This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्रीसं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007 / 2003-05

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

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं० 4]

No. 4]

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 22 जनवरी 28 , 2006 , शनिवार/माघ 2- माघ 8 , 1927 NEW DELHI, JANUARY 22 JANUARY 28, 2006 , SATURDAY/ MAGHA 2--- MAGHA 8, 1927

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

भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड ( ii) PART II- Section 3-Sub - section ( ii)

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

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

(केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्त का कार्यालय, हल्दिया आयुक्तालय ) कोलकाता, 6 जनवरी , 2006 सं. 01 /2006 -सी.शु. ( एन.टी. )

का. आ. 284.- भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली के सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( ए) के अन्तर्गत जारी अधिसूचना सं. 33/1994 सी.शु. ( एन.टी. ) दिनांक 01 जुलाई , 1994 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 52 ) की धारा 9 के अधीन मैसर्स मित्तल टेक्नोपैक प्रा. लि. , जालान इन्डस्ट्रीयल कमप्लेक्स, गेट नं. 3 , लेन नं. 5 , सन्खरीदहा, डोमजूर, हावड़ा-711 411 ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) को भारत सरकार द्वारा अनुमोदित 100 % निर्यात ओरियनटेड यूनिट की स्थापना के उद्देश्य से विकास एतद्वारा वेयर हाउसिंग स्टेशन घोषित किया जाता है ।

[सी. सं. IV( 16 ) 1 /सीई/टैक/हल्दिया/ 2004/401-02 ] कमल ज्योति, आयुक्त 104 GI/ 2006

(723)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)

(OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE , HALDIA COMMISSIONERATE ) Kolkata , the 6th January, 2006. No. 1/2006- CUSTOMS ( Ν.Τ. )

S.O. 284. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9 of the Customs Act. 1962 as delegated by Notification No. 33/ 1994- Customs ( NT ) dated 1st July, 1994 issued under Section 152 of the Customs Act , 1962 read with MFDR Circular No. 31 / 2003 - Customs dated 7th April , 2003 , the permises of M / s. Mittal Technopack Pvt. Ltd. , at Jalan Industrial Complex , Gate No. 3, Lane No. 5. Sankharidaha . Domjur. Howrah - 711 411 in the state of West Bengal are , hereby, declared to be a Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act . 1962 for the purpose of setting up of a 100 % Export Oriented Unit as approved by the Development Commissioner. Falta Special Economic Zone, Ministry ofCommerce , Government of India.

[ C. No. IV( 16) 1 / CE/Tech. /Haldia/2004/401-021 KAMAL JYOTI , Commissioner 724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

( मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय ) उदयपुर, 12 जनवरी , 2006 सं. 10/31/12-01-2006

का. आ. 285.- आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 की 43 ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, उदयपुर " राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा समिति, उदयपुर " को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजन हेतु निर्धारण वर्ष 2002-2003 से 2004-2005 के लिए अनुमोदन करते हैं :

परन्तु यह तब जब कि सोसायटी आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड (23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के प्रावधानों की पुष्टि एवं अनुपालना करतीहै ।

[सं. मु.आ.आ./उदय/आ.अ. ( प्रशा. )/2005-06/ 2438 ]

पी. के. मिश्र, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त (OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX)

Udaipur, the 12th January, 2006 No. 10/31/12-01-2006

S.O. 285 .--In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( vi ) of Clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income -tax Rules , 1962 , the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Udaipur hereby approves " Rashtriya Shiksha Samiti Udaipur" for the purpose of said secton for the assessment years 2002-2003 to 2004-2005:

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of Sub- section ( vi ) of Clause ( 23C) of Section 10 ofthe Income- tax Act , 1961 , read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962.

| No. CCIT/ UDR/ITO/ ( A)/2005-06/2438 ] P. K. MISRA , Chief Commissioner of Income - tax

उदयपुर, 16 जनवरी , 2006

सं. 11/32/16-01-2006

का. आ. 286.- आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 की 43) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, उदयपुर " राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा समिति, उदयपुर " को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजन हेतु निर्धारण वर्ष 2005-06 के लिए अनुमोदन करते हैं :

परन्तु यह तब जब कि सोसायटी आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 ग ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 गक के प्रावधानों की पुष्टि एवं अनुपालना करती है ।

[सं. मु.आ.आ./उदय/आ.अ. ( प्रशा.)/ 2005-06/2439 ]

पी. के. मिश्र, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Udaipur, the 16th January, 2006 No. 11/32/16-01-2006

S.O. 286. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( vi ) of Clause ( 23C ) of Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Udaipur hereby approves " Rashtriya Shiksha Samiti Udaipur " for the purpose of said section for the assessment year2005-2006:

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of Sub - section (vi ) of Clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income - tax Act, 1961 , read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962.

[No. CCIT/UDR/ ITO/( A)/2005-06/2439] P. K. MISRA , Chief Commissioner of Income- tax ( केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालय, जयपुर-प्रथम )

जयपुर, 19 जनवरी , 2006

सं. 02-सीमा शुल्क ( एन.टी. ) 2006 का. आ. 287.-सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( ए ) के तहत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग, नईदिल्ली की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94 सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) दिनांक प्रथम जुलाई, 1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैं, जयन्त मिश्र , आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, जयपुर प्रथम एतद्वारा, शतप्रतिशत ई.ओ.यू. स्थापित करने के उद्देश्य से सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम की धारा 9 के अन्तर्गत राजस्थान राज्य के करौली जिले के हिण्डौन शहर को भण्डारण स्टेशन ( वेयर हाउसिंग स्टेशन ) घोषित करता हूँ ।

[फा. सं. पंचम ( 16 ) इओयू/34/2005]

जयन्तमिश्र, आयुक्त (OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE , JAIPUR - I)

Jaipur, the 19th January, 2006 No. 02 -CUS (NT) 2006

S.O. 287. 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) ofSection 152 of Customs Act, 1962. I , Jayant Misra, Commissioner of Central Excise , Jaipur -I , hereby declare Hindaun City, District Karauli , in the State ofRajasthantobe Warehousing station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962for the purpose of setting up 100% E.O.U.

[F. No. V( 16) EOU/ 34/2005 ]

JAYANT MISRA , Commissioner

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

(बैंकिंग प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 288.- भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ( अनुषंगी बैंक) अधिनियम, 1959 ( 1959 का 38 ) की धारा 26 की उपधारा ( 2 क) के साथ पठित धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( गक ) के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा श्री सी.टी. कोशी , लिपिक, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ त्रावणकोर, कोषागार शाखा , तिरूवनन्तपुरम को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष 725 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

जांजीबार में श्री सुबोध बिश्वास, सहायक को 22-12-2005 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2005 ] कीअवधि तक अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्तिहोने तक अथवा स्टेट बैंक ऑफ त्रावणकोर के कर्मकार कर्मचारी के रूप में उनकी सेवाएं समाप्त होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, स्टेट बैंक ऑफ त्रावणकोर के निदेशक बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 15/1 /2005- आईआर ]

एम. सी. नैथानी, संयुक्त सचिव ( सीपीवी- II ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C.P.V. Division)

रमेश चन्द, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd December, 2005 (Department of Economic Affairs) (Banking Division)

New Delhi , the 16th January , 2006

S.O. 290.- In pursuance of the clause (a ) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri Subodh Biswas , Assistant in the Consulate General of India , Zanzibar to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer with effect from 22-12-2005 .

[No.T-4330/01/2005]

M. C. NAITHANI, Jt . Secy. ( CPV - II) नई दिल्ली , 22 दिसम्बर , 2005

S.O. 288. In pursuance of clause ( ca) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 25 read with Sub-section (2A) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India ( Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959 , (38 of 1959 ) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri C.T. Koshy, Clerk, State Bank ofTravancore, Treasury Branch , Thiruvananthapuram as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank ofTravancore for a period of three years with effect from the date of notification or until his successor is appointed or till he ceases to be a workmen employee of State Bank ofTravancore , whichever is earlier.

का. आ. 291.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक ( क) के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , भारत का राजदूतावास, ब्रुसेल्स में श्री देबाशीष नन्दी, सहायक को 22-12-2005 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है । [ F. No. 15 / 1/2005 - IR] RAMESH CHAND, Under Secy.

[सं. टी-4330/01/2005 ] नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी , 2006

एम. सी. नैथानी, संयुक्त सचिव ( सी पी वी- II ) New Delhi , the 22nd December , 2005

S.O. 291. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ), the Central Government hereby authorise Shri Debashish Nardi , Assistant in the Embassy of India, Brussels to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Offs with effect from 22-12-2005.

[No.T-4330/01 /2005 ] का. आ. 289.- बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम , 1949 ( 1949 का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर यह घोषणा करती है कि उपर्युक्त अधिनियम की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड (ग ) के उपखंड ( 1 ) के प्रावधान, सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया पर लागू नहीं होंगे, जहां तक उनका संबंध सुश्री एच.ए. दारुवाला, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, सेंट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया , के कृषि वित्त निगम लिमिटेड के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नामित किए जाने से है ।

M. C NAITHANI , Jt. Secy . ( CPV - II ) नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2005

[फा. सं. 9/39/2005- बीओ-1 ] जी. बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 17th January, 2006

का. आ. 292.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक ( क) केअनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा, भारत का प्रधान कौंसलावास , मैदान में श्री जोर्ज, सहायक को 22-12-2005 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01 /2005 ]

एम. सी. नैथानी, संयुक्त सचिव ( सीपीवी- II)

NewDelhi , the 22nd December , 2005 S.O. 289. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949) , the Government of India on the recommendation of the Reserve Bank of India , hereby declare that the provisions of sub-clause ( i ) of clause ( c) of sub - section (1 ) of Section 10 of the said Act, shall not apply to Central Bank of India in so far as it relates to the nomination of Ms. H.A. Daruwalla, Chairperson & Managing Director, Central Bank of India as Director on the Board of Agricultural Finance Corporation Limited ( AFC) .

[ F. No. 9 /39/2005 -BO- I ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy .

विदेश मंत्रालय

S.O. 292. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Governament hereby authorise Shri George , Assistant in the Consulate General of India , Medan to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 22-12-2005 , (सी. पी. वी. प्रभाग )

[No.T-4330/01 /2005 ] नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर, 2005

M. C. NAITHANI , Jt . Secy . ( CPV - II)

नई दिल्ली, 22 दिसम्बर , 2005

का. आ. 290.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक ( क) केअनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , भारत का प्रधान कौंसलवास,

93.- राजनयिक कौंसली अधिकारी ( शपथ एवं शुल्क) अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 41 वां ) की धारा 2 के अंक ( क) का. आ.

726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

==

के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा भारत का राजदूतावास , यारेवान में श्री हरविन्दर सिंह, सहायक को 22-12-2005 से सहायक कौंसली अधिकारी का कार्य करने हेतु प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/01/2005 ] एम. सी. नैथानी, संयुक्त सचिव ( सी.पी.वी. - 2 ) New Delhi . the 22nd December, 2005 S.O. 293. In pursuance of clause ( a) of Scction 2 ofthe Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and Fees ) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri Harvinder Singh , Assistant in the Embassy of India, Yerevan to perform the dutics of Assistant ConsularOfficer with effect from 22-12-2005 .

[No.T-4330/01/2005 ]

M. C. NAITHANI , Jt . Secy. ( CPV - II ) नागर विमानन मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 294.- भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1994 ( 1994 का 55 ) के खंड 3 में निहित शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री एच. एस. बैंस, कार्यकारी निदेशक ( कार्मिक और प्रशासन ) को उनके द्वारा पदभार संभालने की तारीख से पांच वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक जो भी पहले हो , 25750-650-30950 रु. के वेतनमान में, भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण में सदस्य ( कार्मिक और प्रशासन ) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. एकी-24011/04/2005 - एएआई ]

एस. के. आर्य , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

New Delhi . the 13th January , 2006

S.O. 294. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act , 1994 (No. 55 of 1994 ) the Central Government hereby appoints Shri eby appoints H.S. Bains . Exccutive Director ( Personnel & Administration ) to the post of Member (Personnel & Administration ) , Airports . Authority of India ( AAI ) , in the scale of pay of Rs . 25750-650-30950 for a period of five years from the date of taking over charge of the post or till the date of his superannuation , or until further orders. whichever is the earlicst .

[No. AV -24011/4/2005 -AAI ] S. K. ARYA. Under Secy .

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 295.- भारतीय बिजली नियमावली, 1956 के नियम 4 ( क) के साथ पठित बिजली अधिनियम, 2003 ( 2003 का 36 ) के खंड 162 में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यथोचित सरकार, दिल्ली मेट्रो रेल कारपोरेशन ( डीएमआरसी ) के निम्नलिखित अधिकारियों को एतदद्वारा इस अधिसूचना के जारी होने की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए बिजली निरीक्षक एवं सहायक बिजली निरीक्षक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : -

नियुक्ति क्र. सं. नाम और पद 1 2

3

बिजली निरीक्षक 1. श्री शरत शर्मा, मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर

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

3

बिजली निरीक्षक 2. श्री ए. के. गर्ग , मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर

सहायक बिजली 3. श्री सुशील कुमार, उप- मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर

निरीक्षक

सहायक बिजली निरीक्षक 4 श्री वी. एम. तिवारी , उप - मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर

सहायकबिजली निरीक्षक 5 श्री रूपेश कुमार, उप- मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर

उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अधिकारी प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और बिजली संबंधी कार्यों, बिजली संस्थापनाओं और डीएमआरसी द्वारा अधिग्रहीत किए गए क्षेत्रों के अंदर प्रचालित बिजली रोलिंग स्टाक अथवा डीएमआरसी से संबंधित/डीएमआरसी के नियंत्रण के अधीन सभी बिजली संस्थापनाओं एवं कार्यों के संबंध में अपने-अपने कार्यों का निर्वहन करेंगे । बहरहाल, डीएमआरसी यह सुनिश्चित करेगा कि वे मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर या उप- मुख्य बिजली इंजीनियर के रूप में उन्हें सौंपे गए कार्यों के संबंध में बिजली निरीक्षक/सहायक बिजली निरीक्षक नहीं होंगे ।

[सं. 42/4/2001- आर एंड आर ] आलोक कुमार, निदेशक MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi . the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 295. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 162 of the Electricity Act. 2003 (36 of 2003 ) read with rule 4 ( A) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 the appropriate Government hereby appoints the following officers of the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. (DMRC) to be the Electrical Inspectors and Assistant Electrical Inspectors for a period of three years from the date of issue of this notification :

Appointed as Name& Designation

S. No.

Sh . Sharat Sharma,

Electrical Inspector 1. ChiefElectrical Engineer

Electrical Inspector 2. Sh . A. K. Garg, ChiefElectrical Engineer

Asstt . Electrical

Inspector 3. Sh . Sushil Kumar, Dy. Chief Electrical Engincer

Asstt. Electrical Inspector 4. Sh. V. M. Tiwari , Dy. ChiefElectrical Engineer

Asst. Electrical

Inspector 5. Sh. Rupesh Kumar, Dy. Chicf Electrical Engineer

The above mentioned officers shall exercise the powers and perform their respective functions in respect of clectrical works , electrical installations and electrical rolling stock in opcration within the areas occupied by the DMRC or in repect of works and all electrical installations under the control of DMRC /belongings to DMRC . However, DMRC will ensure that they will not be Electrical Inspectors/Assistant Electrical Inspectors in respect of भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the work assigned to them as Chief Electrical Engineer or Dy. ChiefElectrical Engineer.

[No.42/4/2001 - R & R] ALOK KUMAR, Director

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 296.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के प्रयोग के लिए ) राजभाषा नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम 4 के अनुसरण में , वस्त्र मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत आने वाले निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को जिनमें 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है :

1. आंचलिक रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, राष्ट्रीय रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, केरेबो, माजरा -248171 , देहरादून ( उत्तरांचल )

2. पी 3 मूल बीज फार्म,

राष्ट्रीय रेशमकीट बीज संगठन, केरेबो, माजरा -248171 , देहरादून ( उत्तरांचल )

3. अनुसंधान विस्तार केन्द्र, उप- इकाई केरेअवप्रसं. , केन्द्रीय रेशम बोर्ड , पोस्ट- नवग्राम-742184 मुर्शिदाबाद ( पश्चिम बंगाल )

4. क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय, एन. एच. डी. सी. लि. चेनेथा भवन, चतुर्थ तल, नामपल्ली, हैदराबाद-500001 ( आंध्र प्रदेश )

[सं. ई-11016/ 1 /2005- हिन्दी]

बी. पी. सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF TEXTILES

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 S.O. 296. In pursuance of Sub - Rule 4 of rule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under the Ministry of Textiles , whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi :

1. Zonal Silkworm Seed Organisation , National Silkworm Seed Organisation, CSB, Mazra - 248171 , Dehradun (Uttaranchal ) 2. P 3 Basic Seed Farm , National Silkworm Seed Organisation , CSB,

Mazra - 248171 , Dehradun , (Uttaranchal ) 3. Research Extension Centre , Sub -unit , CSRTI,

Central Silk Board, Post-Navgram - 742184 , Murshidabad ( West Bengal )

4. Regional Office , NHDC Ltd.

Chenetha Building, 4th Floor, Nampalli, Hyderabad- 500001 (Α.Ρ. )

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

727 संचार एवं सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय (डाकविभाग)

(डाक जीवन बीमा निदेशालय )

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 297.- डाकघर बीमा निधि नियमावली के नियम 10 के तहत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और 31-3-2002 की स्थिति के अनुसार ग्रामीण डाकघर जीवन बीमा निधि की परिसम्पत्तियों और देयताओं के बीमांकक मूल्यांकन के आधार पर महानिदेशक (डाक) सहर्ष ग्रामीण डाकघर जीवन बीमा पालिसियों के मृत्यु अथवा परिपक्वता के कारण दावा बनने पर, उनके लिए 31-3-2002 को समाप्त वर्ष के लिए प्रत्यावर्तनीय बोनस घोषित करते हैं : - क्र. सं. बीमा पालिसी का प्रकार

बोनस की दर 1. आजीवन बीमा

बीमित राशिके प्रति हजार पर 60 रु.

2. बन्दोबस्ती बीमा और प्रत्याशित बन्दोबस्ती बीमा

बीमित राशिके प्रति हजार पर 50 रु.

2. भाषी मूल्यांकन के पूरा होने तक परिपक्वता और मृत्युके कारण उत्पन्न सभी दावों के लिए भी उपर्युक्त दर पर अंतरिम बोनस देय होगा ।

3. बोनस की राशिको 50 पैसे अथवा अधिक के भाग के लिए अगले उच्चतर रुपये में पूर्ण किया जाएगा और 50 पैसे से कम के भाग को हिसाब में नहीं लिया जाएगा ।

[सं. 5-2/2002- एलआई ]

वी. पती, अपर महा प्रबंधक MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Posts)

(DIRECTORATE OF POSTAL , LIFE INSURANCE) New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 297. In exercise of the powers conferred vide Rule 10 of Post Office Insurance Fund Rules and on the basis of Actuarial Valuation of the assets and liabilities of Rural Post Office Life Insurance Fund as on 31-03-2002 , the Director General ( Posts ) , is pleased to declare a simple Reversionary Bonus on the Rural Postal Life Insurance Policies on their becoming claims , due to death or maturity at the following rates for the year ending 31-03-2002 :-

Rate of Bonus S. No. Type of Insurance Policy

1. Whole Life Assurance Rs . 60 per thousand of Sum Assured

Rs . 50 per thousand &Anticipated Endowment of Sum Assured 2. Endowment Assurance Assurance

2. Interim Bonus at the rate mentioned above will also be payable for all claims arising due to maturity and death until future valuation is completed.

3. The amount of bonus involving a fraction of 50 paise or more shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee and fraction below 50 paise shall be ignored .

[No. 5-2/2002-LI]

V. PATI, Addl . General Manager 728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28, 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्तामामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 298.-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 जी एफ इलैक्ट्रानिक, डब्ल्यूजेड-111 ए, स्ट्रीट नं. 12 , कृष्णा पार्क, पो . ओ. तिलक नगर, नई दिल्ली -110018 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जी एफ टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जी एफ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 05/ 692 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै 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 ।

GF

जाएगा। स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 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 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा.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 ( 32)/2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 729 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/ माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2005

S.O. 298. 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 GFT of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " GF " manufactured by M/ s . GF Electronics , WZ - 111A, Street No 12 , Krishna Park, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi - 110018 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/692;

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

GF

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 100 to 5000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10 , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same 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 (32 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28, 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 299.-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 जी एफ इलैक्ट्रानिक, डब्ल्यूजेड 111 ए, स्ट्रीट नं. 12 , कृष्णा पार्क, पो. ओ. तिलक नगर, नई दिल्ली -110018 द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जी एफ पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, स्वतः सूचक अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जी एफ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/05/ 693 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1,000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. 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, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

λ 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 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 32) /2005] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 731 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December, 2005

S.O. 299. 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 GFP of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " GF " manufactured by M/s. GF Electronics , WZ - 111A, Stret No. 12 , Krishna Park , P.O. Tilak Nagar , New Delhi - 110018 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 05 /693 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a strain guage type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 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 current power supply ;

GF

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 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 (32 )/ 2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 104G1/06-2 732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 300.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री साई गणेश सिस्टम्स # 12-6-2/ 204 , विवेक नगर, कुकटपल्ली, हैदराबाद -500 072 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पृथ्वी" है (जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 05 / 1039 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड़ सैल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का माान 2 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 ।

0000

Gaan

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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 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 ( 215) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 733 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2005

S.O. 300. 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 " PT" series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " PRUTHVI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s Sri Sai Ganesh Systems , # 12-6-2/ 204 , Vivek Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabd -500 072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 05/1039;

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 ( e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 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 - scction ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 5000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50mg and with number 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 × 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 ( 215 )/ 2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 301.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स श्री साई गणेश सिस्टम्स # 12-6-2/204 , विवेक नगर, कुकटपल्ली, हैदराबाद-500 072 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पी पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " पृथ्वी " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05 / 1040 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सैल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 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 अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक याशून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 215 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 735 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2005

S.O. 301. 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 " PP " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " PRUTHVI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Sri Sai Ganesh Systems , # 12-6-2/ 204 , Vivek Nagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad -500 072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/ 1040;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 4 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. 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 sealing the stamping plate, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. and up to 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 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 215 )/ 2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 302.- 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 ट्रांसवर्ल्ड स्केल्स सर्विस , # xviii/680 , बीच रोड, कोल्लाम -691001 केरल द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टी एस एस- टी बी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ट्रांसवर्ल्ड " है (जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 05/ 1064 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का माान 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 के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 1010 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 272 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 737 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2005

S.O. 302. 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 " TSS - TB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " TRANSWORLD " manufactured by M/s . Transworld Scales Services , # XVIII /680 , Beach Road, Kollam -691001 , Kerala and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /05 / 1064;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts 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 fradulent 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 10000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg to 2 g or with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer 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 (272 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 303.-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 ट्रांसवर्ल्ड स्केल्स सर्विस, # xviii/680, बीच रोड, कोल्लाम -691001 केरल द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टी एस एस- पी टी" श्रृंखला के स्वतः सूचक, अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेट फार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ट्रांसवर्ल्ड " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /05/ 1065 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सैल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेट फार्म ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत 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 ) 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 अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 272 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

739 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December, 2005

S.O. 303. 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 " TSS - PT " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " TRANSWORLD " manufactured by M/ s . Transworld Scales Services , # XVIII/680 , Beach Road , Kollam- 691001 , Kerala and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05/ 1065 ;

The said model ( See the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and nunimum capacity of 4 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 200 g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz 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 upto 5000 kg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' c ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' 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 with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 ( 272)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 104GI/06-3 740

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8, 1927

==

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 304.- 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 ट्रांसवर्ल्ड स्केल्स सर्विस , # XVIII/ 680 , बीच रोड, कोल्लाम -691001 केरल द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " टी एस एस - डब्ल्यूबी सी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, हाईब्रिड प्रकार के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज के लिए कनवर्शन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ट्रांसवर्ल्ड " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /05 / 1066 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित हाईब्रिड प्रकार ( वेब्रिज के लिए कन्वर्शन किट ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 किग्रा . 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 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 5 कि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 टन 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 ( 272) /2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

741 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2005

S.O. 304. 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 hybrid type non- automatic weighing instrument ( conversion kit for weighbridge ) with digital indication belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of " TSS - WBC " series with brand name " TRANSWORLD " , manufactured by M/ s . Transworld Scales Services , # XVIII/680 , Beach Road , Kollam- 691001 , Kerala and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 /05/ 1066.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based hybrid type non - automatic weighing instrument (conversion kit for weighbridge) with a maximum capacity of 40 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg. The verification scale interval ( e ) 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.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 kg . or more and with ' e ' value 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 have been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 272 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 305.- 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 सिलिकान वेइंग टेक्नालाजी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 32 मधुसूदन नगर, यूनिट- IV भुवनेश्वर-751001 द्वारा निर्मित मध्य यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " पीसीके " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म के लिए कनवर्शन किट प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सिलिकान- पीसीके " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 2005 / 591 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Elllom

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म के लिए कनवर्शन किट प्रकार ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का माान 200 ग्रा. 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, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से , जिससे 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5,000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 11 ×× 10 के, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यंके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 281 ) /2003 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 743 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December , 2005

S.O. 305. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( conversion kit for platform ) with " PCK " series belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III) and with brand name " SILICON - PCK " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Silicon Weighing Technologies Private Limited , 32 , Madhusudan Nagar, Unit - IV, Bhubaneswar -751001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 05/ 591 .

alloon

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( conversion kit for platform) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 4 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 200 g. It has a tare device with a 100 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 sealing the stamping plate . sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 281 )/2003 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 306.-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 एलेग्जेंडर स्केल्स कम्पनी , 1115/1 पंकोरेनका, अहमदाबाद -380001 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एएचएस -2 टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( क्रेन प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ए एस सी ओ " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 1024 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करतीहै ।

P

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( क्रेन प्रकार ) मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) का तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का माान 1 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा 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 आधनियम 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 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 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के, 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 247) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 745 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 28th December, 2005

S.O. 306.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Crane type) with digital indication of " AHS - 2T " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) and with brand name "ASCO " ( herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Alexandra Scale Co. , 1115/1 , Pankorenaka , Ahmedabad- 380001 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/ 1024 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Crane type) of medium accuracy (accuracy class- III ) with a maximunı capacity of 2000 kg . and minimum capacity of 20 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 1kg. 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 ;

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

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 247)/ 2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology 746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8. 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 307.-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 जय किशन इंडस्ट्रीज , नं. 21/2 , जोन्स मिल्स संख्या 4 , जीवन मंडी, आगरा -282004 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जेकेपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जे के " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 204 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 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 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 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 किलोग्राम से अधिक और 5000 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 शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 88 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 747 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 29th December, 2005

S.O. 307. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of " JKP " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " JK" ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s Jai Kishan Industries , No. 21/2 , Jhon's Mill No. 4, Jeony Mandi , Agra -282004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 2005/204;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of 2 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 100gm . 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 sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be donc to prevent from opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

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

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

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 104 GI/ 06-4 748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 308.-वेदीय 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 गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों काअनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 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 जय किशन इंडस्ट्रीज , नं. 21/2 , जोन्स मिल्स संख्या 4 , जीवन मंडी, आगरा-282004 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जेकेपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जे के " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 203 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्राम है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 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 भी सीलबंद 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 विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम से अधिक और 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 ( 88 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 749

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th December, 2005

S.O. 308. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of " JKP " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " JK " (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Jai Kishan Industries , No. 21/2 , Jhon's Mill No. 4 , Jeony Mandi , Agra - 282004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/2005/ 203 ; :

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg and minimum capacity of 5 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 100 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The 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 from opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further , in exercise of the powers confcrred 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 saine serics with maximum capacity above 50 kg and upto 5000 kg with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' c ' value 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zcro , manufacturedby the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

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

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर , 2005

का.आ. 309.-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 जय किशन इंडस्ट्रीज नं. 21/2 , जोन्स मिल्स संख्या 4 , जीवन मंडी, आगरा-282004 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जे के टी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जे के " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/ 202 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट 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 भी सीलबंद 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 विनिर्माण 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. ग्राम तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्राम 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 के , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 88 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 751 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 29th December , 2005

S.O. 309. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " JKT " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " JK" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Jai Kishan Industries , No. 21/2 , Jhon's Mill No. 4 , Jeony Mandi , Agra - 282 004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /2005 /202 ;

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) , with a maximum capacity of 30kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) 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 instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg to 50mg and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k, or 5 × 10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

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

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 29 दिसम्बर, 2005

का.आ. 310.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स जय किशन इंडस्ट्रीज, नं. 21/2 , जोन्स मिल्स संख्या 4 , जीवन मंडी, आगरा-282004 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जे के टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जे के" है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 201 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( टेबलटाप प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 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 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 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 विनिर्माण 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 " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मानके लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के, 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 88) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 753 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 29th December, 2005

S.O. 310. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of " JKT " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " JK " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s Jai Kishan Industries , No. 21/2 , Jhon's Mill No. 4, Jeony Mandi , Agra - 282004 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/2005 /201 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . The verification scale interval (e ) is 5g. 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 sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent from opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

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

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

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 311.- 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 " मैनन एण्ड पटेल " नं. 14/3 , मथुरा रोड, फरीदाबाद-121003 , हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित " एम एंड पी- सिरगा- सीएफयू-2 ई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , स्वचालित , ग्रेविमैट्रिक फीलिंग उपकरण ( कैरोसिल प्रकार ) के मॉडल का है और जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मैनन एण्ड पटेल " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 546 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

Mouor & Fas

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित स्वचालित ग्रेविमैट्रिक फीलिंग उपकरण ( कैरोसिल प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 कि. ग्रा. और सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डिस्पले ( एल सी डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । इस प्रणाली के एक ड्राइविंग यूनिट में 24 फीलिंग प्वाइंट्स हैं और इसका उपयोग एल पी जी सिलेंडरों को भरने के लिए किया जाता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम भराव क्षमता 24 सिलैण्डर प्रति मिनट है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 163 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 755

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड ) ]

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 311. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of automatic gravimetric filling instrument ( Carousel type ) with digital indication of " M & P - Siraga - CFU - 2E " series of X ( 1 ) accuracy and with brand name " MENON & PATEL" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s Menon & Patel , No. 14/3 , Mathura Road , Faridabad- 121 003 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark. IND/ 09 /2005/546;

The said model is a ( strain gauge type ) load cell based automatic gravimetric filling instrument ( Carousel type) with a maximum capacity of 60 kg. and the verification scale interval (e) 50g . It has a tare device with a subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display ( LCD ) indicates the weighing result. The system consists of24 filling points in one driving unit and is used for filling LPG in cylinders . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. Its maximum filling capacity is 24 cylinders per minute .

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 163 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 104 G1/06-5 756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 312.-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 " मैनन एण्ड पटेल " नं. 14/3 , मथुरा रोड, फरीदाबाद-121 003 , हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एम एंड पी-सिरगा- सी डब्ल्यू एस - ई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , स्वतः सूचक, अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार - एल पी जी सिलैण्डर तोल मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मैनन एण्ड पटेल " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/ 786 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार- एल पी जी सिलैण्डर तोल मशीन ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 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 । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डिस्पले ( एल सी डी ) 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 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 मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक 100 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 ( 163 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 757 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 312. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the self indicating non - automatic (Platform type - LPG Cylinder weighing machine ) , weighing instrument with digital indication of " M & P - Siraga- CWS - E " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Menon & Patel " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Menon & Patel , No. 14/3 , Mathura Road, Faridabad- 121003 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/ 786;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type -LPG . Cylinder weighing machine ) with a maximum capacity of 60 kg and minimum capacity of 1 kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) 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 .

M

Menon& Pasel M & P- Synge - CWS- Sek

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 , acracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg and up to 100 kg with verification scale in val ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' c ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 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 ( 163 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 313.-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 अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स, शिवाजी नगर, पटेलवाड़ी के सामने, सावरकुंडला, गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अल्ट्रा इलैक्टॉनिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 05 / 569 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा . है । इसमें एक 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 ।

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 अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मानके 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 ( 100 )/ 2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 759 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 313. 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 " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Ultra Electronics , Shivaji Nagar, Opp . Patelwadi , Sawarkundla - 364 515, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /05 /569 ;

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

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of the Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg and with the number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range 5000 to 50000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k, k being a positive or negative whole mumber 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 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 760

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 314.-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 अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स, शिवाजी नगर , पटेलवाड़ी के सामने, सावरकुंडला -364515 गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005/ 570 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

TRA

ELECTRONS

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) अस्वचालित ( टेबल टाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक 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 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 उक्तमॉडलके 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 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 100 ) / 2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 761 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 314. 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 " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Ultra Electronics, Shivaji Nagar , Opp . Patelwadi , Sawarkundla - 364515, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2005 /570 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type ) of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III ) with a maximum capacity of 20kg . and mimimum 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.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50Kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g . and with the number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range 500 to 10000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole mumber 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)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 315. -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 अल्ट्राइलैक्ट्रानिक्स, शिवाजी नगर, पटेलवाड़ी के सामने, सावरकुंडला-364515 गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रानिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 / 571 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 750 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2.5 कि. प्रा. 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, 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 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . से अधिक और 1000 कि.ग्रा. तक 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 ( 100 ) /2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

763 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 315. 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 - automatie weighing instrument (Platform type ) , with digital indication of " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " series of High accuracy (Accuracy elass - II ) and with brand name " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Ultra Electronics, Shivaji Nagar , Opp . Patelwadi , Sawarkundla - 364515 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 2005 / 571 .

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 750 Kg . and mimimum capacity of 2.5 Kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per eent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 Kg . and up to 1000 Kg . with verification seale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 100 %, 2 × 10 % or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole mumber 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)/ 2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 104G1/06-6 764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 316.- 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 अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रानिक्स, शिवाजी नगर, पटेलवाड़ी के सामने, सावरकुंडला -364515 गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रॉनिक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अल्ट्रा इलैक्ट्रानिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /05/ 572 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 5000 से 50,000 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 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 100 ) /2005 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 765 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/ माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 316. 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 " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " ULTRA ELECTRONICS " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Ultra Electronics , Shivaji Nagar , Opp . Patelwadi , Sawarkundla - 364515, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/572;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automátic weighing instrument ( Platform Type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 2 kg . 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 alternative current power supply.

