of Shri R. S. Verma expired on 7-1-1998 .

और जबकि एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया गया था जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में था जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायविद् श्री सी.बी. गोवर्धन थे और उपरोक्त विवाद को इस निदेश के साथ न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपरोक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के पास प्रेषित किया गया था कि वह उस स्थिति से न्यायिक कार्रवाई शुरू करेंगे जहां पर न्यायविद् श्री आर. एस. वर्मा द्वारा उसे छोड़ा गया था।

और जबकि न्यायविद् श्री सी. बी. गोवर्धन का कार्यकाल 08-01-2000 को समाप्त हो गया।

And whereas , a National Industrial Tribunal constituted with headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Shri C. V. Govardhan as its Presiding Officer and the said above dispute was referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication to proceed with the proceedings from the stage at what it was left by Justice R. S. Verma.

Andwhereas, the term of Shri C. V. Govardhan expired on8-1-2000,

And whereas , a National Industrial Tribunal constituted with headquarters at Mumbai with Justice और जबकि, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का गठन किया गया था जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में था तथा जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी न्यायविद् श्री एस.सी. पान्डेय थे और उपरोक्त विवाद को इस निदेश के साथ न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उपरोक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के पास प्रेषित किया गया था कि वह उस स्थिति से न्यायिक कार्रवाई शुरू करेंगे जहां पर न्यायविद् श्री सी.बी. गोवर्धन द्वारा उसे छोड़ा गया था । [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006 /PAUSA 24, 1927

482

ORDER

New Delhi , the 4th January, 2006 Shri S. C. Pandey as its Presiding Officer and the said above dispute was referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication to proceed with the proceedings from the stage atwhat it was left by Justice C. V. Govardhan .

And whereas , the term of Shri S. C. Pandey expired on8-9-2004 .

S.O. 207. Whereas an industrial dispute arose between the employers in relation to the Management of Mysore Cement Limited and their workmen representedby Mysore Cement Employees Association in respect of matters specified in the schedule herewith annexed;

2. And whereas the Central Government in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the ID Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) had referred the above said dispute for adjudication to the National Industrial Tribunal vide order of even number dated 1-9-2003;

Now, therefor, a National Industrial Tribunal is constituted with Headquarters at Mumbai with Jistice Shri Ghanshyam Dass as its Presiding Officer and the said above dispute is referred to the said National Tribunal for adjudication with the direction that Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dassshall proceed with the proceedings from the stage at which it was left by Justice S. C. Pandey and dispose ofthe same according to law.

3. And whereas incumbent of the post of the PresidingOfficer of the above said Tribunal relinquished charge of the post of Presiding Officer of the above mentioned National Industrial Tribunal .

[No. L- 12011 / 15/94 -IR (B -I] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2005

4.Now therefore , a National Industrial Tribunal is reconstituted with headquarters at Mumbai with Justice Ghanshyam Dass as its Presiding Officer and the above said dispute is referred to the said National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication with the direction that Justice Shri Ghanshyam Dass shall proceed in the matter from the stage at which it was left and dispose of the same accordingto law.

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 207. जबकि मैसूर सीमेंट लि. के प्रबंधन के संबंध में नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों, जिनका प्रतिनिधित्व मैसूर सीमेंट कर्मचारी संघ कर रहा है , के बीच इसके साथ संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट मामलों के संबंध में एक औद्योगिक विवाद उत्पन्न हो गया है;

2. और जबकि, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) कै खण्ड ( घ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने दिनांक 1-9-2003 के समसंख्यक आदेश द्वारा उक्त औद्योगिक विवाद को न्यायनिर्णयन के लिए उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के संदर्भित किया था;

"Whether the settlement signed between Cement Manufacturers Association and Federation Viz . INCWF (INTUC), ABCM Sangh (BMS) , AICWF (AITUC ) and ABCM Sangh (BMS) , AICWF (AITUC) and CITU on 14-8-2000 before the Conciliation Officer would be binding upon the Mysore Cements Ltd. , Ammasandra , Tumkur Distt . (KN) and whether the workmen of Mysore Cements Ltd. , are entitled to claim wage rates etc. as in the said settlement and as prevailing in the industry ? " 3. और जबकि उक्त न्यायाधिकरण के पीठासीन अधिकारी के पद पर तैनात अधिकारी ने उपर्युक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण के पीठासीन अधिकारी के पद का कार्यभार छोड़ दिया था;