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . and upto 5000kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' c ' value of 5 g. or more and with ' c ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole mumber 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 ( 100 )/2005 |

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8. 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 317.-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 अवेरी इण्डिया लिमिटेड, प्लाट सं० 50-54 , सेक्टर 25 , बल्बगढ़ -121004 हरियाणा द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ए 613 डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " अवेरी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05 / 565 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

000000

AVERY

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण जो अंकक सूचन सहित लोड सैल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का माान 2 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 ) 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 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 के 1 × 10 के, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 10 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 767

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

S.O. 317. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of, non - automatic weighing instrument ( table top type ) of " A 613W " series belonging to medium accuracy (Accuracy Class - III ) and with brand name " AVERY" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Avery India Limited , Plot No. 50-54 , Sector - 25 , Ballabhgarh - 121 004 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05 /565 ;

AVERY

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) working on the principle of load cell with digital indication of maximum capacity of 30 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g . and belonging to medium accuracy class (accuracy class - III ) . The value of verification scale interval (e ) is 5g . The display unit is of light emitting diode ( LED ) type . The instrument 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 instrument of similar make , accuracy 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 100 mg . to 2g. and with the number of verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10k, 2× 10k , or 5 × 10k , k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM -21 ( 10 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 318.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टालट ब्रानस्वींग और बर्लिन, जर्मनी ( पीटीबी) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण पत्र 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 उप - धारा 3 के परन्तुक 3 और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल इमपिआन्टी स्पा-24061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बीजी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस , इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में हीरो स ० चन्दवानी , नं ० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर, अली यावर जंग मार्ग के साथ , कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400101 द्वारा विपणित " एस बी एम -75 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/13/2004/322 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 50 मिमि. और अभिहित दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 0.625 लीटर 20 बार के है । मापन चेम्बर से घूमण चलन का प्रेषण ग्लंड से सज्जित शाफ्ट द्वारा किया जाएगा या चुम्बकीय युग्म द्वारा किया जाएगा । काउण्टर एक रोलर जो शून्य से प्रदर्शक है और प्रथम गणना तत्व में करने वाली युक्ति की घूमन मूल्य 10 लीटर या 100 लीटर है । मीटर का प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में होता है जिनकी श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए - एस से 17 एमपीए- एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 40 लीटर प्रतिमिनट से 500 लीटर प्रतिमिनट है।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 131 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 769

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 318. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Techniche Bundesanstalt , Braunschweing and Berlin, Germany (PTB ) 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 the third proviso to sub - section (3 ) and sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of, Flow meter ( meters for liquids - other than water ) of series SBM 75 , manufactured by M/s . Isoil Impianti Spa - 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro (BG) , 74, via Madonna delle Rose , Italy, and marketed in India by Hiro S. Chandwani , No. 301 , ShradhaTower, Asha Nagar, Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg , Kandivali ( East ) , Mumbai -400 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /2004/322;

The said model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 50 mm . and measuring chamber volume 0.625 litres at nominal pressure of 20 bar. The transmission of the rotary movement from the measuring chamber isperformed either by a shaft equipped with a gland or by a magnetic coupling . The counter is a roller indicator with zeroing and totalizing device - rotating value of the first count element is 10 litres or 100 litres . The meter is used for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa - s to 17mPa- s . The rate of flow range is from 40 litres per minute to 500 litres per minute .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 131 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 319.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टालट ब्रानस्वींग और बर्लिन, जर्मनी ( पी टी बी) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण पत्र 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 केअनुरूप 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 उप- धारा 3 के परन्तुक ( 3 ) और धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल इमपिआन्टी स्पा-24061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बी जी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस, इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में हीरो स ० चन्दवानी , नं ० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर, अली यावर जंग मार्ग के साथ, कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400101 द्वारा विपणित " एस बी एम -150 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/13/2004/323 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

00000

उक्तमॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 80 मिमि. और 10 बार के दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 2,033 लीटर है । पारेषण तत्व, घर्पण चक्र और अंतरीय गेयर युक्ति पर यांत्रिकी के समुच्चय द्वारा दिए गए निरन्तर अंतर सहित यांत्रिकी से मिल कर बना है । काउण्टर एक 5 तत्व ओर शून्य से युक्ति सहित गेलर सूचक है और पहले ड्रम के और उन ड्रमों सहित जिनका प्रथम ड्रम के न्यूनतम पठन मूल्य 0.1 लीटर और प्रत्येक चक्र पर 10 लीटर मूल्य है । मीटर का प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में होता है जिसका श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए एस से 17 एमपीए - एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 100 लीटर प्रतिमिनट से 1300 लीटर प्रतिमिनट है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 131 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 771 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 319. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt , Braunschweing and Berlin , Germany ( PTB ) 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 the third provisio to sub -section ( 3 ) and sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Flow meter ( meters for liquids - other than water ) of series SBM 150 , manufactured by M/ s . Isoil Impianti Spa- 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro (BG) , 74 , via Madonna delle Rose , Italy, and marketed in India by M/ s. Hiro S. Chandwani , No. 301 , ShradhaTower, Asha Nagar, Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg. Kandivali ( East ) , Mumbai- 400 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 / 2004/323 ;

The said model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 80 mm. and measuring chamber volume 2,033 litres at nominal pressure of 10 bar . The transmission element consists of a mechanism with continue variation made by a combination of a mechanism at friction wheels and a diferential gear device . The counter is a roller indicator with 5 element and zeroing device and with drums - minimum reading value of the first drum is 0.1 litres and value at each roation is 10 litres . The meter is used for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa- sto 17mPa- s. The rate of flow range is from 100 litres per minute to 1300 litres per minute.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 131 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 104 GI /06-7 772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 320.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टालट ब्रानस्वींग और बर्लिन, जर्मनी ( पी टी बी ) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण - पत्र उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृतिदेखें ) 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 उपधारा 3 के परन्तुक ( 3 ) और धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल अमपिआन्टी स्पा-24061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बी जी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस , इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में हीरो स० चन्दवानी, नं ० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर , अली जावर जंग मार्ग के साथ , कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई-400101 द्वारा विपणित " बी एम -200 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/2004/324 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

0000

0.0

उक्त मॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 80 मिमि. और अभिहित दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 2275 लीटर 20 बार के है । मापन चेम्बर से घूमण चलन का प्रेषण ग्लंड से सज्जित शाफ्ट द्वारा किया जाएगा या चुम्बकीय युग्म द्वारा किया जाएगा । काउण्टर एक रोलर जो शून्य से प्रदर्शक है और प्रथम गणना तत्व में करने वाली युक्ति की घूमन मूल्य 10 लीटर या 100 लीटर है । मीटर के प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में प्रयोग होता है जिसकी श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए - एस से 17 एमपीए - एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 100 लीटर प्रतिमिनट से 1300 लीटर प्रतिमिनट है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 131 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 773 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 320. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , along with the model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt . Braunschweig and Berlin, Germany ( PTB ) 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 the third proviso to sub section (3 ) and sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of, Flow meter ( Meters for liquids - other than water ) of series BM 200 , manufactured by M/s. Isoil limpianti Spa - 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro ( BG ). 74, via Madonna delle Rose , ITALY . and marketed in India by M/ s . Hiro S. Chandwani , No. 301. Shradha Tower, Asha Nagar. Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg. Kandivali (East ) . Mumbai -400 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /2004/324 ;

The said model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 80 mm. and measuring chamber volume 2275 litres at nominal pressure of 20 bar. The transmission of the rotary movement from the measuring chamber is performed either by a shaft equipped with a gland or by a magnetic coupling . The counter is a roller indicator with zeroing and totalizing device - rotating value of the first count element is 10 litres or 100 litres . The meter is used for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa- sto 17 mPa- s . The rate of flow range is from 100 litres per minute to 1300 litres per minute.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 131 )/ 20041

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 774

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 321.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टालट ब्रानस्वींग और बर्लिन , जर्मनी (पी टी बी ) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण - पत्र 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 उपधारा 3 के परन्तुक ( 3 ) और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल अमपिआन्टी स्पा-24061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बीजी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस, इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में हीरो स ० चन्दवानी, नं ० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर, अली यावर जंग मार्ग के साथ , कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400101 द्वारा विपणित " बी एम -400 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /2004 /325 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 80 मिमि. और अभिहित दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 455 लीटर 20 बार के है । मापन चेम्बर से घूमण चलन का प्रेषण ग्लंड से सज्जित शाफ्ट द्वारा किया जाएगा या चुम्बकीय युग्म द्वारा किया जाएगा । काउण्टर एक रोलन जो शून्य से प्रदर्शक है और प्रथम गणना तत्व में करने वाली युक्ति की घूमन मूल्य 10 लीटर या 100 लीटर है । मीटर के प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में प्रयोग होता है जिसकी श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए - एस से 17 एमपीए एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 200 लीटर प्रतिमिनट से 2200 लीटर प्रतिमिनटहै ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 131 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 775 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 321. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig and Berlin , Germany (PTB ) 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 the third proviso to sub - section (3 ) and sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves issues and publishes the certificate of approval of Model of Flow meter ( Meters for liquids - other than water ) of series BM 400 , manufactured by M/s . Isoil Impianti Spa - 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro (BG ) , 74, via Madonna delle Rose, ITALY , and marketed in India by M/s . Hiro S. Chandwani , No. 301 , Shradha Tower, Asha Nagar , Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg, Kandivali (East ), Mumbai- 400 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /2004/325 ;

The said Model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 80 mm and measuring chamber volume 455 litres at nominal pressure of 20 bar. The transmission of the rotary movement from the measuring chamber is performed either by a shaft equipped with a gland or by a magnetic coupling. The counter is a roller indicator with zeroing and totalizing device - rotating value of the first count element is 10 litres or 100 litres . The meter is used for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa - s to 17mPa- s . The rate of flow range is from 200 litres per minute to 2200 litrcs per minute .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 131 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 322. - केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टालट ब्रास्वींग और बर्लिन , जर्मनी ( पीटी बी) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण पत्र 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 उपधारा 3 के परंतुक ( 3 ) और धारा 36 की उपधारा (7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल अमपिआन्टी स्पा-14061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बीजी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस , इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत मे हीरो स० चन्दवानी , नं ० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर, अली जावर जंग मार्ग के साथ, कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400101 द्वारा विपणित " बी एम -600 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/04/326 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 150 मिमि. और अभिहित दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 6825 लीटर 20 बार के है । मापन चेम्बर से घूमण चलन का प्रेपण ग्लंड से सज्जित शाफ्ट द्वारा किया जाएगा या चुम्बकीय युग्म द्वारा किया जाएगा । काउण्टर एक रोलन जो शून्य से प्रदर्शक है और प्रथम गणना तत्व में करने वाली युक्ति की घूमन मूल्य 100 लीटर या 1000 लीटर है । मीटर के प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में प्रयोग होता है जिसकी श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए - एस से 17 एमपीए एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 300 लीटर प्रतिमिनट से 3400 लीटर प्रतिमिनट है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 131 )/2004 ] पी. ए . कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 777 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 322. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , along with the model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt , Braunschweig and Berlin, Germany (PTB ) 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 the third proviso to sub section (3) and sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of Flow meter ( meters for liquids - other than water) of series BM 600, manufactured by M/ s . Isoil Impianti Spa - 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro (BG) , 74 , via Madonna delle Rose , Italy, and marketed in India byHiro S. Chandwani , No. 301 , ShradhaTower , Asha Nagar, Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg , Kandivali ( East ) , Mumbai -400 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /2004/326 ;

The said model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 150 mm and measuring chamber volume 6825 litres at nominal pressure of 20 bar. The transmission of the rotary movement from the measuring chamber is performed either by a shaft equipped with a gland or by a magnetic coupling . The counter is a roller indicator with zeroing and totalizing device - rotating value of the first count element is 100 litres or 1000 litres . The meter is sued for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa- s to 17mPa- s . The rate of flow range is from 300 litres per minute to 3400 litres per minute .

[F. No. WM -21 ( 131)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8. 1927

[PART II -SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 323.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टालट ब्रानस्वींग और बर्लिन, जर्मनी ( पी टी बी ) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण- पत्र 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 केअनुरूप 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 उपधारा 3 के परन्तुक ( 3 ) और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल अमपिआन्टी स्पा-24061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बीजी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस, इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत मे हीरो स ० चन्दवानी , नं ० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर, अली जावर जंग मार्ग के साथ, कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई -400101 द्वारा विपणित " एल बी एम-1000 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/ 327 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

00000

उक्त मॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 200 मिमि. और अभिहित दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 1477 लीटर 20 बार के है । मापन चेम्बर से घूमण चलन का प्रेषण ग्लंड से सज्जित शाफ्ट द्वारा किया जाएगा या चुम्बकीय युग्म द्वारा किया जाएगा। काउण्टर एक रोलन जो शून्य से प्रदर्शक है और प्रथम गणना तत्व में करने वाली युक्तिकी घूमन मूल्य 100 लीटर या 1000 लीटर है । मीटर के प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में प्रयोग होता है जिसकी श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए- एस से 17 एमपीए- एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 700 लीटर प्रतिमिनट से 7500 लीटर प्रतिमिनट है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 131 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 779 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 323. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with the model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt , Braunschweig and Berlin , Germany (PTB ) 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 the third proviso to sub section ( 3 ) and sub- sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves , issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Flow meter ( meters for liquids - other than water ) of series LBM 1000 , manufactured by M/s. Isoil Impianti Spa - 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro (BG) , 74 , via Madonna delle Rose , Italy, and marketed in India by Hiro S. Chandwani , No. 301 , Shradha Tower, Asha Nagar , Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg , Kandivali ( East) , Mumbai - 400 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/2004/327 ;

The said Model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 200 mm and measuri chamber volume 1477 litres at nominal pressure of 20 bar. The transmission of the rotary movement from the measu chamber is performed either by a shaft equipped with a gland or by a magnetic coupling. The counter is a ro indicator with zeroing and totalizing device - rotating value of the first count element is 100 litres or 1000 litres. The meter is used for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa- s to 17mPa-s . The rate of flow range is from litres per minute to 7500 litres per minute .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 131 )/2

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metro 104Gl /06-8 780

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 324.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा थिसीकलीश टेक्नीस्के बडेसेन्टयलट ब्रानस्वींग और बर्लिन , जर्मनी ( पी टी बी) जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण- पत्र 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 उपधारा 3 के परन्तुक ( 3 ) और धारा 36 की उपधारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इसाइल अमपिआन्टी स्पा-24061 अलबानो एस. , एलैक्सान्ड्रो ( बीजी ) , 74 वाया मडोना डेले रोस , इटली द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में हीरो स ० चन्दवानी, नं० 301 , श्रद्धा टावर, आशा नगर, अली जावर जंग मार्ग के साथ, कान्डीवाली ( पूर्व ) , मुंबई-400101 द्वारा विपणित " एल बी एम-3000 " श्रृंखला के फ्लो मीटर ( द्रव जल से भिन्न के लिए मीटर ) के मॉडल का और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2004/328 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक धनात्मक विस्थापन प्रवाह मीटर है जिसका अभिहित व्यास 250 मिमि. और अभिहित दबाव पर मापन चैम्बर का आयतन 2955 लीटर 20 बार के है । मापन चेम्बर से घूमण चलन का प्रेषण ग्लंड से सज्जित शाफ्ट द्वारा किया जाएगा या चुम्बकीय युग्म द्वारा किया जाएगा । काउण्टर एक रोलर जो शून्य से प्रदर्शक है और प्रथम गणना तत्व में करने वाली युक्ति की घूमन मूल्य 100 लीटर या 1000 लीटर है । मीटर के प्रयोग ऐसे द्रवों को मापने में प्रयोग होता है जिसकी श्यानता रेंज 0.3 एमपीए- एस से 17 एमपीए एस है । प्रवाह रेंज 1000 लीटर प्रति मिनट से 15000 लीटर प्रतिमिनट है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 131 )/ 2004]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 781 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 324. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , along with the model approval certificate issued by the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt , Braunschweig and Berlin , Germany (PTB ) 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 the third proviso to sub - section (3 ) and sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby approves issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Flow meter ( Meters for liquids other than water ) of series LBM 3000 , manufactured by M/ s . Isoil Impianti Spa- 24061 Albano S. Alessaandro (BG ), 74, via Madonna delle Rose , Italy, and marketed in India by Hiro S. Chandwani , No. 301 , Shradha Tower, Asha Nagar , Off Ali Yavar Jung Marg , Kandivali (East ) , Mumbai -400 ' 101 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 2004/328;

The said Model is a positive displacement Flow Meter having nominal diameter 250 mm and measuring chamber volume 2955 litres at nominal pressure of 20 bar . The transmission of the rotary movement from the measuring chamber is performed either by a shaft cquipped with a gland or by a magnetic coupling. The counter is a roller indicator with zeroing and totalizing device - rotating value of the first count element is 100 litres or 1000 litres. The meter is used for measuring liquids having viscosity range of 0.3 mPa- s to 17mPa- s . The rate of flow range is from 1000 litrcs per minute to 15000 litres per minute.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 131 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 325.- 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 शब्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स काल- वन- स्केल्स, 16-48 सी, प्रशांत नगर, लिटिल फ्लावर जूनियर कालेज के पीछे , उप्पल, हैदराबाद -500039 , आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सी ई- माइक्रो " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " काल- वन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/937 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शिन करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित 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 प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 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 " 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मकः पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 266 ) / 2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 783 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 325. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of, non - automatic weighing instrument ( table top type ) with digital indication of " CE-MICRO " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class- II) and with brand name " CAL - ONE" ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Cal - one Scales , 16-48C, Prasant Nagar, Behind Little Flower Junior College , Uppal , Hyderabad- 500039 , Andhra Pradesh and *which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /05/937 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with maximum capacity of 300g and minimum capacity of 200 mg. The verification scale interval (e ) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The light emitting diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply ;

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50mg and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg. or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10 % , 2 × 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 (266 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 326.-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 काल-वन- स्केल्स, 16-48 सी , प्रशांत नगर, लिटिल फ्लावर जूनियर कालेज के पीछे, उप्पल, हैदराबाद -500039 आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " सीई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " काल- वन " है ( जिसे इसके इसमें पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 2005 /938 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 ) 5 ग्रा. 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन 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 के लिए 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 ( 266 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 785 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 326. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " CE " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Cal - One " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Cal - One Scales , 16-48C , Prasant Nagar, Behind Little Flower Junior College , Uppal , Hyderabad- 500039 , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05/938 ;

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

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 266)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 327. -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 काल- वन-स्केल्स. 16-48 सी, प्रशांत नगर , लिटिल फ्लावर जूनियर कालेज के पीछे , उप्पल , हैदराबाद-500039 आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सी ई- बैंच " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " काल - वन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/2005/940 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 75 कि. ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 250 ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. 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 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 अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से अधिक और 300 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 266) /2005]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 787 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 327. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of " CE -Bench " series of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " Cal - One " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufacturedby M/s . Cal - One Scales , 16-48C, Prasant Nagar, Behind Little Flower Junior College , Uppal , Hyderabad- 500039 , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/05/940 ;

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 75 kg . and minimum capacity of 250g . 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 results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and up to 300 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5,000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg. 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 (266)/20051

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrolog 104 GI/06-9 788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 10 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 328.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स मारुति इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स कम्पनी , 59/201 , आन्नद नगर, श्यामल क्रॉस रोड, सैटेलाइट, अहमदाबाद-51 , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एम आर डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( वेहब्रिज प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मारुति " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 2005/1063 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) एक भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40000 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 5 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 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 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 कि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से अधिक और 100 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 के समतुल्य हैं।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 219 )/2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 789 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 10th January, 2006

S.O. 328. 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 medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and brand "MARUTI " and series " MRW " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Maruti Instruments Company, 59/201 , Anand Nagar, Nr . Shyamal Cross Road , Satellite , Ahmedabad-51 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/ 1063 ;

The said model ( see the figure given below) is a load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of40000 kg and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval (c) is 5 kg . 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 sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 100 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 kg or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10 % , 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 have been manufactured .

[F. No. WM - 21 (219 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8,1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

भारतीय मानकब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 329. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

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

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 630 : 1982

अक्तूबर, 2005 1. आई एस 630 : 2005 साइकिल की स्पोकें ( प्लेन ) और स्पोक निपलें-विशिष्ट ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 1062 : 1963

सितम्बर, 2005 2. आई एस 1062: 2005/आई एस ओ 11565 : 1998 सड़क वाहन- स्पार्क प्लग- परीक्षण पद्धति और अपेक्षाएं ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आई एस 8037: 1976

अक्तूबर, 2005 3. आई एस 8037 2005 परिवहन ट्रैक्टर - ट्रेलरों की सामान्य अपेक्षाएं ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

दिसम्बर, 2005 4. आई एस 15633 2005 स्वचल वाहन- सवारी कारों के लिए वातिल टायर- आड़ी और रेडियल प्लाई- विशिष्टि

आई एस 10914 ( भाग 1 ) : 1991 , आई एस 10914 ( भाग 3 ) : 1991 , आई एस 10914 (भाग 5 ) : 1995 और आई एस 12441 (भाग 1 ) : 1995

दिसम्बर, 2005 5. आई एस 15636 2005 स्वचल वाहन- व्यावसायिक वाहनों के लिए वातिल टायर- आड़ी और रेडियल प्लाई-विशिष्टि

आई एस 10914 ( भाग 1 ) : 1991 , आई एस 10914 ( भाग 2 ) : 1992 और आई एस 10914 ( भाग 5 ) : 1995

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

[संदर्भ: टीईडी/जी-16 ]

पी. सी. जोशी, निदेशक एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी )

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 329. In pursuance of clausc (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established SI. No .. Year and title of the Indian No. Standards Established

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS630 : 1982

Oct. , 2005 1. IS 630 : 2005 Bicycle spoke (plain) and nipples for spokes Specification (Third Revision) .

IS 1062: 1963

Sep. ,2005 2. IS 1062 : 2005/ ISO 11565 : 1998 Road vehicles- Spark plugs Test methods and requirements ( Second Revision) .

IS8037 : 1976

Oct., 2005 3. IS 8037: 2005 General requirements for transport tractor-Trailers ( First Revision) 791 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

Dec.2005

IS 10914 (Part 1) : 1991 , IS 10914

(Part3) : 1991 , IS 10914 ( Part 5) : 1995 and IS 12441 (Part 1 ) : 1995

4. IS 15633 : 2005 Automotive vehicles- Pneumatic tyres for passenger car vehicles-Diagonal and radial ply- Specification .

Dec. , 2005

IS 10914 (Part 1): 1991 , IS 10914

(Part 2) : 1992 and IS 10914

(Part5) : 1995

5. IS 15636 : 2005 Automotive vehicles- Pneumatic tyres for commercial vehicles-Diagonal and radial ply- Specification

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

[Ref. TED/G- 16]

P. C. JOSHI , Director and Head ( TED )

नई दिल्ली , 16 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 330.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

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

(3)

(2)

(4) (1)

आई एस 9930: 1981

30सितम्बर, 2005 1. आई एस 9930: 2005 काँच भट्टी के प्रयोजनों के लिए जिरकॉन की अग्निसह सामग्रियाँ विशिष्टि ( पहला

पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 15 /टी-80 ]

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

New Delhi, the 16th January, 2006

S.O. 330.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

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

S1. No.

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

(4) (1)

(2)

(3)

IS 9930 : 1981

30 September, 2005 1. IS 9930 : 2005 Zircon refractories for glass furnace applications: Specification (First Revision)

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

[Ref: MTD 15 /T - 80 ]

S. K. GUPTA, Scientist ' F ' and Head (MTD) 792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 331.- 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 भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 1828 ( Pt 1 ) : 1991

30नवम्बर, 2005 1. आई एस 1828 (Pt1): 2005/आई एस ओ 67500-1 : 1999 धातुओं के लिए स्थैतिक एकाक्षीय परीक्षण यंत्रों का सत्यापन भाग 1 तनन संपीडन परीक्षण यंत्र- बल मापक प्रणाली का सत्यापन एवं अंशशोधन ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 3/टी -77 ]

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

New Delhi , the 17th January, 2006

S.O. 331. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Established SL. No.

No. and Year and title of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Indian Standards , if any, superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(3)

(1)

1.

IS 1828 (Pt 1 ) : 1991

30thNovember , 2005 IS 1828 (Pt 1 ) : 2005/ISO 67500-1 : 1999 Metallic Materials Verification of static uniaxial testing machines Part 1 Tension/ Compression testing machines-Verifi- cation and calibration of the force- measuring system ( Third Revision)

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

[ Ref: MTD 3/T - 77 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 332.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :

अनुसूची

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आई एस 11281 : 1985

30 नवम्बर, 2005 1. आई एस 11281 : 2005-लौह एवं इस्पात के उत्पादन में प्रयुक्त मैंगनीस अयस्क ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 13/टी-23 ]

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

793

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 16th January, 2006

S.O. 332. 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.

No. and Year and title of the Indian Standards Established

(2)

(1)

1. IS 11281 : 2005 Manganese Ore for Use in Iron and Steel Making ( First Revision)

SCHEDULE

Date of Established

No. and year of Indian Standards , if any, superseded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(4) IS 11281 : 1985

30th November, 2005 Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD 13 /T -23 ] S. K. GUPTA , Scientist ' F ' and Head (MTD)

(फरीदाबाद शाखा कार्यालय )

फरीदाबाद, 16 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 333.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 , के विनियम 5 के उप विनियम ( 6 ) अनुसरण में भरतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि वे लाइसेंस जिनके विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं उनके आगे दर्शाए गई तिथि से समाप्त हो गए हैं:

क्रम

सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम एवं पता

9443483

1.

मै. मैना इलैक्ट्रानिक्स लि. , प्लॉट नं. 143-144, सैक्टर 5 , आई एम टी, मनेसर, गुड़गाँव

2.

9154577

मै. रॉयल रबड़स, एस एस आई प्लॉट नं. 18A, मार्किट नं. 5 , मित्तल शोपिंग कम्पलैक्स के पीछे ,

एन आई टी, फरीदाबाद 2394663

3.

4.

9025263

मै. अनुप्रोडक्ट्सलि. , तिगाँव रोड, ओल्ड फरीदाबाद मै. नार्दन मिनरल्स लि. ,

दौलताबाद रोड, गुड़गाँव 5.

1883673

मै. हिन्दुस्तान वायर्स लि. , प्लॉट नं. 267, सैक्टर - 24, फरीदाबाद

6.

9308881

मै. लीडर पम्प एण्ड मोर्ट्स, डी-1 / 117, संजय कालोनी, सैक्टर- 23 , फरीदाबाद 9217373

7.

8.

9217474

मै. भारत इनसैक्टीसाइड्स लि. , सी 3 एण्ड 4, एम आई ई, बहादुरगढ़, जिला झझर -वही-

अनुसूची

समाप्त होने की कीतिथि

लाइसेंसके अंतगर्त वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सुबद्ध भारतीय मानक सहित

15-09-2005

19-10-2005 आई एस 6616 : 1982 बलास्टफोर एच पी एम वी लैम्पस

17-10-2005 आई एस 10908 : 1991 फलैक्सीबल रबड़ ट्यूबिंग फोर यूज़विद एल पी जी

03-10-2005 आई एस 11997 : 1987

फैनवलारेट

10-10-2005 आई एस 8259 : 1976 ऑक्सीडेमेटन मिथाइल

26-10-2005 आई एस 9798 : 1995

लो प्रेशर रैगूलेटर फोर यूज विद एल पीजी

24-10-2005 रीजैनेरेटिव पम्पस आई एस 8472: 1998

28-10-2005 आई एस 12916 : 1990 एसीफेट

28-10-2005 आई एस 5279 : 1969

डाइकोफाल

[संदर्भ: सीएमडी-1/13 :13

एस. एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर 794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(Faridabad Branch Office)

Faridabad, the 16th January, 2006

S.O. 333. In pursuance of sub - regulation (6) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations . 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule have expired with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

SI . No.

Licence No.

Name and address of the Licensec

1. 9443483

M/sMyna Electronics Ltd .. Plot No. 143-144 . Sector-5, IMT, Manesar , Gurgaon

2. 9154577

M/ sRoyal Rubbers .

SSI Plot No. 184 . Market No. 5. Behind Mittal Shopping Complex, NIT. Faridabad

3. 2394663

Date of expiry

Article/ process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence

15-09-2005 19-10-2005

IS6616: 1982 Ballasts for HPMV Lamps

17-10-2005

IS 10908 : 1991 Flexible rubber tubing for use with LPG

03-10-2005

IS 11997 : 1987

Fenvalarate

M/s Anu Products Ltd .. TigaonRoad. OldFaridabad

9025263

4.

M/sNorthern Minerals Ltd. , Daultabad Road. Gurgaon

1883673

5.

M/ sHindustan Wires Ltd. , Plot No. 267. Sector - 24 . Faridabad

6. 9308881

M/s Leader Pumps & Motors . D-1/ 117, Sanjay Colony. Scc -23 . Faridabad

7. 9217373

IS 8259 : 1976

10-10-2005

IS 9798 : 1995

26-10-2005

Low Pressure Regulator for use with LPG

24-10-2005

IS 8472: 1998 Regenerated pumps

28-10-2005

IS 12916: 1990

Accphate

M/ s Bharat Insacticides Ltd. , C-3 & 4. MIE . Bahadurgarh 8. 9217474

-do-

28-10-2005

IS5279 : 1969

Dichofal

[Ref: CMD-1/ 13 : 13 ] S. M. BHATIA ,Dy. Director General (Marks)

नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 334. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 9 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए भारतीय मानकों सम्बन्धी मानक मुहर के डिजाइन निर्धारित कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

उत्पाद/उत्पाद की श्रेणी मानक मुहर का डिजाइन

क्रम संख्या

1

2

3

1

चाँदी और चाँदी मिश्रधातु आभूषण और शिल्पकारी शुद्धता और मुहराँकन SILVER

भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

लागूहोने की तिथि 4

5

18-10-2005 आई एस 2112: 2003

[संदर्भ: सीएमडी-1/13: 9 ] एस.एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 795 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 334. In pursuance of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 9 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rule 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notified the Standard Marks for the Indian Standards given in the schedule :

SCHEDULE

Effective Date Sl . No.

No. & year of the Indian Standards

Design of the Standard Mark

Product/Class of product

4

2

3

5

1

18-10-2005

1

IS 2112 : 2003

Silverand Silver Alloys . Jewellery and Artefacts Fineness and Marking

[Ref: CMD - 1/13 :9 ]

S. M. BHATIA, Dy. Director General (Marks) SILVER

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 335.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

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

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

31 दिसम्बर, 2005

आई एस 11626 : 1986

1. आई एस 11626 2005- पराश्रव्य परीक्षण की अनुशंसित रीति और सादे कार्बन एवं निम्न मिश्रधातु गढाई इस्पात ब्लूम की स्वीकार्यता (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 21 /टी-49 ]

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

New Delhi , the 19th January, 2006

S.O. 335. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl . No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Indian Standards , if any, superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

IS 11626: 1986

31December, 2005 1. IS 11626 : 2005-Recommended practice for ultrasonic testing and acceptance for plain carbon and low alloy forging quality steel blooms (First Revision)

104GI/06-10 796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. Ref: MTD 21 /T -49 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 336.- 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 जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है: -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम संख्या

स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30नवम्बर , 2005 4. 13730 ( भाग 44 ) : 2005/आई ई सी 60317- 44( 1997 ) विशेष प्रकार के कुंडलन तारों की विशिष्टि- भाग 44 एरोमैटिक पॉलीमाइड टेप लिपटे आयाताकार ताँबे के तार, तापमान सूचक 240

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

[सं.: ईटी33/टी-93 ]

पी. के. मुखर्जी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

New Dellu , the 19th January, 2006

S.O. 336. 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 the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. and year of the Indian Standards

SI . No.

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30th November, 2005 1. IS 13730 ( Part 44) : 2005/IEC 60317-44 (1977 ) Specification for particular types of winding wires Part 44 Aromatic polyimide tape wrapped rectangular copper wire, temperature index 240

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

[No. ET- 33/ T -93 ]

P. K. MUKHERJEE Scientist ' F ' and Head (Electrotechnical ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

797

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 337.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो के भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन, 1988 के उप- विनियमन ( 5 ) के आधार पर निम्नलिखित अनुसूची में दिए विवरण के लाइसेन्स को स्वीकृति एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है ।

अनुसूची

लागूतिथि पार्टी का नाम व पता ( कारखाना ) क्रम संख्या

लाइसेन्स संख्या

2

1

3

4

1. 6474681 22-09-04 भारत एग्रो पाइप्स, नं/249 , पालक्काड मेइन रोड, कुनियमुत्तूर, कोयम्बत्तूर-641008.

2. 6474378 22-09-04 जेनिथ इन्डस्ट्रियल्स, नं: 1316, अविनासी रोड, पीलमेड, कोयम्बत्तूर -641004.

3. 6475683 28-09-04 सुसुको एन्टरप्राइसेस, नं: 1507, अविनाशी रोड, नेशनल मोइल स्कुल के सामने पी. एफ. क्वार्टर रोड़, कोयम्बत्तूर-641004.

4. 6475582 28-9-2004 चेरन इंडस्ट्रीज़, 439/3- ए, 1 - बी, मुलै तोट्टम, अत्तिपालयम रोड, गणमति, कोयम्बत्तूर-641006.

5. 6477081 12-10-2004 श्री. मुरगन ट्रेडिंग कंपनी, नं-78, न्यूकिरानाधम रोड, सरवर्णमपट्टी, कोयम्बत्तूर -641035.

6. 6477182 12-10-2004 श्री. मुरगन ट्रेडिंग कंपनी, नं-78, न्यु किरानाथम रोड, सरवर्णमपट्टी, कोयम्बत्तूर-641035. 13-10-2004

7. 6477384

सामसन इंडस्ट्रीज़, 143-डी, तिरुच्ची रोड, भगत सिंह नगर, सूलूर, कोयम्बत्तूर -641402. 13-10-2004

8. 6477283

भारत एग्रो पाइप्स, 249, पालक्काड मेइन रोड, कुनियमुत्तूर, कोयम्बत्तूर-641008 .

26-10-2004

9. 6478588

सबरी डायमंडस एंड ज्वेल्स, नं. -6, सबरी स्ट्रीट, बिन्नी कंपाउंड, कुमरन रोड़, तिरुप्पूर.

28-10-2004

10. 6478891

वी-टेक इन्जीनियरिंग , 23, आंडाल नगर, मासक्कलीपालयम रोड़ , उप्पिलीपालयम पी. ओ. कोयम्बत्तूर -641015.

मानक की उपाधि

भा मासं : भाग/खंड वर्ष 5

6

भामा: 12786 : 1989 सिंचाई उपस्कर सिंचाई लेटरल्स के लिए पेलोएथिलोन पाइय

भामा : 14220 : 1994 गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पंपसेट

भामा : 9079 : 2002 कृषिऔर जलपूर्ति के लिए साफ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनो सेट पम्प.

भामा: 14200 : 1994 गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्प सेट,

निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा: 8034 : 2002 निमज्ञ्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा : 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा: 8034 : 2002 मोटर्स.

भामा: 4984 : 1995 पानीकी आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्व वाले पॉलिएथिलीन पाइप.

भामा: 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुद्रांकन

भामा: 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पंप सेट केमोटर्स 798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

4

2

3

1

11. 6478992 28-10-2004 वी-टेक इन्जीनियरिंग , 23, आंडाल नगर, मासक्कलीपालयम रोड़, उच्चिलोपालयम , पो.ओ. कोयम्बत्तूर -641015. 8-11-2004

12. 6479792

जे. के. इन्डस्ट्रीज़ , 22 - बी, नव इंडिया रोड, पीलमेड, कोयम्बत्तूर -641004. 11-11-2004

13. 6480070

रम्या इंन्डीस्ट्रयल्स, एस. एफ. नं./272 , बी-2 , चिन्मयानगर, तोन्डामुत्तूर, रोड़ , वडवल्ली, कोयम्बत्तूर -641041 .

14. 6479994 11-11-2004 प्रवीण इन्जीनियरिंग , नं. 2234 - ए, तिरच्ची रोड़ , सिंगनल्लुर, कोयम्बत्तूर -641005.

15. 6480474 24-11-2004 के. एम. पी. इंन्डस्ट्रीज़ , एस. एफ नं/ 166/3 -ए, पी. एन. पालयमरोड, गाँधीनगर, गणपती, कोयम्बत्तूर -641006. 29-11-2004

16. 6481173

एल्लै लक्ष्मी मोनोमेट प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं/32 , सिडको इन्डस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , कुरिच्ची, कोयम्बत्तूर -641021. 1-12-2004

17. 6481779

कोयम्बत्तूर इन्जीनियरिंग कार्पोरेशन, यूनिट-1 , 25 , पेरुमाल कोइल तोट्टम , पी. एन. पालयम रोड़ गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर -641006. 1-12-2004

18. 6481880

कोयम्बत्तूर इन्जीनियरिंग कार्पोरेशन, यूनिट-1 , 25 , पेरामाल कोइल तोट्टम , पी. एन. पालयम रोड़ गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर-641006 .

19. 6481981 1-12-2004 कुमरन जेम्स और ज्वेल्स, नं/331 , राजास्ट्रीट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641001. 3-12-2004

20. 6482579

अन्बु तंग मालिगै , नं/30 , सतिमेइन रोड़, नीयर अन्बु भवन , गोबिचेट्टिपालयम -638 476 8-12-2004

21. 6483985

जगहस इन्जीनियरिंग , एक्विपमेंट्स युनिट- III , नं/ 167, अम्मनकुलम रोड, पी. एन. पालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 037

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

6

निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा: 8034 : 2002

भामा: 8472 : 1998 साफ ठण्डे पानी के लिए पुनरुत्पादक अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प

भामा : 8472 : 1998 साफ ठण्डे पानी के लिए पुनरुत्पादक अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प

भामा : 13947 : भाग -4 ,

अनुभाग: 1 : 1993 .

अल्प वोल्टता स्विच गियर और नियन्त्रण गियर भाग -4, संपर्क मुक्तियाँ और मोटर स्टार्टर अनुभाग : 1 विद्वयुन्तयान्त्रिक संपर्क युक्तियां और मोटर स्टार्टर

भामा: 8472 : 1998 साफ ठण्डे पानी के लिए पुनरुत्पादक अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प

भा मा : 6595

भाग 1 : 2002

साफ तण्डे पानी के लिए क्षैतिज अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प भाग । कृषि और ग्रामीण्ण आपूर्ति प्रयोजन के लिए

भामा: 8034 : 2002 निमज्जनीय पंप सेट के मोटोर

निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा: 9283 : 1995 के मोटोर

भामा: 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण एव स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन ।

भामा: 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन ।

भामा : 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पंप सेट केमोटर 799

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1

3

4

2

22. 6484078 8-12-2004 जगहस इन्जीनियरिंग , एक्विपमेंट्स यूनिट- III , नं/167, अम्मनकुलम रोड, पी. एन. पालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर -641037 23. 6484179 8-12-2004 अरिदास एंड को नं./48 , श्रीनगर, पोलमेडु, कोयम्बतूर-641 004.

24. 6485484 13-12-2004 गंगोत्री पम्पस , 21- बी, भगत सिंह स्ट्रीट, वरदराजपुरम मेड्डु, उप्पिलिपालयम पी.ओ. कोयम्बत्तूर -641 015.

25. 6485888 14-12-2004 गौमती मेटल इन्डस्ट्रीज , एस एफ -71 , कु‌ट्टै तोट्टम, आरभुगागाउंडनूर, पेरूर, चेट्टिपालयम , कोयम्बत्तूर -641 407.

26. 6486385 15-12-2004 एम.वी. एक्सपोर्ट्स, नं./36-बी, फस्ट स्ट्रीट, रामनगर, तिरूप्पूर -641 602.

27. 6488086 23-12-2004 चैलंजर पंप्स इन्डिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं./79 , अत्तिपालयम रोड, चिन्नवेडम पट्टी, गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर -641006.

28. 6488187 23-12-2004 चैलंजर पंप्स इन्डिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं. /79 , अत्तिपालयम रोड, चिन्नवेडम पट्टी, गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 006 .

29. 6490174 5-1-2005 गुप्ताजेमज्वेलर्स, नं. /56 , बाजार स्ट्रीट, गोबीचेट्टिपालयम , ईरोड-638 452.

30. 6490073 18-1-2005 दामूचेट्टियार नगै मालिगई, नं. /70, कचेरी स्ट्रीट, गोबीचेट्रिट्टपालयम, ईरोड-638 452.

31. 6490679 24-1-2005 सराबेश वाटर टेक्नालाजीस कंपनी, नं./73/2, चेक्कूतोट्टम, कामराजर रोड, नं. /4 , वीरपांडी, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 019.

5

6

निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा: 8034 : 2002

भा. मा: 8472 : 1998 साफ़ ठंडे पानी के लिए पुनरुत्पादक अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प

भामा: 8472 : 1998 साफ़ ठंडेपानी के लिए पुनरुत्पादक अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प

भा मा: 398 ( भाग-4) 1994.

शिरोपरी प्रेषण कार्योंके लिए ऐल्युमिनियमके चालक भाग-4, ऐल्युमिनियम मिश्र- धातु लड़दार चालक (ऐल्युमिनियम- मैगनिशियम- सिलिकॉन प्रकार)

भामा: 4964 : 2003 वस्त्रादि-सादी ( सिंगल जर्सी) बुनी ( निटेड) सूती बनियान

निमज्जनीय पंप सेट

भामा: 8034 : 2002

भामा: 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पंप सेट के मोटर

भामा: 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएँ आभूषण/ शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन

भामा: 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएँ आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन

भामा: 14543 : 2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय जल 800

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

1

3

4

5

2

6

पैकेजबन्द पेय जल

भामा: 14543 : 2004 32. 6490780 24-01-2005 साई अक्वाफार्मस, वेलायुथम पिल्लै स्ट्रीट, सुंडक्कासुत्तुर, कोयम्बत्तूर -691010

भामा: 1417 : 1999 33. 6490376 24-01-2005

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएँ आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन

श्री रघुराम ज्वेल्लर्स नं. 22, मोदचूर रोड, नागयया थियेटर के सामने गोबीचेट्टिपालयम, ईरोड-638452

34. 6490477 24-01-2005

भा मा.: 1417 : 1999

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएँ आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवंमोहरांकन

कल्याणज्वेल्लर्स, पांचवा क्रॉस , 100 फीट रोड, गांधीपुरम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 012

भामा : 4985 : 2000 35. 6492784 31-01-2005

पेय जल आपूर्ति के लिए यूपीवीसी पाइप्स

फाइनटेक पाइप प्रोडेक्ट्रेस, नं. 1/294, ( 9,10) , एस एफ नं . /96/ 2बी व 4 , पुलियमपट्टी, मेइन रोड, गोबी, ईरोड-638 458.

36. 6494081 11-02-2005

भामा : 8034 : 2002

निमज्जनीय पम्प सेट्स

मीरा पम्प्स, नं. 1 , शिवा नगर- I , उप्पिलीपालयम पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 015

भामा: 9283 : 1995 37. 6494182 11-02-2005

निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट्स के मोटर

मीरा पम्पस, नं. 1 , शिवा नगर- II , उप्पिलीपालयम पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर-641015

38. 6494485 14-02-2005

भामा: 14220 : 1994

गहरे कुंओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्प सेट्स

महेन्द्रा सबमेसिबिल पंप्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं. 428/2 , कालपट्टी रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 035

भामा: 14220 : 1994 39. 6494384 14-02-2005

गहरे कुंओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट्स

हरि इन्डस्ट्रीज़, एस.एफ. नं. 135 - बी/ 1 , चिन्नतोट्टम, चिन्नवेडम पट्टी, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 006.

भामा: 14220 : 1994 40. 6495083 16-02-2005

गहरे कुंओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट्स

विक्रम पम्पस, एस.एफ.नं. 483/2-सी, 4- ए, एल्लै तोट्टम, पीलमेडु, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 004

41. 6495386 18-02-2005

भामा: 14220 : 1994

गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्प सेट्स

अक्वाटेक इंजीनियर्स नं. 556/1 , अविनाशी रोड, पीलमेडुपोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 004

भामा: 3854 : 1997 42. 6496186 23-02-2005

घरेलू एवं समान कार्यों के लिएस्विच

सेल्ज़र इल्क्ट्रॉनिक्स लिमिटेड, सामिचेट्टीपालयम, जोतिपुरम, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 047.

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

3

1

2

4

43. 6496489 24-02-2005 केविन पाइप्स, नया : नं. 30, पुराना नं. 5, एस एफ नं. 333/6- बी, गोबी- धारापुरम मेइन रोड, गेटीचेवियूर, नम्बियूर ब्लाक, ईरोड-638 110.

44. 6497491 3-3-2005 माइक्रो एक्वीपमेंट्स, नं. 15, दसवाँ स्ट्रीट, जोति नगर, उप्पिलीपालयम, कोयम्बतूर -641 015.

45. 6497693 3-3-2005 माइक्रो एक्वीपमेंट्स, नं. 15, दसवां स्ट्रीट, जोति नगर, उप्पिलीपालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 015.

46. 6497592 3-3-2005 अन्नामर अक्वा ए प्रोडेक्टस, नं. 93/1 , कावेरी रोड, वीरप्पन छत्रम, ईरोड-638 004.

47. 6498089 7-3-2005 अक्वासब इन्जीनियरिंग, तुडियलूर पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 034.

48. 6504462 8-4-2005 एस. एस. डी. इन्ड्रस्ट्रीज़, नं. 112- बी, तण्णीर पन्दल , सातवांक्रास, पीलमेडु, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 004. 18-4-2005

49. 6505767

हारसन पम्पस, एस. एफ. नं. 771/1- बी, नेहरू नगर , सिविल एरोड्रोम पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 014.

50. 6505868 18-4-2005 हारसन पम्पस, एस. एफ. नं. 771/1-बी, कालपट्टी रोड, नेहरू नगर, सिविल एरोड्रोम पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641014.

51. 6506365 25-4-2005 प्रोम्प्ट सबमर्सिबल सिस्टम्स, एस.एफ. नं. 359, एल्जीइन्डस्ट्रीयल कांम्पलेक्स, ट्रिची रोड, सिंगानल्लूर, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 005.

52. 6506668 26-4-2005 श्री कोटा डायमंड एण्डज्वेलरी, डोर नं . 380 , क्रास कट रोड, राम नगर, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 009.

53. 6507367 2-5-2005 सन प्लासटिक्स, नं. 6/11 , डी-1 , मेइन रोड, पल्लगाउंडन पालयम, पेरून्दुरै तालुक, ईरोड-638 056.

801 5

6

भामा: 4984 : 1995 जल आपूर्ति के लिए उच्च घनत्व वाले पालियेथिलीन पाइप्स

भामा: 8034 : 2002 निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट्स

भामा: 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट के मोटर

भामा: 14543 : 2004 पैकेजबन्द पेय जल

भामा: 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पंपसेट केलिए मोटर

भामा: 8472 : 1998 साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए पुनरूत्पादक अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प

भामा: 8034 : 2002 निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट्स

भामा: 9283 : 1995 निमज्ञ्जनीय पम्पसेट्स

भामा: 14220 : 1994 गहरे कुंओंके लिए निमज्जीय पम्पसेट

भामा: 1417 : 1999 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवंमोहरांकन

भामा: 4985 : 2000 पेयजल आपूर्ति के लिए यूपीविसीपाइप्स 802

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8, 1927

6

4

5

1

3

2

भामा: 1417 : 1999 16-5-2005

54. 6508268

डी.ए.आर. पेरडाइस, नं. 599, राजा स्ट्रीट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 001.

स्वर्ण एवंस्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन

पैकेजबन्द पेयजल

भामा: 14543 : 2004 24-05-2005

55. 6508773

कपिल अक्वा प्रोसेसर, नं. 325 , पटेल रोड, राम नगर, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 009.

भामा: 14543 : 2004

पैकेजबन्द पेयजल

27-05-2005

56. 6509068

पूर्णम बोवरेजस, प्लाट नं . 31-32, सिपकोट इन्डस्ट्रीयल एस्टेट, पेरून्दुरै ईरोड़-638 052.

भामा: 1417 : 1999 30-05-2005

57. 6509169

स्वर्ण एवं स्त्रर्ण मिश्रधातुएं आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवंमोहरांकन

चित्तिरै तिरूणाल ज्वेलरी , नं. 1214, 1215, बिग बाज़ार स्ट्रीट, टाउन हॉल, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 001 .

भामा: 2830 : 1992 31-05-2005

58. 6509270

सामान्य संरचना इस्पात में पुनर्वेल्लन के लिए कार्बन ढलवां इस्पात बिलेट इंगोट, बिलेट, ब्लूम और स्लैब

श्री वराहियम्मन स्टील प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं. 350 - ए, सुब्रमणियमपालयम रोड, जी. एन. मिल्स पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 107

भामा : 9079 : 2002 13-06-2005

59. 6510659

कृषिऔर जल आपूर्ति के लिए साफ ठंडे पानी के लिए बिजली के मोनोसैट पम्प्स

एस. के. बी. इन्डस्ट्रीज़, नं. 1198, दुरैस्वामि नायडु लेआउट, आवारमपालयम रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर - 641 004

भा. मा: 996 : 1979 60. 6511560 17-06-2005

सिंगल पेस छोटी एसो और यूनिवर्सल बिजली कीमोटर

कार्तिक एजन्सीस नं. 1178, अविनाशी रोड, पी.एन. पालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर -641037

भामा: 8034 : 2002

निमज्जनीय पंपसेट,

61. 6512158 22-06-2005 अक्वासब इन्जीनियरिंग यूनिट IV नेहरू कालोनी , जे.एन. पालयम, के. क्डमदुरै पोस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर -641 017

भामा: 14543 : 1998

पैकेजबन्द पेयजल

62. 6512259 25-06-2005 श्री. कृष्ण अक्वा मिनरल, नं. 606/2- ए, मधुवरायपूरम, कारण्या पोस्ट, साडिवयिल, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 114.

भा मा : 14543 : 2004

पैकेजबन्द पेयजल

63. 6513766 30-06-2005 अम्मन फूड प्रोडक्टस , नं. 3-187/5 - ए, डा. राधाकृष्ण नगर, पिच्चमपालयम पुदूर, तिरूप्पूर-641 603.

भामा: 4964: 2003 4-07-2005

64. 6514162

वस्त्रादि-सादी (सिंगल जर्सी) बुनी (निटेड) , सूती बनियान

ब्लूबुल होसियरीस , नं. 40-41 , तटटान तोट्टम, कामराज रोड, तिरुप्पूर-641 604.

803 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5

6

2

4

1

3

भामा: 14220 :1994 05-07-2005

65. 6514465

गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट

अग्रो पम्पइन्डस्ट्रीज़ , नं. 472 , मणियकरमपालयम रोड, नल्लामपालयम , कोयम्बत्तूर-641006.

भामा: 14220 : 1994 66. 6515972 12-07-2005

गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पंपसेट्स

अल्फ़ा इन्जीनियरिंग इन्डस्ट्री, नं. 2 - ए, छटा क्रास , वी, के, रोड, तण्णीर पन्दल , पीलमेडू , कोयम्बत्तूर-641 004.

भामा: 14220 : 1994 67. 6516065 13-03-2005

गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पंपसेट्स

बेस्ट इन्जीनियर्स पम्पस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं. 59 - बी, तडागम रोड, वेलांडिपालयम रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 025.

भामा: 9079:2002 68. 6516671 20-07-2005

कृषिऔर जलपूर्ति के लिए साफ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प

एस. एफ. नं.489/2 , निरू नगर , कोस्मिक इन्डस्ट्री, तीसरी स्ट्रीट, सेल्वपुरम बाई पास रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 026.

भामा: 14220 : 1994 25-07-2005

69. 6517067

गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट्स

कोयम्बत्तूर इंन्जीनियरिंग निगम, यूनिट-1 , 25 , पेरूमाल कोइल तोटटम, पी.एन. पालयम रोड, गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 006.

भामा: 9283 : 1995 70. 6518170 04-08-2005

निमज्जनीय पंपसेट के मोटर

अमूल्स स्क्रीन्स एंड पम्पस नं. 6/9 , कुन्निनायकर तोट्टम , अत्तिपालयम रोड, चिन्नवेढम पट्टी, गणपति, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 006 .

71. 6519172 12-08-2005

भामा : 9079 : 2002

कृषिऔर जलपूर्ति के लिए साफ़ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प

श्री. लक्ष्मी इन्डस्ट्रीज , एस. एफ. नं. 24, वे 25, डोर नं . 54-1 , अत्तिपालयम रोड, चिननवेढम पट्टी पोस्ट, गणपति , कोयम्बत्तूर-641 006.

भामा : 3062: 1995 72. 6519475 16-08-2005

फसल सरक्षण उपस्कर- शकर फहारा

अग्रो इन्जीनियर्स एंड ट्रेडर्स, नं. 162, वेंग्कटसामि रोड, पूर्व, आर. एस. पुरम , कोयम्बत्तूर-641 002.

भामा: 1417 : 1999 73. 6519980 17-08-2005 पी. पी. पी. ज्वेलरी , नं. 17, पोन्न स्ट्रीट, ईरोड-638 001.

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, आभूषण/ शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मोहरांकन

भामा: 4985 : 2000 74. 6520864 23-08-2005

पेयजल आपूर्तिके लिएयूपीवीसी पाइप्स

जे . के. पाइप्स, डोर नं. 30 , जी.डी. मेइन रोड, गेटीचेवियूर, गोबी, ईरोड़-638 110

भामा : 9079: 2002 75. 6523163 9-9-2005

कृषि और जल पूर्ति के लिए साफ़ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प

ब्रक्स इन्जीनियरिंग इन्डस्ट्रीज़ नं. 114- बी, वेलानकुरिच्ची रोड, तणीर पन्दल, पीलमेडु, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 004.

104GI/06-11 804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

4

1

3

2

12-09-2005

76. 6523264

एशिया इन्जीनियरिंग , एस. एफ. नं. 328 , शार्प नगर वेस्ट, कालपट्टी रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 035.

77. 6526068 20-09-2005 आल्फा पम्प टेकनॉलाजी, एस. एफ. नं. 259, वी. ओ. सी नगर, वेलान्डीपालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 025.

78. 6527070 23-09-2005 येस्टीम इन्डस्ट्रीज़, नं. 210-2 , नेताजी नगर, नंन्जुडापुरम रोड, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 036 .

79. 6528072 04-10-2005 कन्सन्स पाइप्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं. 31 , पोदनूर मेइन रोड, वेल्ललूर , कोयम्बत्तूर-641 023 .

80. 6528678 05-10-2005 ए.ए. एजन्सी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं. 17, सावित्री नगर , रामनाथपुरम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 045 .

81. 6528375 05-10-2005 अहूरा वेल्डिंग एल्कट्रोड मेनुफेक्चर्स लिमिटेड, एस.एफ. नं . 139 व 144/3, तिरमलयमपालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 105.

82. 6529276 13-10-2005 बेस्ट इन्जीनियरिंग कम्पनी, नं. 146/65, इलंगो नगर, के. आर. पुरम , कोयम्बत्तूर -641006 , 83. 6531667 31-10-2005 चित्रा एंड को, नं. 64/1 - बी, सातंबूर कलम , चिन्नियम पालयम पोस्ट, ईरोड़-638 104.

84. 6532467 8-11 2005 एम्परर अक्वा फार्मर्स , डोर नं . 3 - ए, 100 फीट, न्यूस्कीमरोड, धनलक्ष्मी नगर, न्यू सिद्दापुदूर, कोयम्बत्तर-641 044 .

85. 6532568 8-11-2005 गणपति एम्पस , नं. 106 , रामानुज नगर, कामराजर रोड, उप्पिलीपालयम, कोयम्वत्तर-641 015 .

86. 6532669 8-11 2005 गणपति पम्प्स, नं. 106 , रामानुज नगर, कामराजर रोड, उष्पिलीपालयम , यवता-641 015 .

[PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii) ] 5

6

भा मा: 12225 : 1997 अपकेन्द्रीय जेट पम्प

भामा : 9283: 1995 निमज्जनीय पंपसेट के मोटोर

भामा: 14220 : 1994 गहरे कुओं के निमज्जनीय पंपसेट

भामा : 9537 : भाग-3 :1983 वेद्युतसंस्थापनोंके तारनाली : भाग : 3

भामा: 14543 : 2004 पैकेजबन्द पेयजल

भामा: 814: 2004 हस्त्यधातु आर्क वेल्डिंगके लिए आवृत्त कार्बन और कार्बन मैंगनीज इस्पात इलैक्ट्रोड

भामा: 9079 : 2002 कृषि और जलपूर्ति के लिए साफ़ और ठंडे पानी के बिजली के मोनोसेट पम्प

पैकेजबनद पेयजल

भा मा: 14543 : 2004

भा मा: 14543 : 2004 पैकेजबन्द पेयजल

भामा : 9283 : 1995 निमज्जनीय पंपसेट्स के मोटोर

भामा: 8034 : 2002 निमज्जनीय पंपसेट 805 | भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

5

1

4

6

3

2

भा माः 14220 :1994 6532770 8-11-2005

87.

गहरे कुओं के लिए निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट

गणपति पम्प्स, नं. /106, रामानुज नगर, कामराजर रोड, उप्पिलीपालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641015.

भामाः 14220 : 1994 9-11-2005

गहरे कुओं के लिए

88. 6532972

निमज्जनीय पम्पसेट

रमेश हाइटेक पम्प्स प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, नं. 1040 , भारतीयार रोड, पी. एन. पालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 037.

भा मा:9079 : 2002 89. 6533368 16-11-2005 एशिया इन्जीनियरिंग, एस. एफ. नं./328 , शार्प नगर वेस्ट, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 035 .

कृषिऔर जलपूर्ति के लिए साफ़, ठंडे पानीके लिए बिजली के मोनोट पम्प

भा मा: 8472: 1998 90. 6534572 25-11-2005

साफ़ ठेडेपानी के लिए पुनरुत्पादक. अपकेन्द्रीय पम्प्स

अम्बाल मोटोर्स व पम्या, एस. एफ. नं. /162/2 , कामधेनु नगर, ग्रास हिल रोड, के. आर. पुरम , आवारमपालयम, कोयम्बत्तूर-641 006 .

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

एस. एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर)

New Delhi , the 19th January, 2006

S.O. 337. In Pursuance of Sub - regulation ( 5 ) of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulation 1988 of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Title of the Standard

IS No.

Operative

Sl. Licence

Name and Address ( Factory)

Part/ Sec . Year No. No.

date

ofthe Party

5

6

4

12

3

IS 12786 : 1989 1. 6474681 22-09-2004

Irrigation Equipment Polyethylene Pipes for Irrigation Laterals

Bharath Agro Pipes 249 , Palakkad Main Road Kuniamuthur Coimbatore-641008

IS 14220 : 1994 2. 6474378 22-09-2004

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Zenith Industrials 1316 -Avinashi Raod, Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641008

28-09-2004

3. 6475683

IS 9079 : 2002

Electric Monoset Pumps for Clear. Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

Suzuki Enterprises 1507 - Avinashi Road. Opp. National Model School , PF Quarters Road Coimbatore-641008

IS 14220 : 1994 4. 6475582 28-09-2004

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Cheran Industries 439/3A, IB . Mulaai Thottam, Athipalayam Road, Ganapathy Coimbatore-641008 806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

1

3

4

2

5. 6477081 12-10-2004 Shri Murugan Trading Company No. 78 , New Kiranatham Road, Saravanampatty, Coimbatore-641035 6. 6477182 12-10-2004 Shri Murugan Trading Company No. 78. New Kiranatham Road , Saravanampatty, Coimbatore-641035 7. 6477384 13-10-2004 Samson Industries 143 -D, Trichy Road Bhagat Sing Nagar, Sulur, Coimbatore-641402 .

8. 6477283 13-10-2004 Bharat Agro Pipes 249 , Palakkad Main Road Kuniamuthur Coimbatore-641008 9. 6478588 26-10-2004 Sabari Diamonds & Jewels No. 6 , Sabari Street , Binny Compound, Kumaran Road, Tirupur.

10. 6478891 28-10-2004 Vei -Tech Engineering 23 Andal Nagar , Masakkali Palayam road , Uppilipalayam PO , Coimbatore-641015 11. 6478992 28-10-2004 Vei - Tech Engineering 23 Andal Nagar , Masakkali Palayam Road, Uppilipalayam PO . Coimbatore-641015 12. 6479792 08-11-2004 JK Industries 22-B , Nava India Road , Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641004 13. 6480070 11-11-2004 Ramya Industrials SF No. 272/B - 2 , Chinmya Nagar, Thondamuthur Road , Vadavalli , Coimbatore-641041 14. 6479994 11-11-2004 Pravin Engineering 2234-A, Trichy Road Singanallur Coimbatore-641005 15. 6480474 24-11-2004 K.M.P. Industries SF No. 166/3A , P.N. Palayam Road, Gandhi Nagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore -641006 16. 6881173 29-11-2004 Ellai Lakshmi Monoset Private Limited, 32, SIDCO Industrial Estate , Kurichi , Coimbatore-641021

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

6

IS 8034 : 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

IS4984 : 1995 HDPE pipes for water supply

IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness and marking

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8034 : 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

IS 8472 : 1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold water

IS 8472 : 1998 Centrifugal regencrative pumps for clear, cold water

Is13947 : Part 4:

Scc 1 : 1993 Low-Voltage Switchgear and Controlgear-Part 4: Contractors and Motor- Starters- Section 1 : Electromechanical Contactors and Motor Starters

IS 8472 : 1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold water

IS 6595 : Part 1 : 2002 Horizontal Centrifugal Pumps for Clear. Cold Water-Part 1 : Agricul- tural and Rural Water Supply Purposes 807 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4

5

1

2

6

3

IS 8034 : 2002

Submersible Pumpsets

17. 6481779 01-12-2004 Coimbatore Engincering Corporation, Unit- 1 , 25 , Perumal Koil Thottam, P.N. Palayam Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006

IS 9283 : 1995 18. 6481880 01-12-2004

Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

Coimbatore Engineering Corporation, Unit - I . 25 , Perumal Koil Thottam, P.N. Palayam Road, Ganapathy, Coinıbatore-641006

IS 1417: 1999 19. 6481981 01-12-2004 Kumaran Gems and Jewells . 331. Raja Street. Coimbatore-641001

Gold and gold alloys . Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness andmarking

IS 1417 : 1999 03-12-2004

20. 6482579

Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artifacts -fineness andmarking

Anbu Thanga Maalikai , 30, Sathy Main Toad, Near Anbu Bhavan. Gobichettipalayam-638476

IS9283 : 1995 21. 6483985 08-12-2004

Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

Jaghas Engg . Equipments, Unit- 111, 167 , Ammankulam Road, P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore-641037

IS 8034: 2002

Submersible Pumpsets

22. 6484078 08-12-2004 Jaghas Engg . Equipments, Unit - III , 167 , Ammankulam Road, P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore-641037

IS8472: 1998 23. 6484179 08-12-2004

Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold water

Aridas And Co. No. 48 , Sri Nagar, Peelamedu. Coimbatore-641004

IS 8472 : 1998 24. 6485484 13-12-2004

Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold water

Gangottrec Pumps , 21-B , Bagat Singh Street , Varatharajapuram Medu , Upplipalayam P.O. , Coimbatore -641015

IS 398 ( Part 4) : 1994 14-12-2004

25. 6485888

Gowmathy Metal Industries , SF 71 , Kuttai Thottam , Arumuga Goundanoor, Perur, Chettipalayam, Coimbatore -64107

Aluminium conductors for overhead transmission purposes: Part 4 Aluminium alloy stranded conductors (aluminium magnesium silicon type)

IS4964: 2003 15-12-2004

26. 6486385

Textiles - Vests , Cotton . plain (singlejersey) knitted

M.V. Exports , 36 -B , Ist Street , Ram Nagar, Tirupur -641602

IS 8034 : 2002

Submersible Pumpsets

27. 6488086 23-12-2004 Chalenger Pumps India Private Limited, No. 79 , Athipalayam Road, Chinnavedampatti , Ganapathy (P.O. ) . Coimbatore -641006

IS 9283 : 1995 23-12-2004

28. 6488187

Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

Chalenger Pumps India Private Limited, No. 79 , Athipalayam Road, Chinnavedampatti , Ganapathy (P.O. ), Coimbatore-641006 808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II SH , 3 ( ii) ]

5

4

2

3

6

1

IS 1417 : 1999 29. 6490174 05-01-2005

Gold and gold alloys . Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness and marking

Gupta Gem Jewellers, 56 , Bazaar Street , Gobichettipalayam. Erode-638452

IS 1417 : 1999 30. 6490073 18-01-2005

Gold and gold alloys . Jewellery/artifacts - fineness andmarking .

Dhamuchettiyar Nagai Maligai , 70. Cutchery Street . Gobichettipalayam. Erode-638452

IS 14543 : 2004 31. 6490679 24-01-2005

Packaged Drinking Water

Sarabesh Water Technologies Co .. 73/2 , Chekku Thottam. Kamarajar Road. No. 4 . Veerapandi . Coimbatore -641019

IS 14543: 2004 24-01-2005

32. 6490780

Packaged Drinking Water

Sai Aqua Farms . Velayutham Pillai Street, Sundakkamuthur, Coimbatore -641010

IS1417: 1900 24-01-2005

33. 6490376

Gold and gold alloys . Jewellery/ artifacts - lineness and marking

Sree Raghurant Jewellers . 22. Mndachur Road . Opp . Nagaiya Theatre. Gobichettipalayam -638452

IS1417: 1900 34. 6498477 24-01-2005

Gold and gold alloys Jewellery/artifacis - fineness and marking

Kalyan Jewellers . 5th Cross , 100Ft . Road. Gandhipuram. Coimbatore -641012

IS 4985: 2000 6492784 31-01-2005

35.

UPVC pipes for potable water supplies

Finetech Pipe Products . 1/294 (9 , 10 ) , SF No. 96/2B&4. Puliampatti Main Road . Polavapalayam , Nambis ur. Gobi , Erode-638458

IS 8034: 2002 36. 6494081 11-02-2005

Submersible Pumpsers

Mira Pumps . 1. Siva Nagar- 11. Uppilipalayam Post . Coimbatore -641015

IS9283: 1995 37. 6494182 11-02-2005

Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

Mira Pumps . 1. Siva Nagar- 11 . Uppilipalayam Post. Coimbatore -641015

IS 14220 : 1994 14-02-2005

38. 6494485

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Mahendra Submersible Pumps Pvt . Ltd.. 428/2. Kalapatti Road. Coimbatore-641035

142201994 39. 6494384 1-4-02-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Hari ludustries . SF- 135 B/ 1 . Chinnathottam, Chinnavedampatti . Coimbatore-641006

IS 14220: 1994 40 6495083 16-02-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Vikram Pumps . SF No. 483 /2 -С . 4 -A . Ellai Thottam, Near Krishnammal College Compound , Pelamedu . Coimbatore -641004

IS 14220: 1994 41. 6495386 18-02-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Aquatec Engineers . 556/1 . Avanashi Road . Peclamedu Post , Coimbatore- 641004 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2

4

1

3

42. 6496186 23-02-2005 Salzer Electronics Limited. Samichettipalayam, Jothipuram, Coimbatore -641047 43. 6496489 24-02-2005 Kavin Pipes , New D. No. 30 , Old D. No. 5 , SF. No. 333/6B ,Gobi Dharapuram Main Road, Getticheviyur, Nambiyur Block, Erode-638110

44. 6497491 03-03-2005 Micro Equipments . # 15. 10th Street , Jothi Nagar, Uppilipalayam Post . Coimbatore-641015 45. 6497693 03-03-2005 Micro Equipments , # 15, 10th Street . Jothi Nagar. Uppilipalayam Post. Coimbatore-641015 46. 6497592 03-03-2005 Annamar Aqua A Products , 93/1 , Cavery Road . Veerappan Chattram. Erode-638004

47. 6498089 07-03-2005 Aquasub Engincering , Thudiayalur Post , Coimbatore-641034 48. 6504462 08-04-2005 S.S.D. Industries. 112-B . Thatineer Pandal, 7th Cross . Peclamedu, Coimbatore-641004 49. 6505767 18-04-2005 Harson Pumps , SF No. 771 / IB . Kalapatti Road, Nehru Nagar, Civil Acrodrome (P.O. ) , Coimbatore -641014 50. 6505868 18-04-2005 Harson Punips . SF No. 771 / 1B , Kalapatti Road, Nehru Nagar, Civil Acrodrome (P.O. ) , Coimbatore -641014 51. 6506365 25-04-2005 Prompt Submersible Systems . SF No. 359. Elgi Industrial Complex , Trichy Road . Singanallur, Coimbatore-641005 52. 6506668 26-04-2005 Sree Kota Diamond & Jewellery, Door No. 380 , Cross Cut Road , RamNagar. Coimbatore -641009 53. 6507367 02-05-2005 Sun Plastics. D. No. 6/11 , D1 , Main Road . Pallagounenpalayam. Perunduria Taluk. Erode-638056

54. 6508268 16-05-2005 D.A.R. Paradise 599, Raja Street . Coimbatore -641001 24-05-2005

55. 6508773

Kapil Aqua Processor . 325, Patel Road, Ram Nagar, Coimbatore-641009

809 5

6

IS 3854 : 1997 Switches for domestic and similar purposes

IS4984 : 1995 HDPE pipes for water supply

IS 8034 : 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water .