[F. No. L- 29011/108/2002 - IR (M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

शुद्धि-पत्र

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2006

4. इसलिए अब, एक राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण का पुनः गठन किया जाता है जिसका मुख्यालय मुंबई में है और जिसके पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप मेंन्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास को नियुक्त किया जाता है तथा उपर्युक्त विवाद उक्त राष्ट्रीय औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण को इस निदेश के साथ न्यायनिर्णयन हेतु भेजा जाता है कि न्यायमूर्ति श्री घनश्याम दास इस मामले में उस अवस्था से कार्रवाही करेंगे जहां पर इसे छोड़ा गया था और कानून के अनुसार इसका निपटान करेंगे ।

अनुसूची

का.आ. 208.-भारत के राजपत्र, भाग II, खण्ड 3 , उप खण्ड ( ii ) दिनांक 31 जुलाई, 2005 में संख्या का. आ. 2799 द्वारा प्रकाशित भारत सरकार, श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना में " मेदक़ जिले के तुपरान मण्डल के अन्तर्गत दौन्टी के बाह्य क्षेत्र " शब्दोंको निम्नलिखित शब्दों से प्रतिस्थापित किया जाए, आर्थात्ः-

" आन्ध प्रदेश के ' मेदक ' जिले के तुपरान मण्डल के अधीन आने वाले राजस्व ग्राम यथा ' रामईपल्ली' ' मनोहराबाद ' ' ज़िडीपल्ली' तथा ' मुप्पीरेड्डीपल्ली' के अन्तर्गत सभी क्षेत्र "

[फा. सं एस-38013/40/2005 - एस. एस. 1 ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक

CORRIGENDUM

" क्यासंराधन अधिकारी के समक्ष दिनांक 14-8-2000 को सीमेंट विनिर्माता संघ एवं फैडरेशन अर्थात् आई.एन.सी.डब्ल्यू.एफ. (इंटक) तथा सीटू, ए.बी.सी.एम. संघ ( बी.एम.एस. ) , ए.आई.सी. डब्ल्यू.एफ. ( एटक ) और ए.बी.सी.एम. संघ ( बी.एम.एस. ) , ए.आई.सी. डब्ल्यू. एफ. ( एटक ) एंव सीटूके बीच हस्ताक्षरित समझौता मैसूर सीमेन्ट लिमिटेड, अम्मासान्द्रा, तुमकुर जिला ( कर्नाटक ) पर बाध्यकारी होगा तथा क्या मैसूर सीमेन्ट्स लिमिटेड के कामगार उक्त समझौते में दिए गए अनुसार तथा उद्योग में प्रचलित मजदूरी दरों आदि कादावा करने के पात्र हैं ? "

New Delhi , the 4th January, 2006

S.O. 208. In the notification of the Government India, Ministry of Labour and Employment Published in [फा. सं एल-29011/108/2002- आई आर (एम.) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

483

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 14, 2006 /पौष 24, 1927

the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3. Sub- section ( ii ) dated 31st July, 2005 vide No. S. O. 2799 , for the words "Areas falling within the donthi outskirts in Toopran Mandal ofMedak District " the following words sliall be substituted namely :

"All the areas falling within the revenue Villages of Ramaipally, Manoharabad , Jeedipally and Muppireddy pally of Toopran Mandal of Medak District of Andhra Pradesh ".

[ F. No. S- 38013/40/ 2005 - SS.I ] K. C. JAIN , Director नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 209.-केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91 -क के साथ पठित धारा -88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उक्त अधिनियम प्रवर्तन से मै. सेन्ट्रल इनलैण्ड वाटर ट्रांसपोर्ट कारपोरेशन लिमि. की दो इकाईयों अर्थात्मैसर्स मैरीन वर्कशाप और राजाबागान डाकयार्ड दोनों ही कलकत्ता, पश्चिम बंगाल में स्थित , के नियमित कर्मचारियों को 1-1-1997 से 30-9-2006 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है । 2. उक्त छूट का शर्त निम्नलिखित है ; अर्थात्ः- 1. पूर्वाक्त प्रतिष्ठान जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित है , एक रजिस्टर रखेगा , जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदाभिधान दिखाये जायेंगे;

2. इस छूट होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अभिधायों के आधार पर हकदार होजाते हैं;

3. छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए, यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जा चुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जाएंगे ;

4. उक्त कारखाने/ प्रतिष्ठान का नियोजक उस अवधि की बावत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने पर उक्त अधिनियम प्रवर्तमान था, ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् " उक्त अवधि कहा गया है " ) ऐसी विवरणियों ऐसे प्रारुप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बावत देती थी;

5. निगम द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उप - धारा (1 ) के अधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरक्षक या नियम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारीः (i) धारा 44 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि कीबावत दीगई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टयों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ, अथवा

( ii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम, 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गये थे या नहीं, या

(iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी, नियोजन द्वारा दिये गए उन फायदों को, जिसके फलस्वरुप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं, या

( iv) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान, जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे , ऐसे किन्हीं उपबंधो का अनुपालन किया गया था या नहीं, निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा :-

(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है ; अथवा (ख) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन , किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करना कि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा , बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दें जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं , या

(ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, उसके अभिकर्ता या सेवक की , या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति को, जो ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है, परीक्षा करना, या

(घ ) ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ।

[फा. सं एस-38014/6/2005 - एस. एस. 1 ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक स्पष्टीकरण ज्ञापन:-

इस मामले में छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देना आवश्यक हो गया है क्योंकिछूट के आवेदन पर कार्यवाही करने में समय लगा था तथापि, यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट को भूतलक्षी प्रभाव देने से किसी भी व्यक्तिके हित पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा ।

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006 S.O. 209. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91 - A of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby exempts the regular employees in respect of two units of M/s . Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited i.e. M/ s. Marine Workshop and M/ s . Rajabagan DockYard both in Kolkata , West Bengal from the opera- tion of the said Act for the period from 1-1-1997 to 30-9-2006.

2. The above exemption is subject to the follwoing conditions namely:-

(1) The aforesaid establishment wherein the em- ployers are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exenupted exployees ' .

(2) Not withstanding this exemption , the employ- ees shall continue to receive such benefits [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 14, 2006/PAUSA 24 , 1927

tained in such factory, establishment , office orother premises.

[F. No. S -38014/6/2005 - SS- I ]

K.C. JAIN , Director.

under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contributions paid prior to the date from which exemptiongranted by this notification opeates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable .

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM.- It has become nec- essary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time. However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी, 2006

(4) The employer of the said factory/establish- ment shall submit in respect of the period dur- ing which that factory was subject to the op- eration of the said Act (hereinafter referred as the said period), such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance (General ) Regu- lations, 1950.

(5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ES I Act or other official ofthe Corporation authorized in this behalf shall , for the pur- pose of:-

का.आ. 210.- केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि लोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप-खण्ड (vi) के उपबंधोंके अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2376 दिनांक 28-6-2005 द्वारा बैंक नोट मुद्रणालय, देवास ( म.प्र. ) जोकि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 22 में शामिल है , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक10-7-2005 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवौं घोषित किया था;

(1) Veryfying the particulars contained in any re- turn submitted under Sub -section ( 1 ) of Sec- tion 44 for the said period; or

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

(ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employ- ees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 for the said period; or

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( द ) 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 10-1-2006 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है । (iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the em- ployer in cash and kind being benefits in con- sideration ofwhich exemption is being granted under this notification ; or

[फा. सं. एस -11017/ 1/ 2006- आई.आर. (पी.एल. ) ] जे. पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006 (iv) Ascertaining whether any of the provisions oftheAct had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation ot the said factory to empowered to:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

S.O. 210. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requries that in pursuance of the provisions of sub -clause (vi ) of the clause (n ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disptues Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , declaredby the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 2376 dated 28-6-2005 the service in Bank Note Press, Dewas which is covered by item 22 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 10th July, 2005 .

And whereas , the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period by a further period of six months .

(b) enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereof to produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts , books and other documents relating to the employment ofpersonal and payment ofwages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary, or

Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by the proviso to sub -clause (vi ) of clause (n) of section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be a public utility service for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 10th January, 2006.

(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment , office or other premises or any person whom the said inspec- tor or other official has reasonable cause to believe to have been an employee ; or

[F. No. S- 11017/ 1 /2006 - IR (PL)] J. P. PATI , Jt. Secy.

(d) make copies of or take extracts from any reg- ister, account book or other document main-

Printed by the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi -110054.