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS8472: 1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear , cold water

IS 8034 : 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14220: 1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

IS 1417: 1999 Gold and gold alloys Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness andmarking

IS4985: 2000 UPVC pipes for potable water supplies

IS 1417: 1999 Gold and gold alloys Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness and marking

IS 14543: 2004 Packaged Drinking Water 810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

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

1

2

3

5

6

IS 14543 : 2004 56. 6500068 22-05-2005

Packaged Drinking Water

Poornam Beverages Pvt . Ltd., Plot No. C 31 & 32 , SIPCOT Industrial Growth Centre , Perundurai Erode-638052

IS 1417: 1999 57. 6509169 30-05-2005 Chithirai Thirunaal Jewellery 1214 , 1215 , Big Bazaar Street, Town Hall , Coimbatore-641001

Gold and gold alloys, Jewellery/ artifacts-fineness andmarking

IS 2830 : 1992 58. 6509270 31-05-2005 Sri Varahiamman Steels Pvt . Ltd. , 350A . Subramaniampalayam Road . G. N. Mills Post , Coimbatore-641007

Carbon steel cast billet ingots , billets , blooms and slabs for re - rolling into steel for general structural purposes

IS 9079 : 2002 59. 6510659 13-06-2005 S.K.B. Industries . 119. Duraiswamy Naidu Layout . Avarampalayam Road. Coimbatore-6-41004

ElectricMonoset Pumps for Clear, Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

IS996 : 1979 60. 6511560 17-06-2005

Single - phase small ac and universal electric motors

Karthik Agencies . 1178. Avinashi Road . P.N. Palayam, Coimbatore-641037

IS 8034: 2002 61. 6512158 22-06-2005

Submersible Pumpsets

Aquasnb Engineering . Unit IV. Nehru Colony . J.N. Palayam , K. Vadamadurai Post . Coimbatore-6-41017

IS 14543 : 1998

Packaged Drinking Water

62. 6512259 25-06-2005 Sri Krisluta AquaMineral . 606/ 2A . Mathuvarayapuram , Karunya Post. Sadivayil , Coimbatore-641114

IS 14543 : 2004 63. 6513766 30-06-2005

Packaged Drinking Water

Amman Food Products . 3/ 187-5A , Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar. Pichampalayam Pudur, Tirupur-641603

64. 6514162 04-07-2005

IS4964 : 2003

Textiles Vests . Cotton . plain. ( single jerscy) knitted

Blue Bull Hosicries . 40/41 . Thattan Thottam. Kamaraj Road. Tirupur-641604

IS 14220 : 1994 65. 6514465 05-07-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Agri Pump Industries, 472.Maniyakarampalyam Road. Nallampalayam . Coimbatore - 641006

IS 14220: 1994 (6. 6515972 12-07-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Alfaa Engineering Industry. No. 2A . 6th Cross. V.K. Road, Thaneer Pandal , Peelamedu . Coimbatore - 641004

IS 14220 : 1994 67. 6516065 13-07-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Best Engineers Pumps Pvt . Ltd .. 59 -B . Thadagam Road. Velandipalayam. Coimbatore -641025

IS 9079 : 2002 68. 6516671 20-07-2005 Cosmik Industry. SF 489/2 , Thiru Nagar. 3rd Street , Selvapuram Bye Pass Road . Coimbatore-641026

Electric Monoset Pumps for Clear, Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

IS 14220 : 1994 69. 6517067 25-07-2005

Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

Coimbatore Engineering Corporation . Unit-1 , 25, Perumal Koil Thottam, P.N. Palayam Road, Ganapathy, Coimbatore-641006 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

1

2

3

4

70. 6518170 04-08-2005 Amuls Screens And Pumps , 6/9 , Kunninaicker Thottam, Athipalayam Road , Chinnavedampatti , Ganapathy (PO) , Coimbatore-641006 71. 6519172 12-08-2005 Sree Lakshmi Industries , SF No. 24 and 25 , Door No. 54/1 , Athipalayam Road , Chinnavedampatti (P.O. ) , Ganapathy, Coimbatore -641006 72. 6519475 16-08-2005 Agro Engineers & Traders , 162, Venkatasamy Road East, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore-641002 73. 6519980 17-08-2005 P.P.P. Jewellery , No. 17, Ponn Street , Erode-638001

74. 6520864 23-08-2005 J.K. Pipes , D. No. 30 , G.D. Main Road, Getticheviyur, Gobi (Tk) , Erode-638110

75. 6523163 09-09-2005 Brooks Engineering Industries , 114B , Velankurichi Road , Thanneer Pandhal , Peelamedu, Coimbatore-641004 76. 6523264 12-09-2005 Asia Engineering , SF No. 328 , Sharp Nagar West, Kalapatti Road, Coimbatore-641035 77. 6526068 20-09-2005 Alpha Pump Technologies , SF No. 259 , V.O.C. Nagar , Velandipalayam, Coimbatore-641025 78. 6527070 23-09-2005 Yesteem Industries , 210/2 , Nethaji Nagar, Najundapuram Road , Coimbatore-641036 79. 6528072 04-10-2005 Kunsons Pipes Private Limited , 31 , Podanur Main Road , Vellalore Coimbatore -641111 80. 6528678 05-10-2005 Α.A. Agencies (Cbe) Pvt . Ltd. , 17, Savithri Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore -641045 81. 6528375 05-10-2005 Ahura Welding Electrode Mrfs . Ltd. SF No. 139 & 144/3 , Thirumalayampalayam, Coimbatore-Palghat Main Road , Coimbatore-641105 82. 6529276 13-10-2005 Best Engineering Company, 146/65, Elango Nagar , K. R. Puram, Coimbatore -641006 31-10-2005

83. 6531667

Chitra & Co. , 64/1B , Sathambur Kalam Sathambur Chinnian Palayan (P.O. ) , Modakurichi (Via) , Erode-638104

104 G1/06-12

811 5

6

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS 9079 : 2002 Electric Monoset Pumps for Clear , Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

IS 3062: 1995 Crop Protection Equipment- RockerSprayer

IS 1417 : 1999 Gold and gold alloys , Jewellery/ artifacts - fineness andmarking

IS 4985: 2000 UPVC pipes for potable watersupplies

IS 9079 : 2002 Electric Monoset Pumps forClear, Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

IS 12225 : 1997 Centrifugaljet pump

IS 9283 : 1995 Motors for Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14220 : 1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

IS9537: Part 3 : 1983 Conduits for electrical installations: Part 3 Rigid plainconduits of insulating materials

IS 14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water

IS814: 2004

Covered electrodes for manual metal arc welding of carbon and carbon manganese steel

IS 9079 : 2002 ElectricMonoset Pumps for Clear, Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

IS 14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water 812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

4

3

1

2

84. 6532467 08-11-2005 Emperor Aqua Farms , Door No. 3 -A, 100 Feet New Scheme Road , Dhanalakshmi Nagar , New Sidhapudur. Coimbatore-641044 85. 6532568 08-11-2005 Ganapathy Pumps, Coimbatore-641015 106,Ramanuja Nagar, Kamarajar Road, Uppilipalayam ,

6532669 08-11-2005

86.

Ganapathy Pumps . Kamarajar Road, Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore-641015 106.Ramanuja Nagar, 08-11-2005

6532770

87.

Ganapathy Pumps , 106,RamanujaNagar. Kamarajar Road, Uppilipalayam, Coimbatore-641015 09-11-2005

6532972

88.

Ramesh Hitechk Pumps Pvt . Ltd .. 1040, Bharathiyar Road ,, P.N. Palayam , Coimbatore -641037 16-11-2005

6533368

89.

Asia Engineering . SF No. 328 , Sharp Nagar West Kalapatti Road , Coimbatore-641035 25-11-2005

90. 6534572

Ambal Motors & Pumps , SF No. 162/2 , Kamadhenu Nagar , Grass Hills Road, KR Puram . Coimbatore-641006.

नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 338.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में जगोटी- पीथमपुर आर- एलएनजी पाइपलाइन परियोजना तका प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, श्री एन. के. परचुरे , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड, नानाखेड़ा, सानवर रोड, उज्जैन -456 010 ( म.प्र. ) को लिखित रूप में आपेक्ष भेज सकः ॥।

[PART II-SE . 3( ii ) ] 5

6

IS 14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water

IS 9283 : 1995 Motor for Submersible

Pumpsets

IS 8034: 2002 Submersible Pumpsets

IS 14220 : 1994 Openwell Submersible

Pumpsets

IS 14220 : 1994 Openwell Submersible Pumpsets

IS9079 : 2002 Electric Monoset Pumps for Clear , Cold Water for Agricultural and Water Supply Purposes

IS 8472 : 1998 Centrifugal regenerative pumps for clear, cold water

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ] S. M. BHATIA. Dy . Director General (Marks)

अनुसूची

तहसील गाँव

जिला

सर्वे

नं.

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

(2)

(1)

(5)

(3) (4)

0.03

3

उज्जैन

उज्जैन

मोरू-

0.03

26

खेड़ी

0.13

34

35

0.10

0.07

36

30

0.20

0.37

38

0.03

66

0.60

65

0.05

77

0.01

78

0.31

79

0.12

81

83

0.38

0,06

84/2

85

0.03

0.15

86

0.01

33

योग

2.68 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

813

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

(1) (2)

(5)

(3) (4)

Distt.

1

उज्जैन उज्जैन

0.07

जेवन्तपुर

7

0.04

12

0.16

13/1/2 0.07

13/1/4

0.08

1

0.11

13/1/6

Ujjain

13/2

0.09

14

0.21

0.10

15/1

15/2

0.10

0.25

16

18/1/1

0.10

18/1/2 0,16

18/2

0.24

19/2

0.39

19/1

(0.01

20

0,10

56/1

G.12

58/2

0.11

58/1

0.22

56/3

0.02

57

0.21

62

0.17

0.06

67

0.66

69

0.10

78/1

योग

3.95

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

एस.बी. मण्डल , अवर सचिव New Delhi . the 17th January, 2006

S.O. 338. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of natural gas from Jagoti - Pithampur R -LNG pipeline project in the State of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by the GAIL ( India) Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Cazete of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the laying of the pipeline under the land to ShriK. Parchure , Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, Nanakheda, Sanwar Road, Ujjain -456010 (Μ.Ρ. ) .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil Village Survey No. Area to be Acquired for RO.U. (InHectares)

4

5 2

3

0.03 Moru 3

Ujjain

26

Kheri

0.03

34

0.13

35

0,10

36

0.07

30

0.20

38

0.37

0.03

66

65

0.60

77

0.05

78

0.01

79

0.31

81

0.12

0.38

83

84/2

0.06

85

0.03

86

0.15

33

0.01

2.68

Total

0.07 Jaiwanth- 1

7

10.04 pur

12

0.16

0.07

13/1/2

13/1/4

0.08

0,11

13/1/6

13/2

009

14

0,21

15/1

4010

15/2

(0,10

0.25

16

18/1/1

0,10

18/1/2

0.16

18/2

0.24

0.39

19/2

0.01

19/1

20

(0,10

0.12

56/1

58/2

0.11

0.22

58/1

0.02

56/3

57

0.21

0.17

62

0.06

67

0.66

69

0.10

78/1

3.95

Total

[F. No. L- 14014/ 1 /05 -G.P. ( Pt. - I) ] S.B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

814

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 339.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ . 1707 तारीख 4 मई , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 7 मई , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में महाराष्ट्र राज्य में लोनी (पुणे ) से पकनी (सोलापुर ) तक हजारवाडी के रास्ते पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुम्बई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 18 जुलाई, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

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

अनुसूची

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिला: सांगली

तालुका: खानापुर

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंवर

सर्वे नंबर

गाव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

उप-खण्ड संख्या हेक्टर

कम सं.

8

6 7

5

4

3

2

1

00

00 26

1082

1

भालवणी

00 01 26

1130

12

00 01

1150

1547

94

00 06

1523

25

00 14

100.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

1

2

3

4

101 भालवणी (जारी ) ...

99

95

296

313 2

224 अलसुंद

2192

120 3 तांदुलवाडी

112

112

112

112

212

220

New Delhi , the 24th January , 2006

815

7

6

8 $

01

00

25

00 11

04

00 18 00

00 06 10

00 03 41

00 89 67 कुल

00 13 47

00 01 75 कुल

00 15 22

00 11 00 8

60 7

00 01

75 5

00 01

00 9

30

60

20

00 01

00 16 45 कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/28/2004-ओ.आर आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव S.O. 339.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1707 , dated the 4th May, 2005 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 7th May, 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification , for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Pune Pipeline Extension Project from Loni ( Pune ) to Pakni ( Solapur ) via Hazarwadi in the State of Maharashtra by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 18th July , 2005 ;

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

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

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

816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006 / MAGHA 8 , 1927

[ PART 11 - SEC. 3 (ii) { And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of the publication of this declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SANGLI

Taluka : KHANAPUR

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub - Division No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Sr. No.

Name of the Village

6

7

8

4

5

3

1

2

00 26 00

1082

1 BHALAVANI

00 01 26

1130

00 01 12

1150

00 30

00

1547

00 06 94

1523

14

00

25

100

00 01 25

101

00

04

99

11

00 18 00

95

00 06 10

296

313

00 03 41

00 89 67

Total

00 13 47

224

2 ALSUND

00 01 75

2192

00

Total

15 22

00 11 00

120

3 TANDULVADI

00 00 60

8

112

00 01 75

112

7

01 00

5

00

112

00 30

9

00

112

00 00 60

212

01 20

00

220

00 16 45

Total

[No. R- 31015 /28/2004- O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. ३५०. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3410 तारीख 23 सितम्बर , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 24 सितम्बर , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

817

भारत का राजपत्र जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 29 अक्तूबर , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं . आर 31015/7/03-ओ.आर.- II दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला: पाटण

तालूका: सांतलपुर

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

एयर क्रम सं.

उप खण्ड सं.

2

4

1

3

5

6

7

पी

296

01

0

14 1 . कल्याणपुरा

पी

291

0

15

46

पी

290

0

15

32

[फा. सं. आर-31015/16/2004- ओ.आर ।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 24th January , 2006

S.O. 340. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas nümber S.O. 3410 dated the 23rd September , 2005 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Rightof User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 24th September , 2005, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline through Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline for transportation of petroleum products from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 29th October , 2005 ;

818

PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8, 1927

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

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

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

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limiter free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter No.R-31015/7/03 - O.R.- II dated 25-11-2004 .

SCHEDULE

State : GUJARAT

District : PATAN

Taluk : SANTALPUR

Name of Village

Survey no .

Hectare

Area Are

Sr. No.

SquareMetre

Sub- Division No.

5

6

7

3

4

2

1

14

P

0

296

01

1. KALYANPURA

46

15

P

0

291

P

0

15

32

290

[No. R- 31015/16/2004 - O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 341.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ . 3571 तारीख 3 अक्तूबर, 2005, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 8 अक्तूबर, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मुन्द्रा -दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से गुजरात राज्य में मुन्द्रा से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 16 नवम्बर, 2005 , को उपलब्ध. करा दी गई थीं ;

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

[भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

819

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, इस मंत्रालय के सहमति पत्र सं. आर 31015/7/03 ओ.आर-II दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसुची तहसीलः पंजाबीबाग

राज्यः दिल्ली

जिलाः रामपुरा

गाँव का नाम

मुसतिल संख्या

खसरा/किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

18/2 1.टीकरी कलां

6

120

19

22

23

3

15

4

6/2

7

14/1

14/2

15/1

15/2

24/2

25

18

4 5

6

7/2

19

8/3

8/4 104 GI /06-13

श्रेत्रफल

वर्गमीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

25

00

00

45 00

09

04

90 00

52 00

08

06

40 00

03

06 00

25

00

00

12

60 00

52

02

00

40 00

01

22

05

00

01

08 00

25 00

00

98 00

10

25 00

00

04 00

14

62

02

00

25

00

00

25

00

00

27

02

00 820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28, 2006 /MAGHA 8, 1927

PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

2

3

4

5

6

7 1 1. टीकरी कलां जारी ...

19

120

9/1

00

02

40

9/2

00

10

44

10/1

00

11

10

10/2

00

00

80

13

00

04

96

14

00

00

25

490

00

01

08

500

00

10

80

509

00

01

14

1332

00

01

80

1333

00

01

32

1333/1

00

01

1372

00

03

35

1381

00

01

28

[फा. सं. आर -31015/4/2005 ओ. अर

हरीश कुमार, अयः वि

New Delhi , the 27th January , 2006

S.O. 341. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.3571 dated 3rd - October , 2005, issued undı. sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of india dated the 8th October , 2005 , the Central Government declared intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products from Mundra in the State of Gujarat to Delhi through Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited: And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made availabl. to ft . public on the 16th November , 2005; And whereas the competent authority has , under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , submitted report to the Central Government ;

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

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section d the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the lond specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline; And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 4) of section to of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in the Central Government , vest on the date of publication of the declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter pu R-31015/7/03 OR- II dated 25-11-2004.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

SCHEDULE

District : RAMPURA Tehsil : PUNJABIBAGH

821

State : DELHI

Area

Khasara / Killa

Name of Village

No.

Hadbast No.

Mustil No.

18/2

6

120

Tikri Kalan

19

22

23

3

15

4

6/2

7

14/1

14/2

15/1

15/2

24/2

25

4

18

5

6

7/2

19

8/3

8/4

9/1

9/2

10/1

10/2

13

14

490

500

509

1332

1333 Hectare Are

Square Metre

00

25 00

00

09

45

04

00

90 00

08

52 00

06

40 00

03

06

00

25 00

00

12

60 00

02

52 00

01

40 00

05

22

01

00

08 00

00

25 00

10

98

00

25 00

04 00

14

02

00

62 00

00

25

00

25 00

27 00

02

02

40 00

10

00

44

10 00

11

00

00

80

96 00

04

00

00

25

08 00

01

10

00

80

44

01

00

00

01

80

01

32 00

65

01

1333/1

1372

1381 00

35

03

00

01

28 00

[No. R- 31015/4/2005 -O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर, 2005

का. आ. 342.- 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 लेबर कोर्ट, पुणे के पंचाट को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल- 40012 /211/92- आईआर( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2005 S.O. 342. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court , Pune as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Telecom Deptt. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-12-2005 .

[No. L- 40012/211 /92- IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRL.P.E. HAVAL, PRESIDING OFFICER SECOND LABOUR COURT, PUNE REFERENCE [ LD.A. ] NO . 145 OF 1994 BETWEEN

The General Manager , Department to Telecommunication. Bajirao Road, Punc -411002

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] (d) r/w. Sec.2 (A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 for adjudication the industrial dispute between Department of Telecommunication , Bajirao Road , Pune -411 002 (hereinafter referred to as first party) and Shri S.S. Shikh, P. & T. , Colony, Building No. B - 7 Room No. 1, Gultekdi , Pune- 37 ( hereinafter referred to as second party) mentioned in Schedule which reads as under :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager Department of Telecommunication , Punc , in terminating the services of Shri S.S. Shaikh casual mazdoor is justified? If not , what relief he is entitled to ? " 2.Second party filed Statement of Claim in pursuance of notice . The case of second party is as under

FirstParty

AND

Shri , Satraj Sarfuddin Shaikh B-7 , Room No. 1 , P. & T. Colony, Gultekdi , Pune-411037

Second Party

CORAM: SHRI P.E. HAVAL .

APPEARANCES : Shri . D. Zende , Advocate for

FirstParty.

Shri S. Makhdoom , Advocate for

Second Party.

AWARD

(Dictated & Delivered in Open Court on 20-05-2005) 1. This is a Reference made by the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour under Sec. 10 ( 1 ) Second party had been worked under the Employment of Pune Telecommunication . Bajiro Road , Pune , as its " Saras Telephone Exchange from 01-03-1988 to 22-05-1989 as a Casual Labour without any break on his part and his salary was Rs . 1.200 per month. On 22-05-1989 the responsible authority i.c. Mr. V.K. Mathur, Assistant Divisional Engineer . Saras Telephone Exchange called upon second party and told him orally that not to attend his duty by tomorrow and removed him on 22-05-1989, afternoon from his job without complying the provisions of law. Second party worked continuously more than one year and his attendance is of more than 240 days within rclated year which he was employed. first party before terminating his services did not issue any notice in writing indicating the reasons for termination and no wages and compensation was paid to him which is required by law. Hence , the action of the first party in terminating the services of second party is illegal and oral dismissal order is not proper order. First party management made a statement before conciliation Officer that second party had worked for 180 days only during the said period is totallywrong and bogus statement given by the first party management without providing any sufficient evidence . Before his oral termination second party has worked continuously from 01-03-1988 to 22-05-1989 i.e. for one year, two months and twenty two days without any break in service on his part and he signed to the muster roll on every working day and whenever payment made to him by management of first party he signed on payment vouchers . At the end, second party prayed that first party be directed to reinstate him with continuity of service and full back wages.

3. First party resisted claim of second party by filing Written Statement at Exh . 18. The case of second party is as under:-

Second party was asked to do labour work on temporary basis on daily wages by concerned officer of the first party, accordingly second party was working on daily wages and purely on temporary basis. the payment for the same is already made by first party. Sccond party wasworking on interim arrangement . He worked with first party for 180 days and as he has not completed 240 days भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

of his services during the calendar year from his appointment, he is not entitled to claim/file any refcrence against first.party and there is no relationship of employer and employée between the partics . Second party was working with first party upto 22-05-1989 only. After project on which second party was working was over, hence , he stopped come on job. In this circumstances , provisions of Sec.25 ( F ) of Industrial Disputes Act, will not come in picture of this case hencc , question of issuing notice of termination and paying wages for the period of one month does not arise . Second party has not completed 240 days ofhis service , he is not entitled to claim any relief against first party. Second party has not submitted sufficient evidence before Court to show that he worked for 240 days continuously during the calendar year. Second party has worked as casual labour work of cleaning and sweeping of Exchange , Assistant Technical Staff, doing some petty work , his name is not shown in the muster roll . On the contrary, he has paid through imprest bill A.C.E. , to xerox copies of the same are produced along with Written Statement. Second party is not entitled to claim benefit for reinstatement with the first party. At the same time so called termination of second party is of 22-05-1989 and he filed present reference on 08-11-1994 , no proper explanation of delay was given by second party before the Court to show that this delay is sufficient or delay was due to some resoanable cause . At the same time , second party is not entitled to claim fully back wages Rs . 1,200 рег month from 23-05-1989 till today. He is not entitled to claim any other consequential benefits . This Court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present reference . The jurisdiction lies to the Central Administrative Tribunal established by the Central Government to solve such type of problem . First party also denied other contents of statement of claim and prayed to dismiss the reference with costs .

4. Considering rival claims of parties , issues are framed and I record my findings against it as under:-

FINDINGS ISSUES

1. Whether termination of second party : Ycs . isjustified?

: No relief.

2. What relief?

3. What order ?

823 order was passed on the question of jurisdiction . First party filed Writ Petition on the point ofjurisdiction , first party withdrew Writ Petition . First party preferred application Exh.39 for sending back reference to Government as being without jurisdication but this application of first party was rejected and cross examination of second witness of second party was closed . Witness of first party admitted in his cross examination that he is not going to produce remaining documents . Attendance register is admitted by first party, Thus , second party worked from October , 1988 to June , 1989. Name of second party is therefrom 1st October , 1988to 4th May. 1989. All the documents are not produced by first party. Second party worked for more than 420 days from 03-07-1988 to 22-05-1989 . Service termination of second party is illegal and second party is entitled to reinstatement withcontinuity of service and full back wages w.e.f. 22-05- 1989.

7. Advocate Shri D. Zende , appearing for first party argued as under:-

: As per

order below

5. My reasoning to above said findings is as under:-

REASONS

6. ISSUES NO.1 & 2 : Advocate Shri S. Makhdoom appearing for second party argued as under: -- Second party was working as a casual labour since 01-03-1989 till 22-05-1989 continuously, his last drawn wages were Rs . 1,200 per month, his services were terminated by one Shri . V.K. Mathur. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Saras . Telephone Exchange and same is adnutted by first party. No notice was given . no compensation was paid. Sccond party worked for more than one year and he has completed more than 240 days . Reference is filed on 08-11-1994 , ex - parte order was passed on 04-07-1995. Reference was restored vide order dtd. 28-02-1996 . No As per the Statement of Claim , second party was working from 01-03-1988 to 25-05-1989 as a casual labour. Second party was working on purely temporary basis as a daily wager . Second party has not produced any appointment letter . There is no question of termination of service of second party, employment of second party thus automatically comes to an end after his work was over . All the documents at Exh . 19/20 filed by the first party are referred in cross examination by second party's advocate , these documents should be read . These documents show that second party was employed on temporary basis on dialy wages of Rs.768 per month . Certificate dtd. 16-06-1989 shows that second party has worked only 180 days. Attendance register, Exh.20 was admitted by second party in cross examination . Sccond party also admitted in his corss - examination that second party worked when work was available . First party has filed payment slip under Exh. 19 and same shows that second party was paid wages for 180 days . Certificate was issued to second party as second party wanted the same for getting another job . Thus , second party did not work for 240 days and second party did not work continuously and same is admitted by second party in his cross cxamination. Second party was asked to stop work after project work was over, no question of complying with Sec . 25 ( F) arises . Mr. V.K. Mathur is not examined inspite ofundertaking in cross examination . It is not proved that second party was working from 1-3-1988 and his services were terminated on 22-05-1989 . It is also not proved that sccond party worked for 240 days . First party has filed such ample evidence . Witness of first party was cross examined by second party, but could not obtain any admission from him . First party admits attendance sheet . First party admits Exh . 20/1 . Second party was paid wages for the days on which he worked . Xerox copies of A.C.E. 2. A/c .. arc produced wherever, name of second party appeared. same is admitted and it shows that second party was working on a project . Thus , automatic termination of second party is justified .

824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

8. Second party repeated his case in his examina- tion in chief. but he stated in his cross examination as under : ----

"It is correct to say that I have not filed any documentary evidence to show that I was on duty since 1-3-1988 , I was not issued with any appointment letter. ihad not made any application to first party with a request to provide ine xerox copy of registers . It is correct to say that considering xerox copics of attendance register it will be correct that I was on dutyw.e.f. October . 1988 , I was provided work as a labourer . There were + temporary employees along with me. It is correct to say that I received my salary for October. 1988 at the end of the month . I used to sign attendance register in English . It is correct to say that whenever I was not attending duties . I never used to sign attendance register . I have no documentary evidence to show that my services were terminated by Shri P. K. Mathur. I ant going to examine Shri Mathur. I have worked only in one Exchange."

9. Sari . Nilkantla Shankar Yaday, witness of second party stated in his examination in chief as under:-- "Copies of attendance register filed by second party is shown to me and same is correct . My name is there and it also bears my signatures."

10. Shri Shrikant Narayan Badaskar . Assistant General Manager ( Legal) ofB.S.N.L .. Pane, witness of first party stated in his examination in chief as under :-- "Second party was working on daily wages and on purely temporary basis. The pay ment for the same is already made by the first party . He worked with first party for 180 days only. Statement and necessary documents to that affect are already filed on record as second party has not completed 240 days of his services during the calendar year. It is not correctto say that services of second party were terntinated by first party. The project au which second party was asked to work was over. Second party stopped coming on job . Second party was asked to work with an understanding that the work will be made available to him till the availability of work or that project. In these circumstances . provisions of Sec . 25 ( F ) of Industrial Disputes Act will not come into the picture . Hence , question of issuing notice of termination and paying wages for the period of one mouth does not arise in this case , as second party has not completed 240 days of his service . Casual labour work of cleaning and sweeping of Exchange and sonte pefty work as required by the Assistant Technical Staff was allotted to second party and he was paid for the same throught impressed bill ACE- 2. Copies of the same are submitted . Present reference of second party is not filed within prescribed period of limitation i.e. 90 days from so called termination . Delay for filing present reference after five and half mouth is not sufficiently explained by second party."

PART II-SEC. 3( 1) ] This witness stated in his cross - examination as under:-

"Witness is shown document No. 1 under list Exh . 20. After referring to it, witness says that it is not muster - roll , but it is a attendance sheet from October, 1988 to Junc , 1989. It is true that name of second party is there along with other labourers . the contents in respect of attendance and signatures arc correct . Attendance sheet shows that second partywas in employment from October, 1988 to June . 1989. It is not true to say that I am telling falsely that second party has worked only for 180 days ." 11. Although . Advocate Shri S. Makhdoom argued that this witness of first party refused to produce wage slips, but it can be seen that such copies of wage slips are producedby first party vide their reply dtd . 29-3-1995.

12. It can be seen from xerox copies of allegea nmster roll from October . 1988 to June , 1989 produced by second party under list Exh. 20/1 and xerox copies of ACE , producedby first party while replying the notice of documents that second party was working from 1st October, 1988 till 25-5-1989 . It is pertinent to note the these attendance sheets at Document No. I underli Exh . 20 are produced by second party and admitted b firstparty.

13. It is true that second party has given cotica docunients on 8-3-1996 for producing appointment order t secondparty, muster roll for the year 1988-89. payment skoci and record of salary of second party for the year 1988-89 . First party replied vide its reply dtd . 29-3-1996 as ander:

"Casual Labourers are engaged for a certain quantura ofwork for a certain period. for which a work order is issued by Controlling Officer , to engage certain number of casual labourers .

There is no appointment order as such given to these labourers.

Depending upon the number of days for which casual labourer has worked in a particular montii. payment is made to that labourer, on ACG - 17 . A voucher is prepared and is attachedto the ACE - 2 account maintained to keep Account of day today expenditure or imprest. Entry is made for this payment in ACE - 2 account . Original is sent to work and budget section of this department . For next mooth separate work order is issued and separate ACE- 2 account is prepared. Thus casual labourers are working on the daily wages as per rate prescribed form time to time , by D.O.T. These are purely on temporary basis. for a particular quantum of work and period. Therefore . pay sheets or record of salary pay is only in the forms of entry made in ACE - 2 account and ACE - 17 , signed by labourer for receiving payment . All these documents are sentto works and budget section in original and being a very old record , it is difficult and time consuming to make available such old record .

However, xerox copies of ACE - 2 account where the name of Shri S. S. Shaikh appears is submitted.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

14. It seems that thereafter. first party filed xerox copies of such ACE - 2 Account where the name ofsecond party appears .

15. It can be seen from cross - cxamination of second party that second party has already admitted that appointment order was not issued to him.

16. It is the case of second party that his services were teramated w.c.f. 22-5-1989 . It can be seen that telerence order is made by Desk Officer on 12-4-1994 , it therefore , can be seen that second party has initiated a Delated reference . Although , there is no question of delay dversely affecting the reference , it will have to be Considered that second party did not do anything from 2-5-1989 till initiating reference in the year 1994 and it will be difficult for first party to produce old documents .Hence, at is not possible to draw adverse inference against first party because first party did not produce muster roll , attendance sheets for the period prior to Ist October, 1988 . wither it is the case of first party that second party was working as a casual labourer as and when work was not vailable and he was paid wages for the period he worked. It is also the case of first party that second party has worked only for 180 days from 1st October, 1988 to 22-5-1989 .

17. Xerox copy of certificate produced by second party under list Exh. 20/2 shows that second party had worked as a temporary casual labour ( paid on daily wagcs ) in this unitfor 180 days upto 22-5-1989 .

18. Xerox copy of certificate produced by second party under list Exh . 20/4 shows that second party was working under Assistant Engineer, DTAX Installation, Pune for the period from 2-5-1986 to 19-5-1986. He was paid at the daily rate of Rs . 14.50 .

19. Xerox copy of certificate produced by second party under list Exh. 20/5 shows that second party has worked as a casual mazdoor in place of the leave vacancy of a regular pcon of Directory Section for a period from 11-4-1986 to 23-4-1986 for 10 days . During this period, he workid.

20. All the above said certificates are xerox copies . there is no reference made by second party to these certificates in his oral evidence . However, it can be seen from the above said certificates that second party was intermittently working as a temporary casual labour in different departments .

21. In view of above circumstances and adınissions ofthe parties in respect of documents produced on record , it can be seen that second party was working from 1st October, 1988 to 22-5-1989 and thus, second party did not work for 240 days with first party. In the circumstances , il is also difficult to accept the argument of Advocate Shri S. Makhdoom appearing for second party that Sec . 25 ( F ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 is not complied and hence termination of service of second party is illegal.

22. Witness of first party has also stated in his examination inchuuf that second party was working on a project . ACE- 2 A/ c . , produced by first party in which name

825

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

of second party appears also shows that second party was working under a project undertaken by different departments . It is now well settled position of law that a person working under a project will not have any legal right of reinstatement etc. , even if works for more than 240 days.

23. As second party has not worked for 240 days and further as second party was admittedly working under the project . I find that second party is not entitled to any legal right in respect of reinstatement , continuity of service and full backwages . I , therefore , answer the issues accordingly and proceed to pass following Order: ---

ORDER

1. Reference is hereby rejected . 2. Reference is hereby answered in the negative. 3. No order as to costs . Place : Pune. Date: 20-5-2005 .

P. E. HAVAL , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 343. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन इंस्टिटयूट् आफ पल्सेस रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 212 से 230/99,6/2000,17-18 /2000 , 22/ 2000,25-26/2000 तथा 29/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल -42012/49 से 51 तक/99 - आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] [सं० एल-42012 /54 से 69 तक/99- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] [ सं ० एल -42012/221 से 223 तक/ 99- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] [सं ० एल -42012/ 234 से 236 तक/99- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] [ सं० एल -42012 / 240/99- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi . the 2nd January . 2006 S.O. 343. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 212 to 230/99 , 6/2000 , 17-18-2000 . 22/2000, 25-26/ 2000 and 29/2000 ) of the Central Govenrment Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court.Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Instt . of Pulses Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-1-2006 .

[No. L -42012/ 49 to 51 /99 -IR ( DU) ]

[No. L - 42012/54 to 69 /99 - IR (DU ) ]

[No. L -42012/221 to 223 / 99-1R( DU) ]

[No. L-42012/ 234 to 236 / 99 - IR (DU ) ]

No. L-42012/240/99-1R(DU) | KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer 826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006 /MAGHA 8 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI. SURESH CHANDRA , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRIAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, SARVODAY NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute Nos .:-212/99.213/ 99, 214/99 , 215/99 、 216/99,217/99. , 218/99 , 219/99 , 220/99 , 221/99 , 222/99 . 223/99 , 224/99 , 225/99 , 226/99 , 227/99 , 228/99 , 229 /99,230/ 99 , and 6/2000, 17 //2000 , 18/2000 , 22/2000 , 25/2000 , 26/2000, and 29/2000

1. Smt . Rani - II C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A - 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur. ( 1.D. No. 212/99 )

2 Smt . Chandawati C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 . A - 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur . ( 1.D. No. 213/99 )

3. Smt . Meena Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A - 2 . Maswanpur Kanpur. (I.D. No. 214/99 )

4. Smt Raj Rani C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 . A- 2 . Maswanpur Kanpur. ( 1.D. No. 215/99)

5. Smt Kailashi C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A - 2 . Maswanpur. Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 216/99)

6. Smt Shanti C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 . A - 2 , Maswanpur , Kanpur. ( J.D. No. 217/99 )

7. Smt . Shashi C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 . A - 2 , Maswanpur , Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 218/99 )

8. Smt . Sushila

C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A - 2 . Maswanpur, Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 219/99)

9. Smt . Shiv Rani C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93. A - 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 220/99 )

10. Smt . Roop Rani C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A- 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur . ( 1.D. No. 221/99 )

11. Smt . Ram Devi C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A - 2, Maswanpur, Kanpur , ( 1.D. No. 222/99)

[ PART 11 - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 12. Smt . Phool Mati C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A - 2 . Maswanpur. Kanpur. ( 1.D. No. 223/99 )

13. Sri Ram Nath C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A- 2 . Maswanpur, Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 224/99 )

14. Smt. Rani C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 , A- 2 , Maswanpur. Kanpur . ( I.D. No. 225/99)

15. Smt . Ram Dulari C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A- 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 226/99 )

16. Smt. Rani -III C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 . A-2 , Maswanpur. Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 227/99 )

17. Snit . Sunder Devi C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A-2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur . ( I.D. No. 228/99 )

18. Smt. Ram Kali C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A - 2 , Maswanpur. Kanpur , ( I.D. No. 229/99)

19. Sri Ghanshyam C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 . A -2 . Maswanpur. Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 230/99)

20. Smt. Ram Raj C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A - 2 . Maswanpur, Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 6/2000 )

21. Smt . Kushma C /o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A - 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 17/2000 )

22. Smt. Phool Kumari C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A -2 , Maswanpur. Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 18/2000 )

23. Shri Gopal C/o Sri R. P. Slukla 115/193 , A- 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 22/2000 )

24. Smt. Ram Janki C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A - 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur, (I.D. No. 25/2000 )

25. Sri Chandra Pal C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A- 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur. ( I.D. No. 26/2000 ) [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

26. Sri Shiv Balak

C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 , A- 2 , Maswanpur, Kanpur, (1.D. No. 29/2000)

AND

The Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research Kalyanpur , G.T. Road, Kanpur

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi vide their notification Nos .: ( see below) has referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

1. L-42012/ 56/99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 212/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofpulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Rani - II is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 2. L-42012/57 /99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 213/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute of pulses Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Chandravati is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

3. L-42012/58 /99 1.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (1.D. No. 214/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute of pulses Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt. Meena is legal and justified? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? " 4. L -42012/60/99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 215/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute of pulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Raj Rani is legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 5. L-42012/59/99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 ( I.D. No. 216/99) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of pulscs Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Kalashi is legal and justified? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 6. L -42012/63 / 99 1.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 ( I.D. No. 217/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute ofpulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Shanti is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 7. L -42012/62/99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 ( I.D. No. 218/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofpulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Shashi is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 8. L-42012/61 /99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 ( 1.D. No. 219/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute ofpulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Sushila is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 104 GI/06-14

827 9. L-42012/50/99 I.R. DU dt. 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 220/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Shiv Rani is legal andjustified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 10. L-42012/49/99 1.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 221/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Roop Rani is legal and justified ? Ifnotto what relief the workman is entitled ?" 11. L-42012/51 /99 1.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 222/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Devi is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 12. L-42012/65 /99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 223/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Phoolmati is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 13. L -42012/67/99 I.R. DU dt . 30-7-99 (I.D. No. 224/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Shri Ram Nath is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 14. L-42012/55/99 I.R. DU dt. 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 225/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Rani is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 15. L -42012/54 /99 1.R. DU dt. 28-7-99 (1.D. No. 226/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Ram Dulari is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 16. L-42012/69 /99 I.R. DU dt . 28-7-99 (I.D. No. 227/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Rani - III is legal and justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 17. L -42012/68/99 1.R. DU dt. 30-7-99 (1.D. No. 228/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute ofpulsesResearch, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Sunder Devi is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

18. L-42012/64/ 99 I.R.DU dt . 30-7-99 ( I.D. No. 229/99) "Whether the action ofthe Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt. Ram Kali is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

19. L -42012/ 66/ 99 1.R. DU dt . 30-7-99 (I. D. No. 230/99 ) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh . Ghanshyam is legal and justified? If not . to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 20. L-42012/236/ 99 I.R. DU dt. 27-1-2000 (I.D. No. 6/2000 ) "Whether the action of the Management of Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Rescarch , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Sh . Ram Raj w.e. f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

21. 1-42012/ 222/ 99 I.R. DU dt. 27-1-2000 (I.D. No. 17/2000 )

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 2. As common question of fact and law is involved in all the above cases hence it is proposed to decide them by common award. Further all the above cases have been consolidated vide order dated 11-1-2001 and I.D. Case No. 224/99 has been made leading case .

3. The workmen involved in the above cases have filed their statement of claim in cyclostyle manner giving details of their engagement and termination on common grounds , which are as under :--

Name of worker

SI. I.D. No. No.

Date of termi- nation

Date of engage- ment

4

5 1 2

3

1-3-87 26-6-98 1. 212/99

Smt . Rani - 11

Chandrawati

2. 213/99

Smt . Meena

3. 214/99

4. 215/99

"Whether the action of the Management of Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Rescarch, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Smt. Kushma w.e.f. 1-8-98 is legal and justified? If not , 10 what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

22. L-42012/223/99 1.R. DU dt. 27-1-2000 ( 1.D. No. 18/2000 ) "Whether the action of the Management of Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Smt . Phool Kumari w.e.f. 1-8-98 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

23. L-42012/240/99 1. R. DUdt . 27-1-2000 ( 1. D. No. 22/2000) "Whether the action of the management of Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Sh . Shiv Gopal w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified? If not. to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

24. L-42012/234/99 1.R. DU dt . 27-1-2000) (I.D. No. 25/2000 ) "Whether the action of the management of Director. Indian Institute of pulses Research . Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Smt. Ram Janki ,w.e.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified? If not . to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

25. L-42012/235/99 1.R. DUdt . 27-1-2000 ) ( 1.D. No. 26/2000) "Whether the action of the management of Director. Indian Institute of pulses Research . Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating the services of their workman Sh. Chandra Pal w.c.f. 26-6-98 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled?"

26. L -42012/221 /99 1.R. DU dt. 27-01-2000 (1.D. No. 29/2000) "Whether the action of the Management of Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research . Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh . Shiv Balak w.e.f. 26-8-98 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ? " Smt. Rajrani

5. 216/99

Smt . Kailasi

6. 217/99

Sint . Shanti

Smt . Shashi

7. 218/99

Smt . Sushila

8. 219/99

9. 220/99

Smt . Sheorani

10. 221/99

Smt . Ruprani

11. 222/99

Smt . Ramdevi

12. 223/99

Smt . Phoolmati

Sri . Ramnath

13. 224/99

Smt. Rani

14. 225/99

15. 226/99

1-3-95

Smt . Randulari

16. 227/99

1-3-87

Smt . Rani - 111

17. 228/99

Smt . Sunder Devi

Smt. Ramkali

18. 229/99

26-6-98

1-3-87

19. 230/99

Sh . Ghanshyam

20. 6/2000

RamRaj

May, 89

1-8-98

Nil

21. 17/2000

Sh . Kusuma

Smt. Phool Kumari Nil

1-8-98 22. 18/2000

26-6-98 23. 22/2000 Sh. Sheogopal 1990 (date not given ) 24. 25/2000

1990

Smt . Ramjanki

1989

25. 26/20XX) Smt. Chandrapal

26, 29/2000

1990

Smt . Sheobalak

4. Brief facts giving rise to the above industrial disputes are that the workers involved in the aforesaid cases were engaged by the Director, Indian Institute of PulsesResearch, Kanpur, ( hereinafter referred to IIPR for 829 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

themselves from the provisions of labour laws . On the basis of these allegations all the workers involved in the case have prayed that they be reinstated in services , with wages of permanent employee, with continuity of services and all consequential benefits .

5. The management of opposite party have filed a common reply against statement of claim submitted by the workers involved in the present dispute , alleging there in that the opposite party is purely a ' Research Institute ' under the management and control of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research which functions under the Department of Agriculture , Research and Education and is an autonomous body registered under provisions of Societies Act , 1860. The management has denied the fact that it is an Industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , as opposite party is not engaged in an activity which can be called within a trade or manufacturer, therefore , the present reference order is bad in law and is without jurisdiction . It is further alleged by the opposite party that the workers have never been engaged or appointed by them, the claim of the workers are bad because of misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties . it is alleged that the applicants involved in the present dispute are not workman within the meaning of section 2 (s ) of I.D. Act , 1947 , and that there is no relationship of employ and employer between the applicant and the management of IIPR, Kanpur. The applicant had no lein or right on any regular or permanent post under the management. It has been alleged that the applicant could not claim wages and work as a matter of right like regular and permanent employee as he / she never worked continuously against any regular and permanent vacancy. Ithas further been stated by the opposite party that they neverdischarged , dismissed retrenched or terminated the services of the applicant at any point of time either by written or oral order, hence individual dispute as alleged cannot be deemed to be an industrial dispute as defined under the provisions of section 2 - A of the Act . It has also been denied that the opposite party is an employer within the meaning of section 2 ( g ) of the Act . On the basis of these allegations it has been alleged that the entire reference order is liable to be struck down , as Central Government referred the dispute without application of mind. The dispute is belated hence is not maintainable under law. Applicability of provisions of 25 - F, 25 - H and 25 -B have also been disputed by the management .

6. Apart from above legal grounds on merit it has been alleged by the management that the workers have never been engaged or employed in any capacity by them hence question of payment of wages as alleged by them does not arise . The allegations of the workers are false baseless, concocted, and misleading. The agriculture work is of casual nature and is got done through contractor having valid licence as and when required . The vacancy created under the management are filled up in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Government of India/Council of Agricultural Research and that the the sake of brevity ) opposite party, on the dates given above as labour on permanent post lying vacant under the management of opposite party. It has further been pleaded by the workers that before oral termination of their services they were being paid wages at the rate of Rs . 2127 per month. The management used to pay wages after getting thumb impression on payment register. It is alleged that the nature of work against which these workers were engaged was of permanent nature which is likely to continue in future and that the opposite party is ' Industry ' . It is also alleged that the opposite party is taking work from these workers for the last several years still they have not been regularised in permanent services of the opposite party management which is an example of Unfair labour practice and victimization and is illegal and unconstitutional . Under the instructions of the Director of opposite party officers of the management used to take work from these workers such as agricultural work like Jutai , Gurai , Marai , Sichai , Katai etc. , which were being controlled and supervised by the management . It has further been alleged that the workers have completed more than 240 days of continuous services in each year from the date of their respective engagements . That the work and conduct of workers remained satisfactory through out the service and they never gave any room for complaint . It has further been allcged by the workers that the management of IIPR with a view to protect themselves from the provisions of labour laws tried to declare them the workers ofcontractor in the year 1998 who was having licence of supplying contract labourers which was valid for the period 30-4-98 to 29-4-99 . It is also alleged that when the workers raised their demand for paying them regular wages , difference of wages between paid and payable and for declaring them regular and permanent employee of the opposite party, management orally terminated their services abruptly in gross violation ofthe provisions of 1.D. Act, even without showing any reasons or notice . After oral termination of their services workers made their effective efforts and demand that they be provided service under the management of IIPR but failed in their attempt . Registered letters were also addressed to the authorities of the opposite party inanagement in this regard but all in vain. It has also been alleged that the management used to sell the products on higher prices to different institutions and farmers through their sale counters . Lastly it has been alleged by these workers that their oral termination without notice pay or retrenchment compensation amounts to breach of provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and as such is illegal and unconstitutional . Further without providing them an opportunity of reemployment , several juniors to these workers have been engaged by the opposite party to perform the work from which their services were terminated in this management of IIPR have also breached the provisions of section 25 - H of I.D. Act , 1947. The management tried to introduce contract system against permanent nature of work which is highly illegal and unconstitutional which is nothing but to protect 830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

management of IIPR cannot create any new post nor appoint/ promote any person without any vacancy nor incur any expenses beyond the sanctioned budget and allocation of fund , under these circumstances question of declaring the workers involved in the dispute as permanent employee of management does not arise at all . Management has further denied the fact that they ever adopted unfair labour practice . Management has also denied the fact that the workers have performed the work under their supervision and control . Management has denied continuous working of 240 days by these workers in any calendar year as such keeping of records like attendance register and payment registers in respect of these workers has been denied as well by the management. It has been allenged by the management that these workers are trying to secure back door entry in the services of the management by way of litigation in contravention of government rules . The management in their entire written statement have disputed relationship of master and servant/employer and employee between them and the workers involved in dispute repeatedly and have also cited various rulings of different High Courts and Apex Court, hence it is unnecessary to give further details of the written statement filed by the management . Management has also denied the fact that the workers have performed the work ofpermanent nature under the management as claimed by them. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the management that the claim of the workers be dismissed being devoid of merit as the workers are not entitled to claim any relief from the management by way of present reference order .

7. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the workmen in which nothing new has been stated except reiteration of the facts made in the claim statement .

8. Contesting parties have also filed documentary evidence in the case beside adducing their oral evidence .

9. Besides the oral submissions advanced on behalf ofthe either of the Contesting parties , written arguments have also been filed in support of their respective claims and counter reply. Having heard the detailed arguments and also having examined the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties , the controversy centres found onthe following main points:-

(i) Whether the management of opposite party i.c. Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kanpur, can be termed as Industry under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

(ii) Whether there is any relationship ofworkman and Employer as alleged by the workers between the opposite party & workers ?

(iii) Whether the workmen were direct employee of the Management and their services were illegally terminated as claimed by them ?

(iv) To what relief are the workers are entitled ?

[ PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] The contention of the management on points No. (i ) is that the Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kanpur, is not an Industry under the Provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 as it deals with research activities of argument the agriculture products and it does not deal with any sale or earns profit of the products acquired by the Institute . It is admitted fact that the management of IIPR conducts various scientific research for the benefit offarmers at large to enhance their agriculture production which ultimately assist enhancement in national product in the field of agriculture . It is also an admitted fact that the seads so produced after research etc are thereafter distributed to the farmers against price and produce obtained in research work is also sold . thus it cannot be said that IIPR opposite party is not an Industry as termed under the provisions of 1.D. Act and that IIPR opposite party is engaged in commercial and industrial activities , therefore , it cannot be accepted that the opposite party is merely carrying on research activities only. Reliance on behalf of the management has been placed on the law reported in 1989 Col. 10 Administrative Tribunal cases page 849 M. Parmeshwaram versus Chief Administrative Officer CSIR New Delhi and others wherein the Administrative Tribunal has dealt that CSIR may not be anEstate under Article 12 of the Constitution of India but has held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide this issue . Thus the law citedby the management is of no helpto them.

10. The workers have also filed a copy of Award granted by the learned presiding officer of this tribunal wherein management of IIPR has not pressed this issue that IIPR is not an Industry. During the course of arguments before this tribunal and also looking to the facts that there is no evidence contrary to it it can be safely held that IIPR opposite party is an Industry as defined under the provision of 1.D. Act . Thus controversy on Point No. 1 is therefore decided in favour of the workers and against the management of IIPR .

11. Points mentioned above at serial Nos . 2 & 3 are taken together as they are interdependant .

12. The claim of the workers are that they are/were appointed directly by the management of IIPR and were being wages directly by the opposite parties . This fact has been denied vehemently by the management. The contention of the management is that they never employed the workers nor any wages or remuneration was ever paid to them directly by the management of IIPR. The workers may be the employees of the contractor who had control and supervision over the working of the workers involved in the present dispute and that the work in contingency might have been taken through the contractor and the contractor was paid for the job rendered by him on contract basis through his labourers . From the evidence on record it is admitted fact that the workers were never issued any appointment letter nor any termination order 831 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

that the workers involved in the present reference have no relationship of Master & Servant as claimed by them between them and the management of 11PR .

13. On behalf of the Management Administrative Officer Mr. Syal has also been examined who has categorically stated that none of the workers was the direct employce of the Management or Worked directly under his supervision and control , workers side has insisted upon the fact since the payment and attendance register have not been filed by the Management which could have thrownlight upon the point as to whether at any point of time these workers remained under direct employment of the management . This fact has also been denied by the Management as they had no direct control and supervision over the working of the workers involved in the present reference . The onus to prove the fact that these workers were the direct employees of the Management lies on the workers but they have failedto discharge the onus to prove the fact .

14. Workers have also filed a photocopy of a award rendered by this tribunal in another industrial case and places reliance that on the same basis the workers may be held to be the direct employee of the Management . This contention of the workers cannot be accepted on the grounds that the said award does not relate to the present workers and that even that award is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court and yet not attained finality thus is subjudice . Further award passed in earlier Industrial Dispute Cases are based on other grounds and evidence hence workers cannot be allowed to take any advantage of an award of this tribunal which is still subjudice and is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Alllahabad . Therefore it cannot be made a ground for passing an award in favour of the workers . Point Nos . 2 and 3 are therefore decided in favour ofthe Management and against ther workers .

15. Having failed to prove that the workers involved in the Present dispute are the direct employee of the Management of IIPR Kanpur by including other relevant documentary evidence supported with oral evidence the tribunal is bound to hold that there do not exist any relationship of master and servant between the contesting parties and that the demand of the workers cannot be said to be tenable in the eye of law.

16. In view of discussions of facts and law as made above , it is held that the action of the mangement in terminating their services from the date mentioned in the reference order cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified. Accordingly it is held that the workers of each of the industrial dispute mentioned in the present award are not entitled for any relief as claimed by them .

Award is given accordingly.

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer was ever issued in their favour by the management of IIPR, Kanpur. Heavy burden lies on the workers to prove this fact that they were taken into employment or engaged directly by the management of IIPR. Overwhelming stress workers is made to the effect that the management has not examined licenced contractor nor the licence contractors name did appear in the written statement filed against the workers calim statement by the management of IIPR. Management from the very beginning has denied the fact that it ever engaged any worker directly under them . Mere non mentioning the contractors name or not examining the contractor to rebut the claim of the workers would not ipso facto entitled any of the worker to hold that these workmen are direct employee of the management of IIPR. Certain test will have to be applied to decide the relationship of ' Master & Employer ' between the contesting parties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a casc reported in 203 ( 99 ) FIR page 1064 between Ram Singh and others versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and others held that besides the control all other relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and conditions of the contract . It has clearly been laid down by Hon'ble Court in that case that in determining the relationship ofemployer and employce no doubt control is one of the main test . An integrated approach is needed to determine this fact. Unless it proved that the employer retains or assumes control over the means and method of work of a contractor, the relationship between employer and employee cannot be accepted to exist. In the present case the workers in their oral testimony alleges that their work was being controlled by Farm Manager Mr. Katiyar. This fact has been clearly denied on oath by Mr. Katiyar himself when he was examined before the tribunal as witness of the opposite party. In the next breath the employee has admitted that he had to work under the scientist whose name has also been disclosed by the worker in their evidence . If this factual position is accepted then the fact can not be accepted that Mr. Katiyar Farm Manager of the apprite party had control over it who is only posted as Farm Manager of the employer. During the course of argument ithas been impressed upon that the skill work assisting in search work is taken by the regular employees of the IIPR but unskilled work relating basic augmentation of the purpose of agriculture work is got done through contracts labours who supplics the labourer for the product and work and the contractor is paid in lumpsum for the job conductedby him . On the record contractors licence is also filed and also the payment made to the contractor for various jobs rendered by contractors through his agents . Thus it cannot be accepted that any of the worker involved in the present reference order was in direct employment of the opposite party. The workers have tried to comaflouge himself as direct employee when they state that they were paid on monthly basis. This fact is self contradictory when the workers admits that they were never paid for Sundays and that they do not know at what rate they were paid their daily wages . Therefore it can well be established 832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 344. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंस्पेक्टरेट ऑफ आर्मामेन्टस् 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 मी/आर/29/87 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं० एल-14012/4/86-डी- II/ ( बी) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 344. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Governmem hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC / R / 29 / 87 ) of the Centrai 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 Inspectorate of Armaments and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-1-2006,

[No. L - 14012/4 /86 -D - B ( B ) |

KULDIP RAI VERMA . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/ LC/ R/ 29 / 87

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

Workman

Shri Wilson Singh . Ex -Examiner , Gr.1.11 / 16 . H -Type . East Laud . Khamaria , Jabalpur.

Versus

The Sr. Inspector

Inspectorate of Armaments .

Khamaria . Jabalpur (MP ) .

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of December , 2005

1. The Government of India . Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 14012 / 4/ 86 - D - 11 ( B ) dated 27-3-87/3-4-87 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

"Whether the action of the management of Inspectorate of Armaments . Khamaria . Jabalpur in imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on Shri Wilson Singh, IA/623 , Examiner Grade I. w.e.f. 2-6-83 is justified ? If not , to what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The case of workman Wilson Singh in brief is as

follows:

complaints against him . The Union issued a pamphlet on 26-2-82 and conducted a gate meeting shouting slogans etc. On 5-3-82 and 6-3-82 respectively in connection with the above . The workman had taken LTC for himself and his family members . On the bills being submitted , the same was checked and passed by the management after complete scrutiny. On the instigation of Shri Hingorani , a false complaint was made against the workman and a chargesheet was issued to him in April 1982 which was subsequently amended. All the protests by the workman against this action was ignored by the management . The workman vide his letter dated 25-4-1982 requested the authorities concerned to comply with certain guidelines issued by the Government , but no reply was received of the above letter . Subsequently an appeal was also submitted to the Director General of Inspections and a copy to Sr. Inspector of Armaments. The appeal was rejected without any justification. Thereafter one Shri S.K. Kapoor was appointed Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the workman. Shri Kaponr was highly biased against the workman and therefore a request was made for changing the Enquiry Officer . This request was rejected . The workman appeared in the enquiry and prayed for a decision on various objections raised by hit and he submitted that in the absence of reply, it will nnt be possible for him to participate in the enquiry. All the requests made by the workman were rejected and the so -called enquiry was proceeded without giving the reasonable opportunity to the workman for defending himself. The workman by his letter dated 8-12-82 addressed to the President of India . Director General of Inspections and Sr. Inspector of Armaments and a copy to the Enquiry Officer made prayer for reviewing the order made earlier and requested not to proceed with the enquiry. By letter dated 27-9-82 , he had also complained against proceedings of the enquiry. Objections were also raised by him vide letters dated 16-12-82 . 17-12-82 etc. Inspite of repeated protest by the workman, the enquiry remained continued . The workman was though present in the enquiry but as already inentioned above he had stated that unless and until his objections are decided , it will not be possible for himto effectively participate in the enquiry. A representation was also made on 20-3-83 to the Dy . Secretary, Government of India by Shri Santosh Singh , a representative of the federation Union . But the so - called enquiry was held and on finding of guilt being recorded. the services of the workman were terminated vide order dated 1-6-83. An appeal was preferred by him which was also rejected by the DGOF . Thereafter the workman submitted a review petition to the President of India on 16-6-84 which has not been replied so far . The chargesheet , departmental enquiry, dismissal order and the appellate order against the workman are bad in law. The Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor with prejudiced mind. He was completely under the influence of Shri Hingorani and acted under his directions . The findings of the enquiry officer is perverse without evidence . The Enquiry Officer relied on documents which were not proved . The punishment imposed on the workman is highly excessive which was awarded as a act of victimization for trade Union activities. The order of termination of service of That he was General Secretary of Inspectorate of Armaments Exclusive Union , Khamaria , Jabalpur. Because of his Union activities . Shri Hingorani , the then Senior Inspector was annoyed with him and made certain false 833 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

workman is illegal , arbitrary and unjust . The workman is entitled for reinstatement with all consequential benefits , back wages including heavy compensation .

representations to higher authorities upto the President of India on flimsy grounds which were all duly considered and rejected for valid and cogent reasons . The workınan never filed statement of defence and did not cooperate in the enquiry . The Departmental Enquiry was properly conducted and justifying conclusions were drawn . Proper punishment was awardedto the workman . The enquiry was legal and proper . Considering the seriousness of misconduct, the imposition of penality of dismissal from service is proper and not in any way excessivc .

5. It shall be worthwhile to mention here that workman Wilson Singh died in the year 1996 during the pendency of this reference.

6. Vide order dated 25-2-98 , my learned predecessor inoffice allowed application dated 12-2-98 moved by the proposed icgal heirs of deceased workman and ordered that LRs be substituted for deceased workman Wilson Singh in the present reference .

7. The ordersheet dated 22-8-92 of this reference revcals that Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate learned counsel for the workman admitted before my learned predecessor in office that the enquiry isjust and proper as is clear from the attendance register presented by the workınan . The said order further reveals that Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate , learned counsel for the work man prayed on that date that a date be given for arguing on the quantum ofpunishment only . It clearly means that the learned counsel for the workman did not press the point that the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman was notproper andjust . In other words, the preliminary point was decided as follows : the enquiry conducted by the management against the workman is fair and Icgal.

8. Now only it is to be decided if the deceased workman was awarded just and proper punishment . lu this regard , it has been submitted that the order of termination of service is Legal , arbitrary , unjust and colorable exercise of power and the reliance for the sante has been placed on 1994( 2 ) Supreme Court Cases 537 in the case of State Bank of India and others versus Samarendra Kishore Endow and another .

9. The fact of this reference are quite different than the case law cited above . In the case law cited above , the appellant while posted at Phek branch of the Bank was transferred to Amarpur Branch in the State of Tripura in January 1981. He joined at Amarpur and claimed certain amount by way of rcimbursement for the expenses incurred by him in shifting his belongings and other articles to Amarpur from Phek . An enquiry was made into the correctness of the receipts and other documents produced by him in that connection ( and into some other alleged irregularities committed by him ) and he was subjected to a disciplinary inquiry on five charges out of which 2 are as follows:-

3. The management contested the reference and filed their Written Statement . The assertions made by the workman against the management in his statement of claim have been denied on behalf of management . It is specifically denied by the management that Shri Hingorani , the then Senior Inspector was annoyed with workman . It has also been denied that there has been a false complaint against the workman at the instance of Shri Hingorani . The case of the management in brief is that on discovery offraudulent claim , it was the duty of Shri Hingorani , the then Sr. Inspector to take necessary action . That the Union activities had nothing to do with the alleged and dishonest claims inade by the workman and fraudulent receipt of money from the management on bogus and false claiıns. The workman had taken Leave Travel Advance for the journey of himself and his family members . Advance according to demand was found in order and duly passed and the payment was made to him . Later on the workman submitted adjustment claim which was passed and payment was made to him . The office after issuing post payntent cheque , received reports that the workman had made a false claim of LTC and adjustment bills. That the workman's son and daughters had not taken any journey to Chandigarh as had been asserted by the workman and payments received by him . To verify the truth , a letter was addressed to the school concerned to inform wlicther Shri Jaipal Singh , S/ o workınan and Kumari Geeta and Kumari Savitri his daughters were present in the schools between 22nd Noveinber , 1981 to 27th November , 1981. A letter was received in answer to the quarry from the Christ Church Higher Secondary School that Shri Jaipal Singh S/ o the workman studying in class VIth was present in the school from 23rd Nov - 81 to 27th Nov - 81 . On the basis of this authentic.certificate from the Principal of a well known school , it was discovered that the claim of LTC was false and bogus . Therefore a chargesheet was issued to the workman according to rules . Later on information from the other school where the daughters of the workman were studying was sought by the management . The management was surprised to receive certificate dated 8-4-82 from the Principal OFK School that daughters Kumari Geeta and Kumari Savitri of workman were present in school between 23rd November 81 to 27th Nov - 1981 and 22nd being Sunday. On the basis of this subsequent information , the chargesheet was duły amended by adding to it that the LTC claim in respect of the above daughters submitted by the workman was also false and fraudulent . That after issue of the chargesheet , as the misconduct was very grave , the workman was placed under suspension and regular departmental enquiry was ordered affording all opportunities to the delinquent .

4. That the workman raised false disputes about his placing under suspension , about additing to the chargesheet etc. For months together . the workman without submitting any reply to the chargesheet or his statement of defence challenging the certificates issued by the schools . continued to make false appeals and

(il That on February 19 , 1982 , you submitted a travelling Allowance Bitl for Rs. 12,194.80 in connection with your perntament transfer from Plick Branch to Amarpur Branch . In the said bill you make a claim ofRs . 9500.00 being the hiring charges incurred by you for a full track 834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

and in support of your claim you submitted a false money receipt dated January 9 , 1982 for Rs . 9500.00 obtained from M/ s . Balram Hariram, Church Road, Dimapur, whereas you neither engaged a full truck nor spent Rs . 9500.00 for the transport of household goods . By your above act you failed to discharge your dutics with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and have violated Rule 32 ( 4) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules .

(ii) That in your Travelling Allowance Bill for Rs . 12,194.80 dated February 10, 1982 you made another claim for Rs . 120 supported by two false separate money receipts dated February 9 , 1982 for Rs . 60 cach obtained from one Shri Ram Prasad being the loading and unloading charges incurred for household goods at Phek and Amarpur respectively. By your above act again you have failed to discharge your duties with utmost integrity. honesty, devotion and diligence and violated Rate 32 (4 ) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff ) Service Rules .

10. The Disciplinary enquiry was conducted against the appellant . The Enquiry Officer held that all the 5 charges are proved . The Disciplinary Authority perused the entire material and did not agree with the finding on the charge No. 4. he imposed the penalty of removal upon the respondent . The appeal was preferred against the said punishment which was dismissed by the board whereupon awrit petition was filed before the High Court . The High Court allowedthe petition on 3 grounds.namely ( 1 ) non- supply of enquiry officer's report before imposing the penalty vitrates the order of punishment . (2 ) the appellare order is not a speaking order and therefore not in conformitywith Rule - 51 ( 2 ) of the S.B.1 . ( Supervisory Staff) Service Rules and ( 3 ) the findings of the Enquiry Officer and theDisciplinary Anthority on charges .No. 1 to 3 and5 are based on no evidence and must therefore be characterised as perverse . Regarding Charge No.1 the Honourable Supreme Court of India observed as follows . "So far as Charge No. I is concerned the respondent had produced a receipt in a sum of Rs. 9500 claiming that tobe the expenses incurredby him for transporting his belongings .It appears that when he came to know that certain inquiries were being made by the Bank into the correctness of the receipts produced by him , he produced the second receipt ( in june 1982 ) in a sum of Rs.2755 (The first receipt was produced in January 1982 ) . the respondent's case was that though initially the transporter charged him the sum of Rs . 9500 which he paid partly in cash and partly through a post- dated cheque . the transporter later revised the chargesdownwards to Rs . 2755 PW - I the transporter exantined by the Bank . supported the respondent's case in full . However, the Enquiry Officer refused to believe his evidence for the various reasons given by him in his report . After examining the evidence of PW- 1 and other documentary evidence at length , the Enquiry Officer found that "there was no actual movement of household goods belonging to Shri S.K.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Endow on the dates represented by the documents . " The High Court, however, proceeded on the assumption that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was to the effcct that there was no actual movement of household goods belonging to him at all . In other words , it ignored the words " on the dates represented by the document " in the above finding . The High Court held on that basis that the Enquiry Officer was in crror in holding that there was absolutely no oral evidence in support of the finding that there was no movement of goods . We are not satisfied with the reasoning of the High Court . Firstly it is based upon anincomplete reading -or ifwe may call it, misreading- of the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Secondly, it cannot be said that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was based on no evidence .Once the explanation offered by the respondent is disbelieved , there are two contradictory receipts produced by him -the earlier one claiming a far higher amount and the latter one claiming a farlesser amount . Apart from that the Enquiry Officer has relied upon several documents , namely P.Ex. 23 , P.Exs . 10 and 9 in support of his finding .It cannot therefore be said that the Enquiry Officer's finding is based on no evidence. " 11. Regarding Charge No.2 the Honourable Suspreme Court of India observed as follows- " Charge No.2 relates to claim of Rs . 120 towards loading and unloading charges , evidenced by two receipts dated 9th Jamiary 1982. the Enquiry Officer found that in view of the grave discrepancies with respect to the date of transportation and also because Ram Prasad who is said to have accompanied the goods in the truck was not examined.the charge mustbe held proved . the Enquiry Officer found that the loading and unloading did not take place on the dates mentioned therein . This finding is again based upon the documentary evidence and cannot be said to be not supported by any evidence . The High Court was of the opinion that there was no evidence in support of the Enquiry Officer's finding that Rain Prasad is a fictitious person . We have perused the finding of Enquiry Officer closely. The finding is not that Ram Prasad is a fictitious person but that his non - examination goes to show that the respondent's case that the said person accompanied the goods is not established . No doubt , he also added thatRam Prasad appears to be a fictitious person , but that is only by way of an additional reason ; it is not the main reason .

12.After having discussed the other charges and the various case laws , the Honourable Supreme Court of India held as follows:-

"Now corning to the facts of this case it would appear that the main charge against the respondent is putting forward a false claim for reimbursement of expenditure incurred for transporting his belongings from Phek 10 Amarpur. So far as charge 5 is concerned there is no finding that the account become irregular or that any loss was incurred by the bank on account of the irregularity committed by the respondent. In the circumstances it may be that the punishment of removal imposed upon the respondent is harsh but this is a matter which the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority should consider and not the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal . In our opinion , the proper course to be adopted [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

in such situations would be to sent the matter either to the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to impose appropriate punishment.

13. In the case at hand , the deceased workman in DE was charged with misconduct as he preferred a fraudulent LTC claim in respect of his son, and 2 daughters whereby caused a wrongful gain for himself by unlawful means to which he was not legally entitled. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the son and daughters of the deceased workman had not accompanied him onjourney on LTC . This is a case where a bogus claim was made by the deceased workman from the management . Since the charges were proved , the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon the deceased workmen. In the law cited above , it was not the case that the belongings and other articles of the appellant were not transported from Phek to Amarpur in Tripura State at all but the case was that those articles were not transported on the dates represented by the documents but this is a case where the journey on LTC was not at all conducted by the son and 2 daughters of the deceased workman and he made an utterly false claim for the same . Therefore the law cited above , in my opinion , does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case .

14. It has been held in 1998 ( 1 ) LLJ -431 in the case of Union of India and other versus Srivastave B.K. that ifthe Departmental Enquiry conducted is fair and legal , there has been exercise of power by the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority, the tribunal should stay away its hand. That it is no part of function for the tribunal to substitute its own decision when enquiry is held in accordance with rules and the punishment is imposed by the authorities considering all the relevant circumstances and which it is entitled to impose . It has also been held in 1995 - I - LLJ - 1065 in case of Shri A.M. Ishwarchar versus Executive Engineer, Electrical wherein the Hon'ble High Court ofKarnataka held that under the guise of sympathy, there can be no compromise in case of gross indiscipline . That sympathy will be shown in appropriate cases and the courts in this country have frequently observed that sympathy results in miscarriage of justice.

15. Having considering the facts and circumstances ofthis case , I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case in which lesser punishment than dismissal from service be awarded.

16. In view of the above , it is concluded that the action of the management of Inspectorate of Armaments , Khamaria , Jabalpur in omposing the penalty of dismissal from service on Shri Wilson Singh, IA/623 , Examiner Grade I, w.e.f. 2-6-83 is justified and as a result thereof, the deceased workman concerned or his legal heirs are not entitled to any relief.

17. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the management and against the workman. Parties shall bear their own cost of this reference .

18. Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour as per rules.

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer 104 G1 /06-15

835

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 345.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ पल्सेस रिसर्च के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 197 से 204/99 तथा 208 से 211/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-42012/52-53/99- आई.आर. ( डीयू) ] [सं ० एल -42012/71 से 79/99- आई . आर. ( डी यू) 1 [सं० एल -42012/ 88/99- आई.आर. (डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006

S.O. 345. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 197 to 204/99 and 208 to 211/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Instt . of Pulses Research and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-1-2006.

[No. L-42012/52-53/99 - IR(DU) ] [No. L- 42012/71 to79/ 99 - IR (DU) ] [No. L- 42012/88 / 99 -IR(DU) ]

KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRL, SURESH CHANDRA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT SARVODAY NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute Nos .:-203/99 , 210/99 , 211/99,197/99 , 198/99, 199/99 , 201/99 , 202/99 , 204/99, 208/99 , 209/99 , and 200/99.

In the Matter of dispute between :

1. Sri Balran Singh Yadav C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A - 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 203/99)

2. Sri Shakur Baksh C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/193 A- 2 , Maswanpur , Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 21/99)

3. Sri Shyam Singh C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A- 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur , ( I.D. No. 211/99 )

4. Smt. Geeta Devi C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A- 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur, ( I.D. No. 197/99 ) 836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006 / MAGHA 8 , 1927

5. Smt . Kamla C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A- 2 . Maswanpur Kanpur ( 1.D. No. 198/99 )

6. Smt . Poonam C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A - 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur ( I.D. No. 199/99)

7. Sri Pratap Narain C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A - 2 . Maswanpur Kanpur ( 1.D. No. 201/99 )

8. Sri Anant Ram

C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A - 2. Maswanpur Kanpur ( I.D. No. 202/99 )

9. Sri Shiv Prasad C/ o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A- 2 . Maswanpur Kanpur ( I.D. No. 204/99)

10. Smt . Vijai Lakshmi C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A- 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur ( 1.D. No. 208/99 )

11. Sri Ram Sewak

C /o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A- 2, Maswanpur Kanpur (1.D. No. 209/99 )

12. Sint. Rajeswari C/o Sri R. P. Shukla 115/93 A - 2 , Maswanpur Kanpur ( I.D. No. 200/99 )

And

The Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Rescarch Kalyanpur , G. T. Road, Kanpur.

AWARD

1. Centraf Government , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , vide their notification Nos . ( see below) has referred the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

1. L - 42012/ 73 / 99-1.R. ( DU ) dt . 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 203/99)

"Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh. Balram Singh Yadav is legal andjustified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. L - 42012/ 74 / 99 - I.R . ( DU) dt . 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 210/99)

"Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in (crminating the services of Sh Shakur Baksh is legal and justified If not to what reiiet the workman is entitled ?

PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 3. L - 42012/ 71 /99 - I.R. ( DU ) dt . 28-7-1999 ( I.D. No 211/99)

"Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of Pulses Research . Kalyanpur . Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh . Shyam Singh is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

4. L- 42012/76/ 99-1.R. ( DU ) dt. 11-8-1999 ( ILD No 197/99) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur t terminating the services of Snit . Geeta Devi is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

5. L - 42012/ 52/99-1.R. (DU) dt . 11-8-1999 ( 1.1D . Ne 198/99) "Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur. Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt. Kamla is legal and jentia! Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 6. L - 42012/ 77 / 99-1.R . ( DU ) dt . 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 199/99) "Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur. Kanpur in terminati the services of Smt . Poonam is legal and justified " i not to what relief the workman is entitled ?

7. L-42012/ 78 / 99-1.R . ( DU ) dt . 11-8-1999 ( L.D. No. 201/99)

"Whether the action of the Director . Indian Institute of Pulses Research . Kalyanpur , Kanpur m terminating the services of Shri . Pratap Narayan 15 legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

8. L - 42012/ 88 / 99-1.R. ( DU ) dt . 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 202/99)

"Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur , Kanpur in terminating, the services of Sh. Anant Ram is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled "" 9. L -42012 / 72/ 99-1.R. ( DU ) dt. 11-8-1999 ( 1.D. No. 204/99)

"Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulsesRescarch, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Slı . Shiv Prasad is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitfed ? " 10. L -42012/53/99-1.R. ( DU ) dt . 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 208/99)

"Whether the action of the Director , Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Smt . Vijay Lakshmi is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman entitled?"

11. L - 42012 / 75 / 99 - I.R . ( DU ) dt . 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 209/99)

"Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research, Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terminating the services of Sh. Ram Sewak is legal and justifical Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled ?" 837 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

12. L - 42012/ 79/99 - I.R. (DU) di. 11-8-1999 ( I.D. No. 200/99)

"Whether the action of the Director, Indian Institute ofPulses Research , Kalyanpur, Kanpur in terrninating the services of Smt . Rajeshwari is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

2. As common question of fact and law is involved in all the above cases hence it is proposed to decide them by common award . Further all the above cases have been consolidated vide order dated 14-12-2000 of the tribunal , and I.D. Case No. 203/99 was made leading case .

3. The workers involved in the above cases have filed their statement of claim raising common ground in stereo typed manner giving details of their engagement and termination of their engagement and termination which are as under :----

I.D. No.

Name of worker

SI. No.

Date of

termi-

nation

Date of engage- ment

26-6-98

1. 197/99

Smt . Geeta Devi 1-3-87

2. 198/99

Smt . Kamla

3. 199/99

Smt . Punam

30-5-98

4. 200/99

1-1-90

Smt. Rajeshwari

30-5-98

5. 201/99

Pratap Narain

1-1-87

202/99

30-6-98

Anantram

26-6-98

1-3-87

7 203/99 Balram Singh Yadav

8. 204/99

Shiv Prasad

11-1-89 30-5-98

26-6-98

9. 208/99

1-3-94

Smt . Vijai Luxmi

1-3-87

Ram Sewak

26-6-98

10. 209/99

1-3-87 26-6-98

11. 210/99

Sakur Bux

1-3-90

12. 211/99

30-5-98

Shyam Singh

work from these workers such as agricultural work like Jutai , Gurai , Marai , Sichai , Katai etc. , which were being controlled and supervised by the management . It has further been alleged that the workers have completed more than 240 days of continuous services in each year from the date of their respective engagements . That the work and conduct of workers remained satisfactory through outthe service and they never gave any room for complaint . It has further been alleged by the workers that the management of IIPR with a view to protect themselves from the provisions of labour laws tried to declare them the workers of contractor in the year 1998 who was having licence of supplying contract labourers which was valid for the period 30-4-98 to 29-4-99 . It is also alleged that when the workers raised their demand for paying them regular wages , difference of wages between paid and payable and for declaring them regular and permanent employee of the opposite party, management orally terminated their services abruptly in gross violation of the provisions of I.D. Act , even without showing any reasons or notice . After oral termination of their services workers made their effective efforts and demand that they be provided service under the management of IIPR but failed in their attempt. Registered letters were also addressed to the authorities of the opposite party management in this regard but all in vain . It has also been alleged that the management used to sell the products on higher prices to different institutions and farmers through their sale counters . Lastly it has been alleged by these workers that their oral termination without notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation amounts to breach of provisions of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and as such is illegal and unconstitutional . Further without providing them an opportunity of re - employment , several juniors to these workers have been engaged by the opposite party to perform the work from which their services were terminated in this management of IIPR have also breached the provisions of section 25 - H of I.D. Act, 1947: The management tried to introduce contract system against permanent nature of work which is highly illegal and unconstitutional which is nothing but to protect themselves from the provisions of labour laws . On the basis of these allegations all the workers involved in the caise have prayed that they be reinstated in services , with wages of permanent employee, with continuity of services and all consequential benefits .

4. Brief facts giving risc to the above industrial disputes are that the workers involved in the aforesaid cases were engaged by the Director, Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kanpur, ( hereinafter referred to as IIPR for the sake of brevity ) opposite party. on the dates given above as labour on permanent post lying vacant under the inanagement of opposite party. It has further been pleaded by the workers that before oral termination of their services they were being paid wages at the rate of Rs. 2127 per month. The management used to pay wages after getting thumb impression on payment register. It is alleged that the nature of work against which these workers were engaged was of permanent nature which is likely to continue in future and that the opposite party is ' Industry ' It is also alleged that the opposite party is taking work from these workers for the last several years still they have not been regularised in permanent services of the opposite party management which is an example ofUnfair Labour Practice and victimization and is illegal and unconstitutional . Under the instructions of the Director of opposite party officers of the management used to take

5. The management of opposite party have filed a cominon reply against statement of claim submitted by the workers involved in the present dispute , alleging there in that the opposite party is purely a ' Research Institute ' under the management and control of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research which functions under the Department of Agriculture . Research and Education and is an autonomous body registered under provisions of Societies Act , 1860. The management has denied the fact that it is an Industry within the meaning of section 2 (j ) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, as opposite party is not engaged in an activity which can be called within a trade or manufacturer , therefore , the present reference order is bad in llaw and is without jurisdiction . It is further alleged by the opposite party that the workers have never been 838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SFC . 3 (ii) ]

denied the fact that the workers have performed the work ofpermanent nature under the management as claimed by them. On the basis of above it has been prayed by the management that the claim of the workers be dismissed being devoid of merit as the workers are not entitledto claim any relief from the management by way of present reference order .

7. Rejoinder statement has also been filed by the workmen in which nothing new has been stated except reiteration of the facts made in the claim statement .

8. Contesting parties have also filed documentary evidence in the case beside adducing their oral evidence .

9. Besides the oral submissions advanced on behalf ofthe cither of the Contesting parties , written arguments have also been filed in support of their respective claims and counter reply. Having heard the detailed arguments and also having examined the written arguments filed onbehalf of the partics, the controverscy centres found onthe following main points :-

(i) Whether the management of opposite party i.e. Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kanpur, can be termed as Industry under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

engaged or appointed by them, the claim of the workers are bad because of misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties . It is alleged that the applicants involved in the present dispute are not workman within the meaning of section 2 ( s ) of 1.D. Act, 1947 , and that there is no relationship of employ and employer between the applicant and the management of IIPR, Kanpur . The applicant had no lein or right on any regular or permanent post under the management . It has been alleged that the applicant could not claim wages and work as a matter of right like regular and permanent employee as he/ she never worked continuously against any regular and permanent vacancy . It has further been stated by the opposite party that they never discharged, dismissed retrenched or terminated the services of the applicant at any point of time either by written or oral order, hence individual dispute as alleged cannot be deemed to be an industrial dispute as defined under the provisions of section 2 - A of the Act . It has also beendenied that the opposite party is an employer within the meaning of section 2 (g) of the Act . On the basis of these allegations it has been alleged that the entire reference order is liable to be struck down , as Central Government referred the dispute without application of mind. The dispute is belated hence is not maintainable under law. Applicability of provisions of 25 - F, 25 -H and 25 -B have also been disputed by the management .

(ii) Whether there is any relationships ofworkman and Employer as alleged by the workers between the oppoiste party & workers ?

( iii) Whether the workmen were direct employce of the Management and their services were illegally terminated as claimed by them ?

(iv) To what relief are the workers are entitled ?

The contention of the management on points No. ( i ) is that the Indian Institute of Pulses Research , Kanpur, is not an Industry under the provisions of industrial Disputess Act , 1947 as it deals with research activities ofaugument the agriculturc products and it does not deal with any sale or earns profit of the products acquired by the Institute . It is admitted fact that the managcinernt of IIPR conducts various scientific rescarch for the benefit offarmers at large to enhance their agricuturc production which ultimately assist enhancement in national product in the field of agriculture . It is also an admitted fact that the sccds so produced after research etc. are thereafter distributed to the farmers against price and produce obtained in research work is also sold . Thus it cannot be said that IIPR opposite party is not an Industry as termed under the provisions of 1.D. Act and that IIPR opposite party is engaged in commercial and industrial activities , therefore, it cannot be accepted that the opposite party is merely carrying on research activities only. Reliance on behalf of the management has been placed on the law reported in 1989 Col. 10 Administrative Tribunal cases page 849 M. Parmeshwaram versus Chief Administrative Officer CSIR New Delhi and others wherein the Administrative Tribunal has dealt that CSIR may not be anEstate under Article 12 of the Constitution of India but has held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide this issue . Thus the law cited by the management is ofno help to them.

6. Apart from above legal grounds on merit it has been alleged by the management that the workers have never been engaged or employed in any capacity by them hence question of payment of wages as alleged by them docs not arise . The allegations of the workers are false baseless , concocted, and misleading . The agriculture work is of casual naturc and is got donc through contractor having valid licence as and when required . The vacancy created under the management are filled up in accordance with the Rulcs and Regulations of the Government of India/Council of Agricultural Research and that the management of 1IPR cannot create any new post nor appoint/promote any person without any vacancy nor incur any expenses beyond the sanctioned budget and allocation of fund . under these circumstances question of declaring the workers involved in the dispute as permanent employee ofmanagement does not arise at all . Managerment has further denied the fact that they ever adopted unfair labour practicc . Management has also denied the fact that the workers have performed the work under their supervision and control . Management has deried continuous working of 240 days by these workers in any calendar year as such keeping of records like attendance register and payment reġisters in respect of these workers has been denied as well by the management . It has been eged by the management that these workers are trying to secure back door entry in the services of the management by way of litigation in contravention of government rules . The management in their entire written statement have disputed relationship of master and servant / employer and cmployee between them and the workers involved in dispute repeatedly and have also cited various rulings of different High Courts and Apex Court , hence it is unnecessary to give further details ofthe written statement filed by the management . Managementhas also 839 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

10. The workers have also filed a copy of Award granted by the learned presiding officer of this tribunał wherein management of IIPR has not pressed this issue that IIPR is not an Industry. During the course of arguments before this tribunal and also looking to the facts that there is no evidence contrary to it can be safely held that IIPR opposite party is an Industry as defined under the provision of I.D. Act . Thus controversee on point No. I is therefore decided in favour of the workers and against the management of IIPR .

11. Points mentioned above at serial No. 2 & 3 are taken together as they are interdependant .

he was examined before the tribunal as witness of the opposite party. In the next breath the employee has admitted that he had to work under the scientist whose name has also been disclosed by the worker in their evidence . If this factual position is accepted then the fact cannot be accepted that Mr. Katiyar Farm Manager of the opposite party had control over it who is only posted as Farm Manager of the employer. During the course of argument it has been impressed upon that the skill work assisting in search work is taken by the regular employees of the IIPR but unskilled work relating basic augmentation of the purpose of agriculture work is got done through contract's labours who supplics the labourer for the product and work and the contractor is paid in lumpsum for the job conducted by him . On the record contractors licence is also filed and also the payment made to the contractor for various jobs rendered by contractors through his agents . Thus it cannot be accepted that any ofthe worker involved in the present reference order was in direct employment of the opposite party. The workers have triedto comaflouge himself as direct employce when they state that they were paid on monthly basis . This fact is self contradictory when the workers admits that they were never paid for sundays and that they do not know at what rate they were paid their daily wages . Therefore it can well be established that the workers involved in the present reference have no relationship of Master and Servant as claimed by them between them and the management of IIPR .

13. On behalf of the Management Administrative Officer Mr. Syal has also been examined who has categorically stated that none of the workers was the direct employee of the Management or Worked directly under his supervision and control . Workers side has insisted upon the fact since the payment and attendance register have not been filed by the Management which could have through light upon the point as to whether at any point of time these workers reniained under direct employment of the management . This fact has also been denied by the management as they had no direct control and supervision over the working of the workers involved in the present reference . The onus to prove the fact that these workers were the direct employees of the Management lies on the workers but they have failed to discharge the onus to prove the fact .

14. Workers have also filed a photocopy of a award rendered by this tribunal in another industrial case and places reliance that on the same basis the workers may be heid to be the direct employee of the Management . This contention of the workers cannot be accepted on the grounds that the said award does not relate to the present workers and that even that award is under challenge before the Hon'ble High Court and yet not attained finality thus is subjudice . Further award passed in earlier Industrial Dispute Cases are based on other grounds and evidence hence workers cannot be allowed to take any advantage ofan aword ofthis tribunal which is still subjudice and is pending for disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of judicature at Allahabad. Therefore it cannot be made a ground for passing an award in favour of the workers .

12. The claim of the workers are that they are/ were appointed directly by the management of IIPR and were being wages directly by the opposite parties . This fact has been denied vehemently by the management . The contention of the management is that they never employed the workers nor any wages or remuneration was ever paid to them directly by the management of IIPR . The workers may be the employees of the contractor who had control and supervision over the working of the workers involved in the present dispute and that the work in contingency might have been taken through the contractor and the contractor was paid for the job rendered by him on contract basis through his labourers . From the evidence on record itis admitted fact that the workers were never issued any appointment letter nor any termination order was ever issued in their favour by the management of IIPR , Kanpur. Heavy burden lies on the workers to prove this fact that they were taken into employment or engaged directlyby the management of IIPR. Overwhelming stress workers is made to the effect that the management has not examined licenced contractor nor the licence contractors name did appear in the written statement filed against the workers calim statementby the management of HPR. Management from the very beginning has denied the fact that it ever engaged any worker directly under them . Mere non mentioning the contractors name or not examining the contractor to rebut the claim of the workers would not ipso facto entitled any of the worker to hold that these workmen are direct employee of the management of IIPR. Certain test will have to be applied to decide the relationship of Master & Employer between the contesting parties . The Hob'ble Supreme Court in a case reported in 203 ( 99 ) FIR page 1064 between Ram Singh and others versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and others held that besides the control all other relevant facts and circumstances are required to be considered including the terms and condittions of the contract. It has clearly has been laid down by Hon'ble Court in that case that in determining the relationship of employer and employce no doubt control is one of the main test . An integrated approach is needed to determine this fact. Unless it proved that the employer retains or assumes control over the means and method of work of a contractor, the relationship between employer and employee cannot be accepted to exist . In the present case the workers in their oral testimony alleges that their work was being controlled by Farm Manager Mr. Katiyar . This fact has been clearly denied on oath by Mr. Katiyar himself when 840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8. 1927

Point Nos . 2 and 3 are therefore decided in favour of the Management and against the workers .

15. Having failed to prove that the workers involved in the present dispute are the direct employee of the Management of IPR Kanpur by adducing other relevant documentary evidence supported with oral evidence the tribunal is bound to hold that theredo not exist any relationship of master and servant between the contesting parties and that the demand of the workers cannot be said to be tenable in the eve of law.

16. In view of discussions of facts and law as made above , it is held that the action of the management in terminating their services from the date mentioned in the reference order cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified . Accordingly it is held that the workers of each of the industrial dispute mentioned in the present award are not entitled for any relicf as claimed by them.

17. Award is given accordingly.

SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. अग्र. 346. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोन्कण रेलवे कारपोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी 21 ऑफ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-41011/22/ 2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd January , 2006

S.O. 346. in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT - 21 of 2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1. Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd.. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-1-2006 .

No. L. - 41011 / 22/ 2004 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . I, MUMBAI JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer

Reference Na. CGIT- 21 of 2005

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ,

[PART HSE 3 (ii)]

And Their workmen

Appearances :

: Absent.

For the Management

:

For the Workman

Absent .

State

: Maharashtra Mumbai dated the 15th day of December , 2005

AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d ) of sub - section 1 and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( the Act for short ) . Lide Government of India . Ministry of Labour, New Delhi . Order No. L -41011 /22 / 2004- ( IR ( B - 1 ) dated 4-7-2005 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows : -- "Whether the action of the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd .. in allotting quarters for workman employed in the Mechanical Department at Margao without following the seniority list is legal andjustified ? If not , to what reliefthe workmen is entitled for ?"

2. Despite the service of Notice by Registered Por upon the Chairman . National Railway Mazdoor Union. Goa Unit. Mazdoor Bhawan . Central Railway Otrs , G- Bhandarkar Road. Matunga ( East) , and also the Regional Railway Manager. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd .. Karwar, Karnataka, none of the parties to the reference appeared before this Tribunal to contest the matter. In these circumstances , I have no other alternative but to dismiss the reference for want of evidence on record to draw a conclusion that the action of the management of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd .. in allotting quarters for workman employed in the Mechanical Deptt . is not legal and unjustified . In these circumstances , the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

3. The reference is answered accordingly .

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 347. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी जी आई टी/एल सी/ आर/96/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं० एल-12012/161/2004- आई आर( वी-1 ) अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd January , 2006 S.O. 347. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central 841 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/ 1.C /R/ 96 /04 ) . of the Central Governntent Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Rajasthan Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-1-2006 .

Office, Indoreand Shri Laxman Sharma. Sr. Manager Bank of Rajasthan Ltd .. Regional Office, Indore identified the workman Shri Umesh Yadav and his signature on the settlement deed . He made endorsement on the settlement deed that he identified Shri Umesh Yadav who is present before the tribunal , he was their employce and as per compromise they are going to employ him again . The following are the terins of settlement :-

[ No. L - 12012/ 161 / 2004 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/ LC/ R/ 96/04

"( i) The management agrees to appoint Shri Umesh Yadav against a permanent vacancy in a subordinate cadre anywhere in its Branch/ Office ofthe Bank in the State of Rajsthan / Madhya Pradesh/Chhattisgarh/Punjab /Delhi initially on probation for a period of 6 months as perbi - partite settlement absolutely as a fresh appointec.

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

The General Secretary.

Daily Wages Bank Employees Association .

( ii ) The workman agrees that he will not claim any benefits in respect to his past services rendered by him on a temporary basis in any Branch/Office of the Bank .

... Workman/Union

2. Sanwer Road, Ujjain .

VERSUS

The Assistant General Manager, Bank ofRajsthan Limited,

3. Sadar Patel Marg .

...Management

Jaipur.

AWARD

(ii) That the Bank will issue a letter of appointment to the workman within a period of 6t) days of the settlement, the workman agrees to join his dutics at his place of posting in the State ofRajasthan/ Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh . Punjab/Delhi wherever there is a vacancy within 15 days on receipt of letter of appointment .

Passed on this 19th day of December, 2005

(iv) That if the workman fails to join dutics within the period as per clause 3 of the settlement he will forefeit his right to the post offered .

1. The Government of India. Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012 / 161 / 2004 - IR( B - 1 ) dated 20-8-04 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :--

"Whether the action of the management of Asstt . General Manager. The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , in not regularising the services of Sh. Umesh Yadav is justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

(v) That this settlement arrived at between the parties finally disposes of all the claims of the workman in respect of past services rendered by him in any branch/office of the Bank on temporary basis and subsequent termination of his service by the Bank . The workman shall not file any claim, if any, in any Court/ Tribunal on the point settled hereunder.

(vi ) This agreement has arrived at between the parties keeping in view the special fact and circumstances of the matter in dispute and will not form precedent for any other dispute in respect of any employce of the Bank .

2: Workman Shri Umesh Yadav filed his statement of claim and thereafter the management filed its Written Statcinent and the case was fixed for filing rejoinder by . workman on 30-12-05 . But before the said date on 15-12-05 , a joint application was moved by the parties with the prayer that the case be taken up on 15-12-2005 as the dispute has been compromised between the parties outside the court . In view of the above application , the case was taken up on that date i.e. on 15-12-2005 . The parties filed settlernent deed or Form- H which was duly verified by me and the reference was therefore closed for award.

(vii) Both the parties are advised to submit implementation report within 3 month of the settlement to the Presiding Officer . CGIT. Jabalpur otherwise it will be presumed that the settlement is fully implemented."

4. The terms of settlement arrived at between the partics are just and fair. Therefore the award is recorded in terms of settlement without any order as to costs .

5. Copy of the award be sent to the Govt . of India. Ministry of Labour as per rules .

C. M. SINGH . Presiding Officer 3. It has been submitted by the workman in person and Shri S. K. Rao , Sr. Advocate the learned counsel for the management that a compromise has taken place between the parties outside the court. The settlement deed on Form-H has been duly verifiedby me . On this deed, Shri S. K. Rao , Sr. Advocate the learned counsel for the managument identified the signature of Shri Laxman Sharma, Sı . Manager, the Bank of Rajsthan Ltd. , Regional 842

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006 / MAGHA 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 348. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० कास्ट्रोल इंडिया लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

| सं ० एल-30012/110/97- आई. आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January , 2006

S.O. 348. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 34/ 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court Mumbai -I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Castrol India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on30-12-2005,

[No. L-30012/ 110/97 - IR( C - 1) ]

S. S. GUPTA , Under Secv.

ANNEXURE

2. The case of the workman Shri . Vasant vishwanath Ranpisc (hereinafter referred to as the workman ) as borne out from the Statement of claim filed by him on 14-10-1998 , in brief, is that he was employed as Driver in November ' 1990by M / s.Castrol India Ltd. ( hereinafter referred to as the Company, (1st Party ). He worked there continuously for a pcriod of 240 days in each year till the date of termination i.e. 14-3-1996 . He was not being given the benefits at par with other drivers of the Company in the form of PF. ESI , Bonus etc. and when he insisted for it and also for signing the muster roll , he was removed illegally without complying with the due procedure of law as provided under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) . He was working with Mr. A.K. Sequeira . General Manager of the Company . When he requested Mr. Sequeira to make him permanent on several occasions and lastly on 13th March 1996, upon which Mr. Scqucira got annoyed and started abusing and also assaulted by giving a slap to him. The workman had to file a police complaint for it at Agripada Police Station . Mr. Sequcira took the keys of the car from him and he was not allowed to resume duties from the following day. i.c. 14-3-1996 . He filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Labour. Maharashtra at Mumbai on 14-3-1996 . The order was passed upon his complaint registered as No. 190 of 1996 on 20-4-1996 and the Company was directedto deposit wages for each month by 7th . This order was passed exparte andupon contest , finally, the complaint was dismissed for want ofjurisdiction . He then raised the Industrial dispute the Conciliation Officer which led to the reference before thistribunal.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 MUMBAI PRESENT

JUSTICE GHANSIIYAM DASS

Presitling Officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT -34 OF 1998

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Castrol India Limited And Their Workman .

APPEARANCES:

Mrs. G.l .. Govil . Adv.

For the Management

For the Workman

Mr. Chaubal , Adv.

State

Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 14th day of December. 2005

AWARD

1. This is reference made by the Central Govertiment in exercise of ins 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 - 30012/ 110/97- IR(C) dated 27-8-1998 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Castrol India Ltd .. in dismissing the services of Mr. Vasant Vishwanath Ranpise , an ex -driver w.c.f. 14-3-1996 without following the provisions of the LD Act 1947 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to? "

3. The written statement has been filed by the company. The contention , in brief, is that there is no relationship of employer and employee. The workman was never appointed by the company nor ever removed from service as alleged . Thus , the provisions of Industrial Dispute Act are not attracted and the reference is not maintamable. It is alleged that the company is a Public Ltd. engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of automotive . industrial and marine lubricating oils and is a specialist in various lubricating oils manufactured by it. It has its Registered and Corporate Office at White House , 91 . Walkeshwar Road. Mumbai and several manufacturing units at different locations . One of the perquisite provided by the company to its Executive is the Company's car for the personal and official use by such Executives and their families. The Company reimburses to such Executives fixed monthiy amount towards reimbursement of the salary of the drivers employed and paid by the Executives for driving the Company's car given to them . Thedriver was being kept by the Executives in the personal capacity and the reimbursement towards the employment of a driver was made by the Company to the limits as provided . It was immaterial as to whether the Executives used to pay higher salary to the driver or less salary. If the higher salary is paid it would be borne by the Executive himself. This perquisite is taxable under Income Tax Act and it paid by the Executive. The driver is never kept on the muster roll of the Company nor driver works under the control or the supervision of the Company. The Executive had a right and to appoint the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

843 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

driver of his choice and terminate him at his sweet will . Mr. Sequeira was appointed as General Manager, HRD by the Company at its Corporate and Registered Office at Mumbai . He was given a Company's car and was allowed a fixed monthly amount as a prequisite reimbursement of drivers salary. The car was used for the company's work as well as personal work . The workman under reference was engaged as driver by Mr. Sequcira and hence his employment does not come within the definition of Section 2(1 ) of the I.D.Act . The monthly wages were paid to the workman by Sequcira directly and reimbursement was made to Mr. Sequeira as evident from the documents (Ex - Al to A12) .

7. The first impression on a reading of the aforesaid certificate goes to show that the workman was an employec of the Company ; but it is not so . The satisfactory explanation has been furnished by the Company to show the circumstances under which the issuance of this certificate had become necessary and it was being issued as a measure of identification. The explanation is that there were ricas in Mumbai in December 1992. The Driver approached Mr. Sequeira in view of the riotous situation in his residential area which was located in Dharavi in ' E` ward Chawl No. 5, Room No.8 . Ambedkar Road, Matunga Labour Camp . Mumbai . The Police Authorities were frequently interrogating and harassing him ( driver ). The driver therefore, requested him to issue a certificate for identification to the effect that he was required to attend the duty in Castrol India Ltd. from 7.30 AM to 9.00 PM so that the he could produce such certificate to the Police Authority to avoid unnecessary interrogation and harassment . Mr. Sequcira out of sympathy issued a certificate on the letter head of the Company making it clear that it was issued to him as a measure of identification . The riots actually took place in Mumabi in December 1992 . This fact is not disputed . Thus , I feel that satisfactory reason has been offered by the Company to show the circumstances under which the driver was issued certificate. I feel that this certificate does not go to prove that the workman was employed by the Company.

8. Admittedly, the workman was not issued any appointment letter by the Company. He has never permitted to sign the muster roll . He was never paid the wages through pay slips by the company. It has been shown that the Company pays the salary to its employees through cheques . The workman was never paid salary through cheque. He was not given the benefits of PF, ESI , Bonus . Casual Leave etc. No service record was maintained by the Company.

4. The only controversy for determination in this reference is as to whether the workman has proved himself to be the employce of the Company. It is to be seen as to whether the relationship of employee and employer exist in between the partics. If the workman is successful in showing that he was employed by the Company, he would be naturally entitled to all the relief claimed by him for the obvious reason that he has been removed from service without following the mandatory provisions of I.D.Act . moreparticularly, section 25 -F. The workman has not been charge sheeted nor any enquiry has been conducted nor any notice of termination has been given nor he has been paid one month wages at the time of ternination of service . If the workman fails to prove his case he is not entitled to any relief whatsoever . The workman has filed his own affidavit in support of his case . He has also filed certain documents upon the basis of which it is submitted that he is proved to be the ex -employce of the Company. On the other side, the Company has filed affidavit of Mr. Sequeira and one Mr. Harish P. , Finance Director with M/ s . Chaitra Leo Burnett Co. He was working as Senior Manager . Taxation and Finance with the Company in question at the relevant time between September 1994 to October 2000. The parties have also filed documents . The genuineness of the document is not disputed by either of the partics . The explanation had been furnished by the Company to show that the documents filed by the workman in support ofhis case are not sufficient for a conclusion in his favour regarding his employment by the Company.

6. The first material documents upon which heavy reliance is being placed by the workman to show that he was employed by the Company is a certificate dt . 15-12-1992 typed on the letter head of Castrol India Ltd. it reads :--

TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN

"This is to certify that Mr. Vasant V. Ranpise is working as a driver in Castrol India Ltd. White House . 91 Walkeshwar Road. Bombay -400006. He is at present staying at Matunga Labour Camp . E ward Chawl No.5 . Room No.8 . Ambedkar Marg. Bombay - 400019 , he is required to attend his duty at Castrol India Ltd. Walkeshwar . at 7.30 in the morning till around 9 PM when he return hame.

This certificate is being issued to him as a measure of identification . "

9. The confusion arose in the mind of the driver (workman) in the instant case which led him to believe that he was employed by the Company on account of the reason that he was being kept by the none else but by the General Manager himself. He was naturally required to perform the duties of thedriver as such for office as well as personal use by Mr. Sequeira , who was provided a car by the Company. Since the car was provided by the Company to the General Manager , the workman did perform the duties as driver of the Company's work as well as personal work ofSequeira. For this reason. he was required to sign the vouchers for purchase of fuel for the Company ' work. For these reason , he was provided Uniform and shoes by the Company. He was never provided a logo by the Company todistinguish and specify him as employee ofthe Company: Thedocuments filed by the workman Ex W - 4 to Ex . W- 14 only to go to show ( hat they were necessary since the car which was driven by the workman belonged to the Contpany and naturally any expense to be incurred for it would go to the Company. Thedriver simply got job work done or fuel purchased for it . All these documents did not go to show that the workman was employed by the Company: Since the workman was working with the General Manager , it was natural for himto have got the uniform .

104GI /06-16 844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

shoes , umbrella and coupon of the canteen for enjoying refreshment at a concessional ratc. None of the documents filed by the workman except the one ( certificatc) has got any relevance in showing the relationship of employer and employce in between the parties . The certificate dt . 15-12-1992 is the only material picce of evidence in favour of the workman but that is not sufficient in view of the explanation offered by Sequeira . It may be a case of misuse of the office by Mr. Sequeira appointed as General Manager with effect from 1-11-1990 that he treated the driver in such a fashion that the driver believed hintself to be a workman ofthe Company but the fact remains otherwise No evidence worth the name is available on record for drawing the conclusion in favour of the workman . The burden lics upon the workmanto prove that he was the employce of the Company . This burden is not discharged on record.

10. Mr. Scqucira has been appointed General Manager w.e.f. 1-11-1990 . The appointment letter has been filed on record. It has been successfully shown that as per terms and conditions of the appointment , the perquisitics were being given to Sequcira and one of those perquisite was providing a car . It has been successfully shown on record that Mr. Sequcira since his taking over charge as General Manager appointed Mr. Ranpise ( workman) in his personal capacity as a driver and lte worked as such with him till termination . The reimbursement was always made to Sequcira as provided under terms and conditions. It is material to note that the workman always received the salary in cash from Sequeira on a typed receipt duly affixed by a revenue stamp.It is altogether wrong to allege that workman was paid salary by the Company. No evidence worth the nante is available on record to show that the workman was ever paid any salary by the Company. The payment was made by Sequeira in cash to the workman . The Company pays the salary to its employce through cheque . The workntan was never paid any salary through cheque . The receipts in the form of Ex -A ! to Ex -A12 have been filed by the Companyto show that the workman always received amount of salary from Sequeira . The documents Ex -B- 1 to B - 11 have been filed to show that reimbursement was given to Sequeira . The originals of all these referred documents have also been filed on record .

11. The workman admitted in his cross examination that he was not issued any appointment letter by the Company. He was driving the car given to Sequeira by the Company which was used by Sequeira for personal and official use as well . He never insisted the Coittpany to issue letter of appointment and he did not know that tlte employees of the Company were being paid the wages through cheque . He was never required to sign the muster roll-nor was ever given any pay slip or cheque by the Company . He was not given the benefit of PF , ESI etc. He also admitted that he was not a member of the Union of the employees ofthe Company. These averments make it clear that he was not the employce of the Company .

12. Regarding the assault dated 13-3-96 , a day carlier tothe alleged termination from service . I feel that no benefit can be derived at from it by the workman. No action was ever taken by the police on the alleged Complaint of assault .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] Itisdifficult to believe that any assault was actually made by Sequcira upon the workman .

13. In a case reported in 1978 I LLJ 312 in between Punjab National Bank and Ghulam Dastagir the Honourable Supreme Court held that: there is nothing on recordto indicate that the control and direction of the driver vested in the Bank . After all , the evidence is clearly to the contrary. In the absence of material to make out that the driver was employed by the Bank, was under its direction and control , was paid his salary by the Bank and otherwise was included in the army of employces in the establishment of the Bank, it cannot be assumed that the crucial point has been proved . There is no camouflage or circumvention of any statute.

(ii) In another case reported in 1994 II LLJ 792 between Standard Chartered Bank vs. Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) & Ors . the honourable High Court of Calcutta held that :-At no material point of time the petitioner bank had appointed the driver and there cannot be any conciliation proceedings . Admittedly, there was neither any letter of appointment nor termination order. It appears from the records that the workınan had obtained employment from the employee of the bank in his personal capacity. There is , therefore , no industrial dispute and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to initiate any conciliation proceedings .

(iii) In the case of Shri Bhagwan vs. National Housing Bank and Others reported in 2001 LLR 866 the Honourable High Court of Delhi observed that "reimbursement ofconveyance expenses including the payment ofwages and petrol to the Chairman andManaging Director will not treat the driver, as the employee of the Bank. ".

14. In another case reported in 2000 (4) LLN 948 between Nazir Ahmed vs. A. Ramchandran and Anr. the Honourable Madras High Court held that- Giving undue importance to a certificate produced by a workman which was alleged to have been issued to help the workman was not proper and the Labour Court was not justified in relying upon the oral evidence of the workman who had a grudge against the management. The evidence of the workınanwas discarded and it was held that the certificate given to him as a help was misused by him to show that he was a workman .

15. In the instant case similar is the situation since the certificate issued to the workman in lieu of riotous conditions in 1992 is now being wrongly used as a certificate for entployment . It is clear from the certificate that it was being issued as a measure of identification . It could not be said to be a substitute to the letter of appointment which was never issued by the Company at the time of the inception of the employment in the year 1990 .

16. Considering the entire evidence available on record and the discussions made above , I conclude that the workman is not proved to be the employce of the Company. The workman was never kept on the muster roll of the Company. There was no relationship of employce भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

and employer . The workman was not appointed by the Company as alleged . He was not removed from service by the Company. He was kept as a personal driver by Mr. Sequeira enjoying the facility of perquisite in the form of providing a car by the Company which was being used for personal and official purposes . In view of the above , the reference is not maintainable and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

17. The reference is answered accordingly. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 349.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एअर इंडिया लि० के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-12-2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल -11012/ 103/98- आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006 S.O. 349. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 39/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofAir India Ltd. and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 30-12-2005 .

[No. L- 11012/ 103/98 - IR (C- 1 ) ] S.S.GUPTA, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT :

Justice Ghanshyam Dass , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT - 30 OF 1999 PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Air India Limited And

Their Workman .

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement : For the Workınan

State

845 "Whether the action of the management of Air India Ltd. , in terminating the services of Mr. Prakash Namdeo Gangurde , Casual Labour w.e.f. 8-6-1989 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. The case of the workman Mr. P.N. Gangurde as borne out from the Statement of Claim dated 10-12-2002 , in brief, is that the workman was employed as Sweeper by the employer M/ s . Air India Ltd. In its Civil and Properties Department and he worked as such in the year 1987 till June 1989 and thereafter, in the Tractor Section in GAD Maintenance Department as casual workman. The workman was working through contractor namely M/s. Komal & Party with the employer. He was working under the Officer Mr. Irani and Mr. Moghe . He was issued Security Pass No. 3345. The workman worked for about six years with the employer through the contractor as casual employee and discharged his duties honestly and diligently. He worked for more than 240 days with the employer through contractor on the muster roll of the employer but he was not made permanent . He was terminated from the employment by the employer w.e.f. 8-6-1989 and was put on the roll of the contractor where he worked up to 16-4-1992. It is contended that the termination is illegal for not following the due procedure as prescribed under the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 since the . compliance of Section 25 - F was not made .

3. The contention put forth by the employer through written statement , in briefis that the workman never worked asworkman of M/ s . Air India Ltd. on any date whatsoever and his services were never terminated by the management ofAir India Ltd. as alleged with effect from 8-6-1989 . He did not work as a employee of M/ s . Air India Ltd. even for a daywhat to say of 240 days in a year . The workman was put to strict proof of the averments made by him in his statement of claim . Each and every averment made by the workınan has been denied specifically by the management ofAir India .

4. The workman filed his own affidavit in support of his claim . The management did not led any oral evidence . No document whatsoever has been filed by the parties to the referencc.

5. The submissions made by the parties have been heard and the record is perused .

Mrs. M. Das , Advocate

Mr. Nimbalkar , Advocate

Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 13th day of December , 2005 AWARD

1. This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub- section 1 and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi . , Order No. L- 11012/ 103/98 - IR( C - I ) dated 17-5-1999 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

6. The only question for determination in this reference is as to whether the workman proved himself to be an employee of Air India Ltd. as alleged. If the workman is successful in proving this contention , he is naturally to succeed in this reference and he would be entitled to all the relief as claimed . If the workman fails to prove that he was ever cmployed by the management , the question of determining the justifiability of termination of service as such does not arise and that being so the workman is not entitled to any relief.

7. The workman has filed his own affidavit in support ofhis claim . His affidavit is not believable for the want of corroboration by any evidence whatsoever. The sole affidavit is not acceptable in view of admissions made by him in his cross examination , wherein he admitted that he was not given a letter of appointment by Air India Ltd. He 846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

Government hereby publishes the award Misc . App . No. 4of2004 (Arising out of Ref. CGITI/64/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court Mumbai - I now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s Delta Air lines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-12-2005 .

[ No. L - 11012/ 51 /2001 - IR ( C - I ) ] S. S. GUPTA , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI Present

Justice Ghanshyam Dass Presiding Officer Miscelineous Application No. CGIT -4 OF 2004

(Arising out of Ref. CGIT- 64 of 2003 )

Partics : Delta Airlines Association Is : Applicant

M/ s . Delta Airlines

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Shri G. Shetty, Adv.

For the Workman

Shri R. B. Chavan . Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 20th day of December, 2005 JUDGEMENT

1. This is the Miscellaneous Application moved by the Delta Airlines Employees Association ( herinafter referred to as the Applicant) for setting aside the exparte awarddated 13-1-2004 in CGIT -64 of 2003 on the ground that the Applicant had no knowledge of the exparte award. TheApplicant came to know of the said award on being received the copy of the exparte award along with notice. The Applicant then took steps and moved the instant application for setting aside the exparte award .

was paid by Mr. Sawant , Supervisor . He did not give any receipt. He was working under Mr. Irani and Mr. Moghe who were working with Air India 1.td. He was not given any pay slip . He specifically admitted that he could produce documents before this tribunal to show that Air India had appointed him . It is surprising that the instant reference is pending for the last more than six years but still no documents whatsoever has been filed to show on record that he was ever employed by Air India . The burden lies upon the workman to prove that he had been the workman ofM/ s . Air India Ltd. For want of evidence . it is difficultto conclude that the workman has specifically proved himself to be a workman of Air India . The workman does not have any appointment letter. He does not have any proof that he was ever paid the wagesby Air India Ltd. He does not have any proofto show that his work was being supervised by the Officers of Air India Ltd. He does not have any proof to show that his service record was maintainedby AirIndia. It is further surprising to note that the workman alleged to have been removed from service on 8-6-1989 but he admittedly worked with the contractor from 8-6-1989 till April 1992. He specifically averred in his own affidavit that after removal from 8-6-1989 he was put on the roll of the Contractor to defeat the claim of permanency . No. proof is available on record that the workman was ever removed byAir India or that the workman was ever placed on the roll of contractor from 8-6-1989. No reliable evidence whatsoever is available on record to conclude that the workman ever worked with Air India and that being so, the question of his working for 240 days in a year with Air India does not arise . As per own admission of the workman he allegedly worked with the Air India for a short period from 1987 to lune 1989. It is surprising that it has no where been disclosed so far as to from which date and which month ofthe year 1987 , the workman was employed by the AirIndia. In this back ground. the question of removal of workman from service by Air India does not arise and that being so, the question of determining the justification of the action ofthe management of Air India Ltd. in terminating the service of the workman does not arise . The reference is not maintainable . The workman is not entitled to any relief.

8. The reference is answered accordingly. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2006

2. The application is not being opposed to by the other side either orally or in writing . No objection whatsoever has been filed on record . The learned counsel for the applicant was asked to show the provisions under which the instant application is being moved. The learned counsel moved an application today along with xerox copy of the judgement in between Anil Sood F's . Persiding Officer . Labour Court - II reported in 2001 II CLR 18 . wherein the Honour able Supreme Court Vide para 5 and 6 held that.-

का. आ. 350. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै ० डेल्टा एअर लाइंस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक आधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , मुम्बई-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या मि० एपीलीकेशन नं० 4/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकारको पराइजिंग आउट आफ रेफ ० नं० सीजीआईटी आई/64/2003.2005 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

: पद-11012/ 51/2001- आई आर ( सी-1 ) ]

एस. एस. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January , 2006

S.O. 350.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central

This Court in Grindlay's Bank Ltd's case ( supra ) examined the scheme of the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act and enunciated that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act conferred ample powers upon the Tribunal to devise its own procedure in the interest of justice which includes powers which bring out the adjudication of an existing industrial dispute . Sub - sections ( 1 ) and (3 ) of Section II of the Act thereby indicate the difference between procedure and powers of the Tribunal under the Act , while the procedure is [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

left to be devised by the Tribunal to suit carrying out its adjudication .

If this be the position in law both the High Court and the Tribunal fell into error in stating that the Labour Court had become functus officio after making the Award through ex - parte . We set aside the order made and the Award passed by the Labour Court and affirmed by the High Court in this regard. in view of the fact that the learned Counsel . for the respondent conceded that application filed by the appellant be allowed , set aside the ex - parte Award and restore the reference .

3. In view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and keeping in mind , the fact that the application for setting aside the ex- parte award is not being opposed to by the other side, the application is liable to be allowed.

4. The application is accordingly allowed and the cx- parte Award is set aside . The CGIT No. 64 of 2003 is restored to its original number. JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी , 2006 का. आ. 351.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया 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 280/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-12012 /215/97- आई आर ( बी -11 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006 S.O. 351. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (280/1999 ) 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 Central Bank of India and their workntan . which was received by the Central Government on 3-01-2006:

[No. L - 12012/215 /97 - IR( B.II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 280/99

SHRI C.M. SINGH , Presiding officer :

Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey. S/ o Misrilal Chouksey.

847

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Workman Village Kanakheda , Kalan Post , Sanchi , Distt. Raisen -464661

VERSUS

The Regional Manager,

Central Bank of India, E-3/50 , Area Colony, Bhopal -462001

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of November- 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour Vide its Notification No. L - 12012/ 215 / 97 - IR (B - II ) dated 12-8-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Kumar Chouksey, S/ o Shri Misrilal Chouksey w.e.f. May 89 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled?

2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 17-8-99 and notices were issued to the parties file their respective statements of claim . The workman instead of filing his statement ofclaim moved an application with the prayer that the reference be dismissed as the has been permanently employed by the management on 12-4-99 and no dispute is left between him and the managenient .

3. In view of the above , it shall be just and proper to pass no dispute award in this reference .

4. As no dispute is left between the parties , no dispute award is passed with no 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 नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 352.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-12012/ 155/2000- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006 S.O. 352. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 12/2001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Panjab National Bank , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 3-01-2006 .

[No. L- 12012/ 155/ 2000- IR ( B- II) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer 848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT BANGALORE

Dated: 22nd December, 2005

PRESENT Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI Presiding Officer C.R. No. 12/01

I PARTY

11 PARTY

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, 26-27 . Raheja Towers . M.G. Road . BANGALORE - 560001 Shri Tikasa H. Miskin , C/ o Shri Krishnamurthy, Padsalgi No. 3t) , State Bank Colony, 1st Cross . Keshwapur. HUBL1-23

KARNATAKA STATE

AWARD

1. The Central Government by excrcising 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/ 155/ 2000 / IR (B - II) dated 16th February 2001 for adjudication on the following schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in dismissing Shri Tikasa Hanumanthasa Miskin from service vide order dated 20-5-1999 is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

2. The case of the first party workman , relevant for the purpose , as made out in the Claim Statement (pleadings with regard to Domestic enquiry omitted there being a separate finding on domestic issue ) is that he was working with the management bank since 1967 and was promoted to the cadre of Clerk in 1981 and worked with the bank continuously having an unblemished record of service till he was terminated from the services ; that during 1997 he availed Leave Travel Concession from 19-10-97 to 26-10-97 as per the service conditions applicable to his case with due permission from his authorities and took an advance amount of Rs . 8000/- from the bank for his Travel expenses; that he along with his family travelled from Belgaum to Bombay, Panjim and Mangalore and returned back to Belgaum . Thereafter , he submitted TA bill No. 16/97 dated 10-11-97 giving out the details of his journey and expenses of Rs.7300/ - incurred by him towards travelling expenses . He also gave a declaration along with original travelling tickets and receipts for having taken the journey: that to his shock and surprise he was served with a charge sheet dated 12-5-98 alleging that he submitted false/ concocted/ fabricated travelling tickets/ receipts without actually undertaking any journey and thercby committed gross misconduct in terms of para 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement . He submitted reply to the charge sheet and the management not being satisfied

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

with his explanation held a DE against him and thereafter on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer holding him guilty of the charges he was dismissed from service by order dated 6-5-1999 . His appeal against the said order also came to be dismissed . He contended that even otherwise the punishment ofdismissal imposed upon him .is most disproprtionate to the gravity of the charges and therefore , this Court has got powers under Section 11 A of the ID Act , to set aside the dismissal order therefore , he contended that findings of the enquiry officer as well as dismissal order made by the Disciplinary Authority were bad in law and in the result he is entitled to be reinstated in service with full backwages and continuity of service and other consequential benefits .

3. The managementby its Counter Statement under the heading brief facts of the case urged the following contentions :-

Shri Miskin was appointed in the Bank on 16-1-1967 at BO , Hubli as Chowkidar on temporary basis and made permanent w.e.f. 1-2-73 as Peon cum-Chowkidar and he was confirmed in the services of the Bank w.e..f . 1-8-73 . On his promotion to the Clerical Cadre in 1981 , he was posted at Gadag branch . Sub- sequently, he was transferred to Belgaum branch where he was working from 26-6-90. As per Service conditions applicable to the workman staff, he applied for lcave fare concession to be availed from 19-10-1997 to 26-10-1997 and took an advance of Rs . 8,000/ - and submitted TA bill No. 16/97 dated 10-11-97 ( Annexure - I) for Rs . 7,300/- towards availment of LTC for self, dependent mother, wife and four children for travel from Belgaum to Mumbai . Panjim, Mangalore along with the following bills in support of his claim .

Bill No.6838 dated 10-10-97 for Rs . 1,330/- of National Travels . Belgaum for journcy from Belgaumto Mumbai ( Annexure -II ) .

Credit memo dated 22-10-1997 bearing rubber stamp of A to Z Travels . Bombay for Rs.2,260/ for journey from Bombay to Panjim (Annexure - III )

Bill dated 23-10-97 for Rs . 1,330/-from Saudagar Tourist , Belgaum for journcy between Goa and Mangalore ( Annexure - IV)

Bill No. 192dated 25-1-97 fronı Saudagar Tourist. Belgaum for journey between Mangalore to Belgaum (Annexure- V)

Declaration dated 10-11-97 for incurring taxi /auto charges for Rs.720 / at Bombay and Belgaum respective ( Annexure -VI )

To know the genuiness of the claim , a letter dated 3-1-1998 ( Annexure - VII ) was sent to M/ s . A to Z Travels , Bombay by our Belgaum branch by registered post on 21-1-98 which was returned back with the remark " imcomplete address " . Another letter dated 19-1-98 ( Annexure - VIII) was sent by Belgaum branch to M/ s . A to Z Travels भारत का रराजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/ माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

by registered post on 21-1-98 which was returned back with the remarks , ' not known ' . Thereafter the matter was taken up with our KG DadarBombay branch to locate the said travel agency who have informed vide their letter dated 17-1-98 ( Annexure - IX) that they could not find any travel company/travel agents operating at the adress given in the bill submitted by Shri Miskin . National Travels , Belgaum had confirmed vide their letter dated 6-1-98 (Annexure -X) that thy ticket No.6838 submitted to the Bank by Shri Miskin was neither issued by them nor any other authourized person . Seat Nos 13 to 16 for journey on 19-10-97 to Bombay was issued to other persons and not for Shri Miskin or any of his family members . Further, M/ s. Saudagar Tourist , Belgaum, confirmed vide their letter dated 7-1-98 (Annexure-XI ) that they are not running buses from Mangalore to Belgaum and Belgaum to Mangalore and ticket No. 75 dated 23-10-97 and No. 192 dated 25-10-97 were not issued by them the signatures also were not of any of their employees . These tickets are bogus .

On the basis of the above information , a charge sheet dated 12-5-98 ( Annexure - XII ) was served on Shri Miskin for his alleged act of submitting a false/ fake LTC TA Bill and false declaration certifying that he had undertaken/completed the journey as per the TA bill and thereby attempting to defraud the bank . A departmental enquiry was conducted as per provisions of the Biparite Settlement . Copies of decuments were provided and he was allowed assistance by Shri D.C. Devadas as per his request . On the basis of the evidence adduced in the enquiry, the enquiry officer had come to a conclusion that Shri Miskin had not undertaken the journey as claimed in his LTC /TA bill . The EO had therefore , held that the charges levelled against Shri Miskin vide charge sheet dated 12-5-98 were proved conclusively in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority after going through the docunients/ evidence produced in the enquiry , the proceedings and other records ofthe enquiry had agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and had found that the CSE had committed fraudulent act of submitting the LTC claim without actually undertaking the journey and had submitted concocted/fabricated bills in support of his claim . Enquiry Report is enclosed asAnnexure-XII) .

The Disciplinary Authority had therefore held Shri Miskin of having committed Gross Misconduct interms ofclause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement as amended and had proposed the punishment of "Dismissal without notice " vide show cause notice dated 6-5-99 ( Annexure - XIV) and he was offered a personal hearing alongwith his defence representative before the Disciplinary Authority in connection with the proposed punishment . During the personal hearing the employee had made oral submissions admitting the charges and

849 had requested for a lenient view as he was facing some financial constraints . On careful consideration of the submission made by Shri Miskin during the personal hearing the DA had found no reason to reduce the proposed punishment since it was a case of attempted fraud by submitting false LTC bill without undertaking the journey and by sunmitting false bills/tickets andhad confirmed the proposed punishment vide orderdated 20-5-1999 ( Annexure -XV) .

Shri Miskin had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was rejected vide order dated 23-7-1999 (Annexure -XVI ) of the Appellate Authority in his order that in a financial/ credit institution like banking , the basic qualities required in an employee were integrity, honesty and trustworthiness , which has been found lacking in Shri Miskin . In view of the aforesaid, it issubmitted that the action of the Bank in having inflicted punishment of dismissal from services upon Shri Miskin is in accordance with the provision ofthe Bipartite Settlement and after duly conducted departmental enquiry. Further, it is the submission of the Bank that the departmental enquiry conducted against Shri Miskin is fair and proper for any reason whatsoever , in that eventuality the bank would like to lead evidence before this Hon'ble Tribunal to establish the allegations made against Shri Miskin vide Charge Sheet dated 12-5-98 .

4. Keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties with regard to the fairness and validity or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , this tribunal took up the above said question as a preliminary issue and allowed the parties to lead cvidence. The management examined the enquiry officer as MW1 and got certain documents marked including the proceedings of enquiry and the enquiry report at Ex . Ml to M 4. There was no evidence led on behalf of the first party. My learned predecessor by his order dated 23-9-02 recorded a finding to the effect that DE is not fair and proper . There upon the matter came to be posted for further evidence of the management on merits of the case i.e. to prove the charges of misconduct levelled against the first party. The management thereupon examined the then Branch Manager of Belgaum Branch as MW 2 and in his statement got marked 8 documents at Ex . M5 to M 12.His statement in examination chief as well as in cross examination reads as under:

During the year 1994-98, I was working as Branch Manager ofBelgaum Branch . During the above said period first party was working as a Clark in the said branch . He had availed Leave Travel Concession ( LTC ) in the year 1997 and after the availment of leave he submitted TA bill now shown to me . I have verified the TA bill and it bears the signature as a verifying authority at Ex . M5 . Не submitted 4 private bus fare tickets in support of his bill now marked as Ex . M6 series .

850

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

Since I entrained no doubt in the claim of the first party and since I was not the sanctioning authority. I forwarded the bill to the Regional Office . I now see my letter at Ex. M7 addressed by me to A to Z Travels , Agency atBombay to confirm about the journey made by the first party through its agency and ticket issued by it for the said journey. It was sent by me by registered post with acknowledgement due and it was returned back without any service with report no such address. Then I wrote another letter 19-1-1998 to the said agency by RPAD . It was also returned back unserved with the endorsement address not known . The letter is marked as Ex . M8 . Then I sent a letter to our Dadar Branch at Bombay with the particulars ofjourney and the ticket which were furnished bythe first party so as to ascertain and verify the genuiness ofthe claim made by the first party. I now see the reply given by him said Dadar Branch at Ex.M9 stating that there was no agency by name A to Z travels existing at the address given by the first party. The first party had undertaken journey as per his claim through the said agency from Mumbai to Panji which ticket is at Ex.M6 (a). Asper the ticket at Ex. M6 (b ) he travelled from Belgaum to Bombay through National Travels . We wrote letter to this travels also and the reply given by it is at Ex.M10 , mentioning that first party and his family members have not travelled on those tickets but some other passengers names therein have travelled .

The other tickets ( 20 at Ex.M6 ( C ) and M6 (d) are in respect of agency called Soudagar Tourist Belgaum . I wrote a letter at Ex. M11 to the said agency to ascertain the fact that their reply is at Ex.M12 , was in the negative . There upon I wrote a letter to the Regional Office about the details ofthe correspondence made by me with different agencies in respect of the claim of the first party.

Cross Examination

I have just forwarded the LTC claim of the first party to the higher up . I had no doubts of his claimat that moment . There were no written instructions by my higher officer to get the claim of the first party verified through the different agencies vide Ex.M7 to M10 , but I had oral instructions of such .

It is not true to say that I had no such oral instructions . I have not visited personally the places to ascertain the existence of those agencies . I did not give any complaint to the higher officer suspecting the claim of the first party before the said verification .

I have not given my statement during the enquiry. It is true to suggest that claim of the first party was based on genuine bills and that I am giving false evidence .

5. No oral and documentary evidence were produced by the first party on the question of merits. Learned counsels for both the parties have submitted their written arguments and hence the case is posted for award.

journey through those travel agencies and there upon a charge sheet was issued against the first party for defrauding the management bank resulting into his dismissal from service . Learned counsel submitted that statement of MW2 in his examination chief would substantiate the case of the management and nothing worth was elicited from his mouth in his cross -examination so as to take away the evidentiary value of his statement and the documents marked through him . Learned counsel submitted that the statement of MW 2 in his cross- examination to say that he had no doubts of the claim of the first party when TA bill was submitted and that there were nowritten instructions from his higher officers to get the claim of the first party verified and that he did not give any complaint to the higher officers suspecting the claim ofthe first party does not help the case of the first party to suggest that the verification of the claim of the first party done by him was without any authority or without any base. Learned counsel submitted that as against the statement of MW1 there is absolutely no evidence produced by the first party much less stepping himself into the witness box to testify his claim of undertaking the journey or to challenge the genuineness of the correspondence made between MW I and the 3 Travel Agencies . He submitted that if at all the first party had undertaken journey as per the tickets at Ex. M6 ( a) series, he must have stayed at the places he visited and it was not very difficult for him to have produced some evidence with regard to his stay at the places of journey. It was also necessary for the first party at least to bring before this tribunal one of the representatives of the aforesaid three agencies to speak to the fact that he did travel through the agency which issued him the tickets for the purpose of journey. Learned counsel also submitted thatthe travel agency A to Z infact had no existence as could be read from theletter at Ex . M9 issued by the Dadar Branch of the management bank received by MW2 in response to his letter sent to the Dadar Branch at Bombay to ascertain whether above said A to Z travel agency was in existence as the two earlier letters sent by him to the address available on the ticket said to be issued by A to Z travels under RPAD returned unserved with an endorsement ' address not known . Learned counsel submitted that the tickets at Ex . M6 ( B ) said to have been issued by National Travel Agency first of all did not disclose as to where the first party and family members destined from Belgaum and the tickets at Ex . M6 ( C & D ) are not at all genuine for the simple reason that as per TA bill the first party travelled from Goa to Mangalore on 23-10-97 and from Mangalore to Belgaum on 25-10-97 and whereas these are the tickets alleged to have been issued atBelgaum office . Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the claim for leave travel concession facility made by the first party was false and fraudulent attempt by him causing financial loss to the management bank. He submitted that keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct . punishment ofdismissal will be quite proportionate and justified as the management has lost confidence in the first party.

7. Whercas . learned counsel for the first party in his written argument verymuch took support of the statement of MW 2 on the ground that MW2 not being sanctioning authority had no powers to enquire into the truthfulness of the claim of the first party, particularly.

6. Learned counsel for the management argued that fake and fabricated tickets to claim the leave travel concession at Ex.M6 series were submitted by the first part and suspecting the foul play, the then manager to whom final TA bill was submitted by the first party under the oral instructions of his higher ups made correspondence with all three travel agencies and found out that the first party never travelled or undertook 851

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

when he had no doubts in his mind about the claim of the first party when TA bill was submitted to him and he forwarded the same to the higher authority. He also contended that MW 2 had no written instructions from his higher ups to enquire in this matter and also he did not give any complaint to the appropriate authority nor he was the witness examined during the course of enquiry.

management , the four tickets at Ex . M6 (a) series produced by the first party also cannot be taken to be the tickets issued by the above said three agencies for the reason that the above said A to Z travel agency never existed . The ticket at Ex. M6 (b ) as noted above , appears to have been issued at Belgaum office but there is no place of destination mentioned therein . The two tickets at Ex . М6 (C& D) are to be discarded for the simple reason that they are again said to have been issued at the Belgaum office of Soudagar Tourist agency but as per those tickets the journey undertaken by the first party was from Goa to Mangalore and Mangalore to Belgaum. It is yet to be explained by the first party as to how these tickets could have been issued by the Belgaum office when he travelled on those tickets from Goa and Mangalore . Therefore , tickets submitted by the first party as argued for the management are fake and fabricated tickets in order to make unlawful gain by defrauding the management bank. The arguments for the first party that when TA bill was submitted to MW 2 he had no doubts in his mind about the claim of the first party and that thereafter he had no written instructions from the higher officer to ascertain the claim and that he did not give any complaint to the higher officer as argued for the management have absolutely no substance . It cannot be said that MW 2 had no authority to enquire into the correctness of the claim of the first party on his own even subsequent to his forwarding the TA bill of the first party to the higher authorities . In fact MW 2 has statted that he enquired into the claim of thefirst party through the aforesaid 3 agencies under the oral instructions of the higher ups andand ttherefore , it cannot be said that he has no authority or powers to make enquiry into the claim of the first party. There is also no merit in the arguments that MW 2 did not make complaint in the matter to the higher authority. In his examination chief MW 2 in very clear words stated that after having made correspondence with the said travel agencies , he wrote a letter to the Regional Office against the details of the correspondence made by him in respect ofthe claim of the first party. Therefore , in the light of the above, this court has no hesitation in its mind to come to the conclusion that charges of misconduct levelled against the first party as per the aforesaid charge sheet have been proved very much and beyond doubt in the statement of MW 2 and the documents marked in his deposition.

9. Now coming to the question of punishment , it is not in dispute that the first party has been in the service of the management bank right from the year 1967 uptill 6-5- 1999 when he was dismissed from service . It is also not in dispute that there was no miscaonduct committed by the first party earlier to the charge sheet on hand and that his service record was unblemished throughout the period of his service of about 30 years . Therefore , under the facts and circumstances of the case , it appearsto me that a punishment by way of terminating the services of the first party w.e.f. the date of dismissal order would be the proper and appropriate punishment . Hence the following award .

AWARD

Services of the first party hereby stand terminated w.e.f. 6-5-99 . No order to cost.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 22nd December , 2005)

A. R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer 8. After having gone through the records , I do not find much substance in the arguments advanced for the first party. First of all as argued for the management, statement of MW 2 on the important particulars of the case has remained to be shaken in his cross - examination . No single suggestion was made to MW 2 disputing the fact that he made correspondence with the aforesaid three travel agencies sending the letters at Ex. M7 , M8 and the fact that he received the letters from two agencies namely, National Travels and Soudagar Tourist Travels reporting the fact that the first party and his family members did not travel through their agencies on the respective dates . There was no suggestion also made disputing the fact thatthe management issued letters twice at the address of A to Z travels under the registered post and they were returned unserved with an endorsement ' address not known ' . Therefore , the fact that MW 2 sent two letters at Ex. M7 and M8to the address of the said agency and they were returned unserved for want of address remains undenied and undisputed . It is again not disputed that the Dadar branch of the management bank at Bombay in response to the letter of MW 2 at Ex . M9 stating that there was no agency by name A to Z travels existing at the address given by the party. There is again no denial of the fact, rather , the statement of MW2 that he wrote a letter to the agency called national Travels and received reply from it at Ex . M10 mentioning that first partyand his family members have not traveled on the tickets at Ex. M6 (b ) and on that ticket some other passengers named in the said letter had travelled on the date mentioned in the ticket . The statement of MW 2 that he wrote a letter at Ex , M11 to the aforesaid Soudagar Tourist , Belgaum with respect to the tickets at Ex. M6 ( C& D ) and got a reply to the effect that the first party and his family members did not travel through the said agency again was never disputed in his cross examination . That apart as noted above, the first party for the reasons best known tohim, neither, entered into the witness box to justify his claim nor to dispute or challenge the testimony of MW 2 in his statement or the various documents marked in his statement with regard to the enquiry he did with the aforesaid three agencies to ascertain the claim of the first party. He also took no pains atleast to examine one of the representatives of the said 3 agencies or to produce any documentary evidence of his stay at Bombay, Panjim , Goa or Mangalore, to which places he visisted as per the tickets produced . Therefore , we have absolutely no statement on oath by the first as against the statement of oath by MW2 . In the result there cannot be any reason for this tribunal not to believe the testimony of MW 2 and not to act upon the fact of correspondence made by himto the aforesaid three travel agencies as per the documents marked during his deposition . If we proceed on the assumption that MW 2 has spoken to the truth of facts then the only inference to be drawn would be that the claim put forth by the first party was not based on truth. As argued for the

104GI/06-17 852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 353. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा 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 9/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-12012/268/1999- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

S.O. 353. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 9/2000 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispsute between the Management of The General Manager, Personnel Wing , Canara Bank and their work- men, received by the Central Government on 3-1-2006.

[No. L- 12012/268/ 1999 - IR( B - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Dated: 15th December, 2005

PRESENT : Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer

C.R. No. 9/2000

I PARTY

II PARTY

Smt . K. Aswath .

The General Manager, Personnel Wing. Canara Bank , No. 112 , J.C. Road. Bangalore- 560002

W/o B. V. Aswathnarayana , No. 52. Surya Rashmi , Ist Model House Steel , Basavangudi. Bangalore - 560004

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the power conferredby clause ( d ) of Sub-section 2A of the Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 has referred this dispute vidc Order No. L - 12012 / 268 /99 / IR ( B - II ) dated 2nd February , 2000 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the dismissal of Smt. Kamala Aswath former Special Assistant w.c.f. 19-6-1990 by the Management of Canara Bank is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

proceedings omitted as separate finding has been given on the said issue) in brief is that she joined the services of the Canara Bank on 28-10-1971 as a Typist/ filing clerk in the staff section , Eastern Zone , J.C. Road , Bangalore . In the year 1975 the first party was promoted as a clerk. In the month of November 1983 , she was promoted as Special Assistant, which post she continued to hold until she was wrongfully dismissed by the Bank on 19-6-1990 . Right through , the first party discharged her duties and responsibilities sincerely , honestly and diligently without giving room for any commission or omission ; that the first party was suprised to receive a letter dated 19-7-1986 , wherein it was stated that she had been placed under suspension pending enquiry. After lapse of almost two years, she was issued with a chargesheet dated 28-11-1986. She was asked to submit her reply to the charges levelled against her . She orally sought for extension of timeto submit her reply to the charges levelled aginst her. But for the reasons best known to the management , the said request for extension of time to submit her reply was rejected. In the Incantine, Shri P.R. Upadhya . Senior Manager of the Canara Bank was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into charges levelled against her , that enquiry officer by enclosing the copy of his enquiry report proposed the punishment ofdismissal from services of the bank and called upon her for personal hearing to be held on 22-2-1990 . The first party once again submitted before the Enquiry Officer that she was not guilty of the charges leveled against her and that charges have not been proved in the enquiry. She also submitted that punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct alleged against her . However, the Enquiry Officer confirmed the dismissal order and submitted a report to the Disciplinary Authority which in turn dismissed her from service by order dated 9-7-1990 to take effect from 19-6-1990. She filed an appeal and that was also dismissed by order dated 21-3-1991; that she became panicky and rushed to the Divisional Manager, South Circle ofthe Management Bank and on his advise to deposit atleast half of the forged amount for the chance of reinstatement , she sold away whatever jewels she had and arranged for the sum of Rs. 80,000 / -and obtained a demand draft from Silver Jubily Park Road branch for the said amount. Then she again approached the Divisional Manager to fulfill his promisc ofreinstatement by depositing Rs. 80,000/-but he expressed his inability to reinstate her even on deposit of Rs . 80,000 /- . Then she went to the said Silver Jubily Park Road branch to get the DD cancelled and to receive back the amount . The Manager of the said branch received Demand Draft and obtained receipt from the first party for having paid Rs . 80,000/- without making actual payment . Therefore , she went to the Kalasipalyam Police Station to make a complaint and the police called the Manager and questioned about the non - payment of the amount to the first party to which he admitted the fact of non -payment. That there upon the first party approached the High Court inWrit Petition No. 15439/91 but that caine to be dismissed on the ground that she had an alternative remedy of raising the Industrial Dispute. She then questioned the Order in WritPetition by way of WA No. 610/98 and later withdrawn the same with liberty to raise an Industrial Dispute . Her 2. The case of the first party work woman (Pleadings with regard to the fairness and validity of the enquiry [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

853 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

from any perversity. The management, then, denied the alllegations of first party that she obtained DD of Rs . 80,000 on the assurance given by the Divisional Manager and that since she wanted to get it cancelled, the Manager of the concerned bank refused to make payment after receiving the DD from the first party. The Management further contended that there was no wrong committed by the Enquiry Officer in proposing the punishment and then giving Personal hearing to the first party as clause 19 , 12 of the Bipartite Settlement is silent as to who must give the hearing on the proposed punishment. Moreover, the Canara Bank Service Code under Chapter XI makes it clear that Enquiry Officer is empowered to give hearing on the proposed punishment . The management also contended that keeping in view the gravity of the misconduct committed by the first party, punishment of dismissal was quite proportionate and commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct . Therefore, the reference by the first party is liable to be rejected.

4.keeping in view the respective contentions of the parties , with regard to the fairness and validity or otherwise of the enquiry proceedings , this tribunal took up the said question in the first instance. During the course of trial on the aforesaid question , the management examined Enquiry Officer as MWI and got marked in all 15 documents at Ex . Ml to M 15. The first party also filed her affidavit by way ofExamined- in-Chief.

request was allowed on 15-6-99 by the Divisional Bench of the High Court and thereafter she raised the regular dispute and since conciliation resulted into failure report , the present reference have been made to this tribunal ; that the findings of the enquiry are false , baseless and perverse not supported by reasons or logical conclusions . The Enquiry Officer has entered into all kinds of guesswork while discarding available evidence placed before him. Therefore , the enquiry findings suffered from many infirmities , illlegalities and propcedural irregularities and further the act of the Enquiry Officer in recommending rather proposing the punihment of dismissal by himself was beyond his jurisdiction as he usurped the funetions ofthe Disciplinary Authority . He had no right whatsover to hold the personal hearing with respect to the findings given by him usurping the functions of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary Authority also did not apply his mind independently to reach the conclusions that the charges against the first party have been proved . He mechanically concurred with the findings and the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer in dismissing her from the services of the bank . Without taking into consideration the mitigating and extenuating factors in favour of the first party much less her unblemished 19 years of service with the bank . Similarly, the Appellate Authority illegally confirmed the dismissal order; that the punishment of dismissal is highly excessive , harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and therefore, this court has got powers to invoke the provisions of Section 11 A of the ID Act doing justice in the matter setting aside the dismissal and reinstating her in service with full back wages , continuity of service and other consequential benefits .

3. The management by its counter statement while denying the various contentions taken by the first party in her Claim Statement interalia contended that the first party at the relevant points of time i.e. in between 18-8-84 and 10-7-86 was working as a Special Assistant at Shanthinagar Branch of the Management and during the aforesaid period she committed certain aets of gross misconduetfollowed by suspension order dated 17-6-1986 and a chargesheet dated 28-11-1988 . Giving out the details of allegation made in the chargesheet the management contended that after the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer taking into consideration the facts and documents produced has rendered the findings dated 5-3-90 holding the workman guility of the charges . Before submission of the enquiry report he held personal hearing regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal and not being satisfied by the explanation offered by the first party, he confirmed the punishment and submitted report to the disciplinary authority which upheld the punishment of dismissal proposed by the Enquiry Officer. She then approached the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition and Writ Appeal and after having withdrawn the appeał by memo dated 15-6-99 she raised the present dispute . Therefore , the delay for the period from 1990 to 1999 for non -prosecution of the case before the proper forum can be solely attributed to her. The management further contended that the findings of the enquiry officer are based on sufficient and legal evidence not suffering

5. After hearing the learned counsels for the respective parties, this tribunal by its order dated 11-2-05 recorded a finding to the effect that enquiry hold against the first party is fair and proper. Thereupon the matter came to be posted to hear learned counsels of the respective parties on the point of perversity of the findings and quantum of the punishment. Learned Counsel for the first party filed his written arguments . Whereas , learned counsel for the second party advanced his oral arguments and cited number of decisions on the points that reference was bad, the dispute being raised after inordinate day and on the point that when misconduct has been proved particularly, in the cases of bank matters alleging misappropriation of the funds of the bank and on the ground of forgery, punishment of dismissal is very much proportionate not to be interfered at the hands of this tribunal exercising its discretion under Section 11 A of the ID Act. Learned counsel in his written argument once again has urged the contentions at paras 1 to 7 attacking the enquiry proceedings on the ground that they were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The only relevant contentions taken in the written arguments as far as perversity or otherwise of the enquiry findings by the first party are that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the evidence of 14 management witnesses to suit the case ofthe management despite her co - worker objecting number of times . He did not give proper opportunity to the first party to put forth her defence . He did not record many favourable answers given by management witnesses in course of their cross- examination ; that the findings ofthe enquiry are false, baseless and perverse not supported by cogent reasons or logical conclusions ; that he considered. only the evidence of management witness and its documents without considering the objections of the first 854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

partyandtherefore , his findings are one sided and biased.At Para 12 , of the written argument, it was contended that the punishment ofdismissal imposed on the first party is harsh, excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct resulting into improper and non application of mind by the disciplinary authority.

6. Whereas , learned counsel for Second Party taking support of the aforesaid decisions argued that the findings ofthe enquiry officer are well based on sufficient, legal and convincing oral and voluminous documentary evidence and the reasonings assigned by the enquiry officer are well supported by evidence brought on record and that the punishment awarded was proportionate and commensurate to the gravity of the misconduct committed bythe first party.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] You had opened an SB account No. 7501 in the fictitious name of Nirmala at Vysya Bank Ltd, Jayanagar, Bangalore branch on 3-3-86 and on 12-3-86 converted the account into joint account by adding the name of PD' Cruz operation severally. You had deposited the six cheques purportedly signed by PD Cruz , the SB account holder No. 9488 of Canara Bank , Shanthinagar, Bangalore branch , as detailed above at Vysya Bank Ltd. , Jayanagar. Bangalore branch into the SB account 7501 in the joint names of Nirmala and PD ' Cruz and obtained the proceeds amounting to Rs.62,400 on various dates as shown below:-

Date

Amount SB Account Cheque No. No. At Vysya

Rs .

Bank Jayanagar,

Bangalore

7. After having gone through the records more particularly, the enquiry findings , I find substance in the arguments advanced for the management. Before adverting upon the merits of the case let me bring on record the very charge sheet issued to the first party.

Charge Sheet

"At our Shanthinagar, Bangalore branch , an SB account No. 9488 was opened in the name of Mr. Peter D ' Cruz on 27-6-1981 . Mr. Peter D'Cruz died on 19-1-83 . There was a balance of Rs.62,460.42 in the account as on 7-12-1985 after crediting the halfyearly interest . The amount was withdrawn in the account leaving a balance of Rs. 60.40 within 20 days between 14-3-86 to 4-4-86 against 6cheques collected by Vysya Bank Ltd. , Jayanagar III Block Banglore branch, for the Credit ofjoint SB account No. 7501 of Nirmala and P.D , Cruz drawn on Canara Bank , Shanthinagar, Bangalore branch, as follows:-

Amount Cheque No. Date

SB Account

9488

9-3-86

SCBP 8733273

10,000 9488

17-3-86

SCBP8733278

14,000 9488

14,000

18-3-86

SCBP 8733279

20-3-86

9488

SCBP 8733280

10,000 9488

25-3-86 12.000 SCBP8733276

9488

1-4-86 2,400 SCBP 3736021

The above cheques were out of the cheque books 8733271--8733280 and 3736021-3736030.

You had fraudulently obtained the above cheque books on 7-3-86 and 3-4-86 with an intention to make use of above six cheque leaves , for withdrawing Rs .62,400 . You were the supervisor in SB departmernt on 3-4-86 and were incharge of the custoday of cheque books .

You were the SB supervisor on 4-4-86 on which date the cheque No. 3736021 dated 1-4-86 for Rs . 24,00 drawn on SB 9488 was presented in clearing by Vysya Bank Ltd , Jayanagar , Bangalore and you had passed the above cheque and made it to appear as if the same was passed by Shri Shivaram . Shri Shivaram was on leave on that day.

17-3-86

7501

014782

10,000

20-3-86

7501

014784

28,000 7501

014785

27-3-86 10,000 7501

014783

2-4-86 12,000

7-4-86

7501

014786

2,400 In order to perpetrate the fraud , you had on 7-3-86. fraudulently removed ledger sheet 916875 and made use of the same for SB 9488 of late Shri P.D ' Cruz . You were in charge of checking SB interest for the half year ended December 1985. The entry made in the ledger sheet 916875 is shown as December 7 by int. As the ledger sheet was taken out for use only on 7-3-86 , we have reasons to believe that you only carried over the incomplete details of SB 9488 and also made entries to appear as if the same was made on 7-12-85 . You have also cleverly forged the initials on the ledger sheet .

By your above acts , you have fraudulently obtained possession of cheque books from the branch and dishonestly utilized the same for withdrawing Rs.62,400 , from the SB account of late Shri P.D ' Cruz . To cover up your acts you have also cleverly forged the initials of other Supervisors.

By your above acts , you have comunitted gross misconduct as per Chapter X1 Regulation 3 ( J ) of Canara Bank Service Code .

Your above acts being prejudicial to the interests of the bank , you have also committed gross misconduct as per Chapter X1 Regulation 3 ( m) of Canara Bank Service Code. Charge-II

You were working as Supervisor of SB department on 3rd , 4th and 5th April 1986. While working as Supervisor of SB department on 5-4-86 , you had passed a cash cheque bearing No. 3735082 dated 1-4-86 for Rs . 4700 payable to ' Self' in the SB account 10 ^ 2 of Shri K. G. Jagadeeswaran . The following aspecis had been overlooked by you:-

1. The cheque leaf was not from the cheque book issued to the account holder as no chequc book had been issued to the party;

855 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. Though the account had been inoperative as the last transaction was on 1-7-1982 , you passed the cheque for payment instead of referring it to the Manager;

3. The signature on the cheque did not tally with the specimen signature lodged with the bank .

The above facts show that you had acted negligently while passing the above cheque for payment.

Further, the investigation into this withdrawals reveals that:-

appreciated the evidence pressed into service by the management and so also had considered the various objections and defence taken by the first party by her defence representative before arriving at a conclusion as to whether the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party have been proved or not . The learned enquiry officer, as far as , charge leveled against the first party discussed the evidence on pages 16 to 18 and under the heading ' conclusion ' assigned the reasonings in relying upon the oral and documentary evidence produced by the management to establish the above said charge . In order to appreciate the respective contentions raised by the parties , it appears to me worth while to bring on record the very reasonings given by the enquiry officer under the heading' Conclusion ' on page 18 to 21 running as under:-

Conclusion

1. The cheque book bearing Sl . No. 3735081-90 was purported to have been issued to account 10232 whereas the account number written on the cheque leaf is clearly shown as 10132;

2. The cheque was presented for payment and the cheque was posted by Smt . Jayalashmi Yathiraj on 3-4-86 itself. However , you had cancelled the above entries in the ledger and had put correct balance .

3. The cheque was posted on 5-4-86 by Smt. Jayalakshmi Yathiraj ;

4.. You were the only Supervisor of SB department on5-4-1986 ;

5. Later it was found that the specimen signature card was missing from the branch custody;

6. It was observed that the initials in the ledger sheet of SB 10132 for having checked the debit entry of 5-4-86 had been disfigured.

It is clear from the deposition of MW12 (Sri Rudraprasad) that the SB account 7501 opened at Vysya Bank , Jayanagar, Bangalore branch in the name of Smt . Nirmala, which was later converted into a joint account by adding the name of Peter D ' Cruz was a fictitious account. It is also clear from his deposition that the charge sheeted employce in the name of Sint. Nirmala used to come to Jayanagar branch of Vysya Bank where he is working, for depositing cheques and withdrawals in SB account No. 7501 would be considered as true course of cvents , which he has seen and perused . He has also . without any ambiguity whatsoever, identified Smt . Kamala Aswath as Nirmala , hoilder of SB 7501 at their branch when he came to shantinagar branch of Canara Bank , as stated by the IO(MW1 ) in his reports dated 19-7-1986 and 13-5- 1987. Further MW 12 also identified Smt . Kamala Aswath as Nirmala in the Canara Bank office where he was called for to cap it all for a specific question put by me . MW12 clearly identified Smt. Kamala Aswath, the charge sheeted employee as Nirmala who opened SB account on 3-3-86 7. You had issued the token No. 61 on 3-4-86 though it was not your normal function . Once again on 5-4-86, you had collected the token No.52 from Smt . Jayalakshmi Yathiraj , Ledger Clerk;

8. You had reportedly handed over the cheque No, 3735082 for Rs.4700 to Smt . Jayalakshmi Yathiraj on 3-4-86 as well as 5-4-86 to post the same in the ledger ;

All these above circumstances lead us to believe that you had fraudulently withdrawn the amount of Rs.4700 from the SB account 10132 of Shri K.G. Jagadeeswaran.

Shri B.P. Lingacher ( MW13 ) who has introduced the SB account of Smt . Nirınala at Vysya Bank . Jayanagar also in unambiguous- terms , identified Smt . Kamala Aswath as Nirmala whose account he had introduced . He narrated the circumstances under which the account was introduced and also the circumstances under which he identified the above employee at our Shantinagar branch . During the course of enquiry also MW13 , after having look at the charge sheeted employec confirmed that it was she who approached him for introduction at Vysya Bank .

By your above acts , you have committed gross misconduct as per Chapter XI Regulation 3 clauses ( i ) &(j ) ofCanara Bank Service Code .

All your above acts being prejudicial to the interests ofthe bank . You have also committed gross misconduct as per Chapter X1 Regulation 3 ( m ) of Canara Bank Service Code.

The depositions of M/ s . Rudraprasad , MW12 and B.P. Lingacher, MW13 , establish beyond doubt that it was Smt. Kamala Aswath the charge sheeted employee who opened SB account 7501 on 3-3-86 in the name of Smt . Nirmala and letter converted the account into a joint account by adding the name of Peter D ' Cruz in whose account the fraudulent transactions took place . The DR failed to disprove this and I am convinced that the charge sheeted employc opened a fictituous SB account bearning No. 7501 in the name of Nirmala at the Vysya Bank . Jayanagar Bangalore branch and later converted into Joint Account .

The fact that Smt. Kamala Aswath purchased a DD in favour of Canara Bank after the incidence of fraudulent 8. It is to be noted that the management in order to prove the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party in all examined 14 witnesses as MW I to MW 14 and got marked as many as 96 documents at ExM1 to M96 . The learned Enquiry Officer in his findings referred to the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence , discussed and PART II -SC 3 (ii ) ] 856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8. 1927

withdrawal from the SB account of PD Cruz goesto show that the charge sheeted employce had the intention of reimbursing the fraudulent amount withdrawn . Otherwise , what was the necessity to purchase a DD withdrawn . Otherwise, where was the necessity to purchase a DD for Rs . 80,000 favouring Canara Bank by the charge shected employee" in the absence of convincing explanation to the contrary. I have to reasonably conclude that the charge sheeted employee wanted to reimburse the amount fraudulently withdrawn and this itself is sufficient to prove her guilt . Further , it is in the evidence of Shri B.N. Mallya MW8 who was incharge of the branch as Senior Manager of Shantinagar branch that Smt . Kamala Aswath admitted having committed the frauds in the branch before the SI of Police , Ashokugar, Bangalore with whom the bank has lodged complaint . It is also in the evidence of this witness that accordingto St of Police Ashoknagar Police Station. the charge sheeted employee was called on him saying that she was willing to pay a part of the amount (amount of fraud) if the bank was ready to take her back into cmployment ( she was under suspension at that time) .

It is in this context , the remittance of Rs . 80,000 by the charge sheeted employce for purchasing a DD in favour of the bank should be seen as tacit admission on her part in respect of the frandulent withdrawals at Shantinagar branch. The DR has not brought any evidence whatsoever to show that remittance was towards any other account . The very fact that an employee of the bank , facing serious investigation . purchased a DD in favour of the bank for a huge amount of Rs. 80,000 throws enough light on the intentions of the charge sheeted employee which is very clear .

Shri H.N. Rudraprasad, MW12 and B.P. Lingachar. MW13 are two independent outside witnesses and their depositions should be viewed as most credible and without any element of bias , especially in the light of the fact that no ill relationship/animosity between them and the charge sheeted employee was established . Their depositions have been corroborated by the depositions of various other management witnesses like MWI and MW8 .

obtained the same for herself by fraudulent means . Thus the charge sheeted employee has misused her official position in the bank by taking possession of the cheque books unathorisedly for an account belonging to a deceased customer . The very fact that the charge sheeted employee deposited 6 cheques amountingto Rs . 62,400 for the credit of her fictitious account at Vysya Bank Jayanagar branch establishes beyond any doubt that she took possession of the two cheque books fraudulently. Having taken possession of the cheque books fraudulently, to enable her to encash the cheques through Vysya Bank Ltd. , Jayanagar branch , she hadto resort to all fraudulent acts . i.c. opening fictitious account at Vysya Bank , Jayanagar branch , converting the account into joint account , adding the name of Shri P.D. Cruz fraudulently removing the ledger sheet 916875 ( Εχ . Μ5 ) and forging the initials of the supervisor. As a part of her strategyto commit the fraud, the CSE replaced the original running ledger folio in the account with a new one and cleverly carried over only the incomplete details of the account in such a manner that the fact of such a replacement of the ledger folio , the fact that a claim was pending in the court in this case and the death of the depositor was not casily noticeable . The fact that the ledger folio 916875 was taken out only on 7-3-1996 , fraudulently and the entries were made therein to appear as if made on 7-12-1985 have been clearly established from Ex . M5 and M30 . Further as if to show that the initial entries in Ex . M5 have been supervised by Shri Shivaram . Spl . Asstt . of the branch . the CSE has cleverly forged his initials . Shri Mahendra Kumar, MWII , another Spl . Assistant of the branch , in his deposition, clearly deposed that the initials for the first entry appearing on Ex . M5 is that of the CSE only, on the basis of the fact that the interest on SB account for the relevant period has been checked by the CSE . This and the deposition of MW9 Shri C.N. Mallikarjuna that the interest application entry in the ledger have been made by him except in the ledger folio Ex. M5 irrefutable establishes the allegation that it was the CSE who attended to the transactions pertaining to removal of blank Ex. M5 and making entries thereon.

Their depositions clearly show that they have narrated what has been and heard by them on various occasions.

The DR has failed to rebut the evidence lead in support of the charges. He las not examined any witness or produced any documents on his behalf. The charge sheeted employee was also not examined .

The documents and witnesses on behalf of the management corroborates the facts stated by various witnesses from MW1 to MW14 . The evidence of various management witnesses and documents taken on record and marked as Management exhibits clearly show that the CSE had fraudulently obtained possession of cheque book bearing No. 8733271-280 and 3736021-30 from the branch and dishonestly utilized the same for withdrawing Rs . 62,400 from the SB account of Late Shri P.D. Cruz by forging the initials of the concerned supervisor and committed gross misconduct as per Chapter XI Reg . 3J of Canara Bank Service Code .

Being the Supervisor incharge of SB department and having regard to the fact that she was entrusted with the duties of interest calculation/checking in the department . she had complete knowledge of SB accounts . In this particular case , she was aware that the account was not being operated due to the death of the account holder and also it was showing fat balance . Being the supervisor in charge , with the custody of the cheque books , the charge sheeted employee had complete access to them . As a supervisor in SB department on 3-4-1986, it was only the charge sheeted employee who obtained the cheque book herself, by fraudulent means , with an intention to make use ofthe cheques for withdrawals in the account .

9. Similarly the reasonings given by the enquiry findings with regard to the proof of charge No. 2 Icvelled Similarly on 7-3-1986 also , it was only the charge sheeted employce who removed the cheque book and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

against the first party under the heading ' Conclusion' are found on pages 27 to 29 running as under :-

Conclusion:

As can be seen from the above , the three cheques Ex. M66 , M75 and M77 passed together with cheque No. 3735082 (Ex . M66) for Rs . 4700 on 5-4-1986 are similar and Inight have been passed by one person i.e. Smt. Kamala Aswath . The very fact that Smt. Kamala Aswath checked the entries in the ledger as well as in the subsidiary in respect of cheques 8746747 and 8730505 in SB 11973 and 11287 respectively show that Smt. Kamala Aswath only passed the said cheques for payment . Further , it is obvious that the same person , i.e. Sint. Kamala Aswath only should have passed the cheque No. 3735082 for Rs . 4700 (Ex . M66) also for payment.

Shri BSN Adiga , in Ex . M83 confirmed that Smt . Kamala Aswath was the only supervisor in SB department on 5-4-86 and the initials of the supervisor in all the cash paid cheques passed on that day bears red ink.

This statement of Shri BSN Adiga is also another strong circumstance for suspicion against Smt. Kamala Aswath .

It is also evident that the permanent supervisor Shri Shivaram was on leave from 2-4-1986 to 4-5-1986 . In his place Smt . Kamala Aswath was working on 5-4-1986 in the SB department as Supervisor. She was the only one supervisor working in the SB department on that day . Mr. Shivaram in his deposition confirmed the same .

In the light of the above facts and circumstances it is clear that Smt . Kamala Aswath acted negligently while passing the above cheques for payment , fraudulently withdrawn the amount by forging the signature of Shri K.C. Jagadeeswaran , holder of SB 10132 .

The fact that Smt . Kamafa Aswath purchased a DD for Rs . 80,000 in favour of Canara Bank also shows the involvement of Smt . Kamala Aswath in the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs . 4,70t) from the SB account 10132 of Shri Jagadeeswaran . The charge sheeted employce also admitted at Ashoknagar Police Station having committed fraud in the various SB Accounts of Shantinagar Branch. This has been deposed by Shri B.N. Mallya . Senior Manager , in the enquiry .

In the circumstances , I reasonably conclude that the chargesheeted employee passed a cheque for Rs. 4,700 in an inoperative account though the signature on the cheque does not tally with the specimen lodged with the bank and fraudulently withdrew Rs . 4.700 from the SB account 10132 of Shri K.G. Jagadeeswaran , customer of Shantinagar Bangalore branch.

The DR has since submitted his written arguments . In his lengthy submissions , the DR has touched the various aspects of enquiry proceedings . He started saying that the Management witnesses have contradicted and the depositions of the MWs suffer from inconsistencies and inadequacies . Further , according to the DR. the outside witnesses have been tutored and the balance is placed more on Investigation Report Ex . M60 . While making the

857

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

above submissions , the DR seems to have forgotten that the Investigation report is the basis for framing the Charge Sheet. So also the DR has made general comments saying that the management witnesses are suffering from inconsistencics and inadequacies .

Regarding the depositions of MW1 , the DR stated asfollows:

1. Rudraprasad ( MW12) Officer, Vysya Bank Ltd. , Jayanagar Bangalore branch along came to Shantinagar Bangalore branch and not officials from Vysya Bank came to the branch as per the Investigation Report .

2. MW12 did not meet anybody after identifying Smt. Nirmala at Shantinagar Bangalore branch.

3. MW12 identified Nirmala at about 6 PM whereas the Investigating Officer Mr. B.V. Janardhan (MW1 ) has stated that MW12 identified Nirmala at about 5.30 PM .

Though there may be some difference in the depositions of MW12 and MWI regarding timings and the number of persons , the fact remains that Shri Rudraprasad (MW12 ) identified Sint . Nirrnala as the chargesheeted employee at Shantinagar Bangalore branch and this fact has not been disproved . The DR also could not establish any points contrary to the above .

The DR seems to be questioning the way in which the Investigation was conducted by MW1 . He stated that Ex . M50 from Shri B.P. Lingachar was obtained under coersion and threat , which is not borne out of facts . He alleged that the investigation was not conducted properly by MWI just because it does not suit him . MW1 is an experienced officer having conducted number of investigations and for the purpose of this investigation , he has interregated the concerned , verified the relevant documents and given the report basing on the facts . MWI was cross examined by the DR and at no point of time, he could establish that the Investigation was not conducted properly.

10. Therefore from the reading of the enquiry officer, it can be very well gathered that the learned enquiry officer in the first instance brought on record the oral and documentary evidence produced by the management and then he analysed the evidence and thereafter by giving sufficient , valid and cogent reasonings arrived at the conclusion that both the charges levelled against the first party have been proved beyond any doubt . As far as the first charge levelled against the first party is concerned, learned enquiry officer rightly relied upon the deposition ofMW12, testifyingto the effect that the first party opened the SB account No. 7501 at Vysya Bank, Jayanagar Branch giving her fictitious name as Smt . Nirmala and that account later on was converted into a joint account by adding the name of Mr. Peter D Cruz once again a fictitious account . The above said witness in his deposition in no uncertain words has siated that the first party used to visit Vysya Bank where he was working for depositing cheques and withdrawals in SB account No. 7501. With no doubt in mindhe identified the first party as ' Nirmala' holder ofSB [PART II- SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

858

account No. 7501 at his branch when he came to Shanthinagar Branch where first party was working in the name of Smt. Kamala Aswath . During the course of cross examination of MW12 , his testimony could not be shaken on the aforesaid important particulars namely, of the first party opening fictitious account in the said Vysya Bank giving her name as Smt . Nirmala and thereafter converted the said account into a joint account by adding the name ofMr. Peter D Curz , whose account was with Shanthinagar Branch of Canara Bank, left unoperated on account of his death leaving a balance amount of Rs . 62,460.42 vide account No. 9488. The Icarned enquiry officer was also right in coming to the conclusion that the very conduct of the first party in remitting a sum of Rs . 80,000 by way of purchasing a DD in favour of the bank where she was working wonld tell the tale upon the fact that she was involved in committing the misconduct in question as otherwise such a huge amount would not have been deposited by the first party with the management bank towards the amounts she misappropriated by way of eneashing the cheques from the Vysya Bank towards the amount in the account of said Peter D Cruz . Her contention that she purchased the DD of Rs . 80,000 on the assurance given by the Divisional Manager as stated above , was rightly rejectedby the enquiry officer being an after thought and unacceptable . No man of prudence could believe that on the oral assurance given by the Divisional Manager the first party would have deposited the said amount that too selling her jeweiry as contended by her in the Claim statement .

13. Coming to the point of delay in raising the dispute , itwas again well argued for the management that the present reference by the first party is liable to be rejected as a stale claim there being no sufficient and compelling reason given by the first party in raising the dispute before the labour authorities in the year 1999 resulting into the reference to this tribunal in the year 2000. The explanation given by the first party in her claim statement at paras 12 and 13 is that she approached the Hon'ble High Court challenging the dismissal order passed against her in Writ Petition No. 15439/91 and it being dismissed by a learned single judge on 28-110-98 on the ground that she had an alternative remedy under the ID Act . She again preferred a Writ appeal No..610 / 98 and thereafter had withdrawn the same by filing a memo secking liberty to raise an Industrial Dispute under the ID Act and on her said memo writ appeal was dismissed on 15-6-99 and thereafter she raised the dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C ) . Bangalore . It was well argued for the management that the explanation offered by the first party in raising the dispute before the proper authority after a lapse of period of more than 9 years is neither plausible nor acceptable . Thus litigating before a wrong forum cannot be a proper explanation to condone the delay. Their Lordship of our Hon'ble High Court in a case reported in 2002 LLJ 297 Kar held that the dispute raised by delay of 8 years shall be held to be a stale claim rather a dead claim . Their lordship ofSupreme court in a decision reported in 2005 SC cases 91 in Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Vs. Neelam again held the view that ' though the court cannot import limitation period in the absence of the same being prescribed under the statute and it does not mean that a stale claim must be entertained and relief can be granted. Therefore , the present reference being delayed for a period ofmore than 9 years that for without proper and appreciable explanation is also liable to be rejected on this count.

11. With regard to the Second Charge also the enquiry officer has discussed in length and appreciated in a proper perspective the evidence brought on record during the course of enquiry. From the reading of the reasonings given by the enquiry officer with regard to Second Charge , it cannotbe said or contended that the evidence brought on record was not legal and sufficient to substantiate the above said charge against the first party. Therefore , it was neither a case of no evidence nor a case of ` no sufficient and legal evidence to lend support to the contention of the first party that the findings of the enquiry suffered from perversity. The material evidence brought on record to speak to the charges of misconduct leveled against the first party was more than sufficient , legal and convincing for any man of prudence to arrive at a conclusion as arrived at by the learned enquiry officer in this case .

12. As noted above , Icarned counsel for the first party in his argument has not made out a case as to how the findings really suffered from perversity. He just argued to say that the findings are baseless and perverse and that the learned enquiry officer has just considered the management evidence ignoring the objections and casc of the first party . He failed to point out as to how and why the voluminous oral and documentary evidence produced by the management establishing the charges of misconduct against the first party was not legal and sufficientto lead to the conclusion as arrived at by the learned enquiry officer. Therefore, it must be held that charges of misconduct have been proved against the first party beyond any doubt and findings of the Enquiry Officer are quite legal and correct .

14. Now coming to the question of quantum of punishment, it was rightly argued for the management that keeping in view the gravity ofthe misconduct , particularly. the first charge of misconduct levelled against the first party and proved by overwhelming evidence , punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be harsh excessive or shockingly disproportionate . As can be seen from the first charge of misconduct the first party took undue advantage ofdeath of said Peter D Cruz and the fact of non operation of the said account being Supervisor in the bank at the relevant point of time . She managed to see that the fact of non operation ofthe account of the deceased Peter D Cruz. did not come to light and then opened a fictitious account in the name of Smt. Nirmala by way of impersonation and then stealthily converted the said account as a joint account in the name of said Smt . Nirmala and Mr. Peter, D Cruz and thereafter she went on drawing the amounts lying in balance inthe account of said Peter D Cruz at her Jayanagar branch by issuing false and forged cheques in the name of Smt . Nirmala getting them encashed at the said Vysya Bank . Thismisconduct committed by the first party in my opinion deserved no leniency and therefore , punishment of dismissal has to be maintained and hence reference is answered accordingly. by passing following award .

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

Reference is dismissed , No order to cost.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 15th December 2005)

A.R. SIDDIQUI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 354.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी- 136/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/330/98- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd January , 2006 S.O. 354. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( ID- 136/ 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispsute between the employers in the relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2006.

[No. L - 12012/330/98 - IR (B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

BEFORESRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P. Industrial Dispute No. 136 of 99

General Secretary

State Bank of India Staff Association 2/363 Namner , Agra

AND

The Assistant General Manager

State Bank of India

Sanjay Place , Agra

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour vide its notification no . L/ 12012/330/98 - IR(B -1 ) dated 26-2-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal:-

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in stopping two increments of Sri LP Shroff vide order dated 14-3-95 is justified ? If not to what rclief the workman is entitled?

104 GI/06-18

859

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

2. The case of the union in brevity as set up on behalfworkman L P shroff is that the workman was charge Sheeted on 25-2-99 for the alleged misconduct of 1983 after a lapse of 10 years . On the basis of said belated chargesheet the Management bank completed mere formality in the name of disciplinary action against the concerned workman to bring at home the alleged misconduct. It has also been alleged that the finding of the enquiry officer is perverse and cannot be made basis of awarding punishment to the concerned workman as there is no convincing evidence on record to hold the workman guilty of the charges . It is alleged that the decision of the disciplinary authority is arbitrary, illegal unfair and unjust as not Supported by the evidence and is based on conjuctures and surmises . Likewise the appellate authority also confirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority without any speaking order in an arbitrary and unjustified manner. As a whole it has been alleged that the findings of the enquiry officer , desciplinary authority and appellate authority are perverse as not based on legally convincing evidences.

3. On the basis of above allegations it has been prayed by the union that the punishment awarded to the workmanbe set aside being illegal , unfair and unjustified and the bank management be directed to release the increments so with held by way of awarding punishment ofstoppage of 2 annual graded increments .

4. TheManagement contested the claim of the union by filing detailed reply against the statement of claim filed by the union , wherein it has been admitted by the bank that the workman was chargesheeted on 25-2-93 on the complaint filed by Sri Bankey Lal in the year 1987 for abuse and misuse of money. Preliminary enquiry was conducted by thebank and the matter was referred to CBI which did not conclude the matter despite the lapse several years . Then the bank administration decided to issue chargesheet to the claimant . The allegations against the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are false and unfounded . It has also been admitted by the management bank that the tentative punishment was issued for stopping the four increments and in the punishment order the disciplinary authority reduced it to two increments . The decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority is just proper and fair and based on principles of natural justice as the same are based on a very good reason and allegations of the union contrary to above are misleading and misconcieved . The workman was given full opportunity in his defence during the course of disciplinary action. The order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are based on sufficient reasons and evidence accordingly it has been prayed by the manageinent bank to dismiss the claim of the workman .

5. After exchange of pleadings between the parties contesting parties filed oral as well as documentary 860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

evidence in support of their respective claims and counter claims .

6. This tribunal vide order dated 19-2-01 framed following preliminary issue:

Whether the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was fair and proper?

7. The tribunal vide finding on preliminary issue dated 6-11-01 has held that the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is vitiated and the management was directed to lead evidence afresh in support of its allegations as mentioned in the chargesheet .

8. The management failed to adduce evidence despite opportunities having been afforded to them and even the management has not cared to pay the adjournment cost for their delayed action and adjournments . Ultimately proceedings were fixed for arguments with the consent of the parties.

9. The domestic enquiry has already been set aside by learned predecessor vide order dated 6-11-0.1 . In the absence of any other additional evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against the workman by the management , the workman cannot be held responsible for the alleged charges. On going through the record it is clear that this is a case where the workman has been arbitrarily punished for no proved fault of the workman. In any case the trival lapse alleged on the part of the workman where by the report was not submitted on prescribed proforma for sanctioning the loan though the loan was duly sanctioned by the authority and the repayment of the said loan has already been made is of no avail to management. Therefore , even if this trival lapse on the part of the concerned workman is considred to be proved it cannot be made a reasonable and just ground for awarding the punishment by the bank. The action of the management , is therefore , not only arbitrary but also is a selp speaking act of the management to punish the workman for insufficient ground of no fault at all .

10. There is no evidence worth the name to strengthen the charges as proposed by the management against the workman .

11. In the absence of any evidence the charges having not been proved the action of the management vide order dated 14-3-95 issued by the disciplinary authority proposing punishment of reducing the pay of the workman to two stage lower is held to be arbitrary unfair and unjust which is accordingly liable to be set aside.

12. In view of above the workman is entitled for the benefit in terms of moncy which were withheld arbitrarily by their illegal punishment order .

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer

[ PART II -SEC. 3 (ii )] नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 355.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कर्नाटक बैंक लि. 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 56/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/199/2000- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

S.O. 355. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( CR - 56/2000 ) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Karnataka Bank Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2006.

[No. L - 12012/ 199/2000 - IR- (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT BANGALORE Dated: 21st December, 2005

PRESENTN :

Shri A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer C.R. NO . 56/2000

IPARTY

II PARTY

The General Manager,

PIR Division ,

Karnataka Bank Ltd. , Mangalore,

Karnataka State

Shri Pramod . S/ o Thimmoji Patil, R/ o Almel (P.O. ). Sindagi Taluk , BijapurDistrict. Karnataka State

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/ 199 / 2000/ IR( B - 1 ) dated 3/ 16-8-2000 for adjudication on the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Karnataka Bank Ltd. , Mangalore in terminating the services of the workman and for not considering the candidature of the workman for the post of Attender, though he is having requisite qualification, is justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to?" 861 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

w.c.f. 12-8-1981 nor he worked under the management bank as Sweeper or an Attender till 11-4-1984. It also denied that the first party worked in the place of Shri B.D. Patil who was transferred to Arehalli branch and that thereafter applications for the post of Attender was called for by the head office and his name for the said post was recommended by the then branch manager . It further contended that even otherwise the branch manager had no authority or powers to make any recommendation and even ifhe had made such recommendations it is not binding on the head office as the selection process of an attender is based as per the procedure of the interview and merits. Therefore , first party cannot claim any right for the post of Attender on the basis of the recommendations . The management further contended that first party was not appointed as a permanent employee and it is not clear in what capacity he worked with the bank for more than 240 days in each calendar year so as to allege that the management violated the provisions of ID Act . It further contended that the post of Attender is to be filled up by way of interview and on the basis of the merits and since the first party attended no such interview nor had the merit , cannot assume that he is fit for the said post of attender. The management then denied the contention of the first party that he made scvcral representations to the management to take back in service and that he was being given assurances by the officials of the managment bank. The management also contended that the contention of the first party that he had financial difficulties disabling him to raise the dispute at the earlier point of time is not sufficient ground to raise the dispute on hand by way of the present reference and therefore , reference is liable to be rejected .

4. During the course of trial , the management examined one witness as MW1 and got marked 5 documents at Ex.M1 to M5 . The first party examined himself as WWI and in the cross cxamination of MW1 got marked two character certificates in his favour at Ex . WI and W2 . Statement of MW1 in his examination chief is as under:

'I have joined the services of the management as an officer of Karnataka Bank branch at Mysore in the year 1994. In the year 2000 I was transferred to the head office atMangalore and has been working in HR & IR department till today. My department is looking after the personal filesand records of the officials and employees including the part time workers working under the Management .

2. The case of the 1st party workman as made out in his Claim Statement, briefly, stated is that he was appointed as a Sweeper w.e.f. 12-8-1981 and worked at Almel Branch of the management up to 1-1-1981 . Then he worked as a Sweeper and also as an Attender in the bank till 11-4-1984. He rendered his services only with an unblemished record; that he rendered his services as a Sweeper and Attender in place of Attender, Shri V.D. Patil who transferred to Arohalli branch and on his transfer, the head office of the management called for applications for the appointment of local persons to the post of Attender; the first party since already was working in the said branch his name was recommended to the said Attender post by the then manager of the branch ; that without any reason the management terminated his services w.e.f. 11-4-1984 and hence the refusal of the work being otherwise for misconduct tantamounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (00 ) of the ID Act particularly in view of the fact that he worked for more than 240 days in each calendar year and therefore , provisions of Section 25F ( a & b ) were required to be complied with by the management in terminating his services; that the management did not continue his services as Sweeper nor his case for the post ofattender was considered though he was eligible for the said post; that the first party approached the inanagement on number of occasions after he was refused work from 11-4-84 and also submitted serveral representations but the officials all along went on assuring him for the post but did not consider his case . Therefore , the first party could not approach this tribunal or raised the conciliation at the earlier point of time ; that the first party had no means of the livelihood and was suffering from great hardship and after his services were terminated, had financial difficulties also in not raising the dispute or approaching this tribunal at the carliest point of time, therefore , the delay caused is to be condoned for the aforesaid reasons . He also contended that the reference cannotbe rejected on account of the delay and it is for the court to consider the same while molding the relief; that the action of the management also is a clear case of violation of clause 2 ( ra ) read with 5th Schedule to the ID Act inasmuch as the management appointed some others in his place . Further the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice and victimization as the case of the first party was not considered despite his unblemished record and his eligibility to the post of Attender. Therefore, the first party requested this tribunal to pass award setting aside the termination order passed against him with a direction to the management to consider his case for the post of Attender and any other relief along with the cost of the proceedings .

I now see a letter engaging the services of first party as part time sweeper at Almel branch in Bijapur Dist . It is atEx.M1 . On the reverse of it there is an acknowledgement made by the workman which is at Ex.M1 ( a) . Ex.M2 and Ex. M3 are the letters given by the first party expressing his inability todo the work and making request to relieve from duties . He resigned from job on the ground that he has got work elsewhere . Accordingly , the Almel branch relieved him from duties at Ex.M4 . Ex.M5 is the application sent to our head office through Almel branch making a request to appoint him as Attender while he was working as Sweeper. The then Almel branch manager one Mr. Kulkarni expired in the year 1996. It is not true to say that 3. The management by its Counter Statement in the first instance raised the contention that the dispute raised by the first party by way of reference after an abnormal delay of 18 years without offering any satisfactory explanation is liable to be rejected on the ground of inordinate delay itself as he is estopped from raising the present reference . The management thereafter went on denying almost all the contentions made in the Claim Statement ofthe first party contending that the first party was neither appointed by the management as Sweeper 862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] the first party did the work of Sweeper as well as Attender . I request the court to dismiss the reference .

5. Statement of WW1 in his examination chief is as under:-

Ijoined the services of the second party as Sweeper cum Attender in the year 1981. There was no order in writing for my appointment. It was issued in the year 1983 . Ex.MI is the said order. I joined the second party Almel branch in Bijapur. I worked in the above capacity till April 1984.

7. Whereas , learned counsel for the management argued that reference on hand has to fail firstly on the ground of inordinate delay of 18 years itself. He next argued that the first party had no right to claim the post of Attender mainly for the reason that he worked with the bank for some time and his name was recommended for the post of Attender by the then Manager of the head office ofthe management . There was no argument on behalf of the management disputing the fact that the first party byvirtue of the appointment order at Ex.M1 made in the year 1983 was in the service of the management bank up till September 1985 except to say that on the basis of resignation letter submitted by the first party at Ex.M3 (Ex.M2 is the copy of Ex.M3 ) dated 17-9-1985 he was relieved from duty as per the relief order dated 17-9-1985 and therefore , he cannot claim any relief of reinstatement or a direction from this tribunal against the management to consider his case for the spot of Attender . On the point ofdelay learned counsel referred to a decision reported in (2005 SC cases 91 in Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Vs. Neclam) .

The letters at Ex.M2 and Ex.M3 are not in my handwriting but it bears my signatures . The manager of the bank Mr. Kulkarni had taken by signatures on Ex.M2 and Ex.M3 telling met that I will be given exclusive work of attendar. Along with Ex.M2 and Ex.M3 he also took from me the application at Ex.M5 or the post of Attender . I have not heard anything about my said application thereafter . I was not served with any order removing me from the service of Sweeper. I was still in the service of the Second Party even after my application at Ex.M5 . I continuedto work as Sweeper till 1994 being wages of Rs.40 per month.

1 had worked in place of B.D. Patil who was promoted as a Clerk from Attenders post . I could not raise conciliation immediately as I was being given promises from the bank of my reinstatement and orders on Ex.M5 . There was no complaint against me in my service.

6. I would like to refer to their statentents in cross examination as and when found relevant and necessary. Based on the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence brought on rccord , learned counsel for the first party argued that the fact that the first party was in the service of the management bank up till September 1985 has been very much established in the very document produced by the management particularly, the alleged resignation letters at Ex.M2 & Ex.M3 and the relief orderat Ex.M4 , learned counsel submitted that from the above said statement of MW1 in his examination chief as well as in his cross examination it willbe very much clear that teh first party was in the service of the management till September 1985 and therefore, it can be presumed that he was in the service of the management bank continuously fro the date of his appointment in the year 1981 till he was relieved from duty as per the order at Ex. M4 made in the month of Septeinber 1985. He therefore , further contended that since the workman worked continuously for a period of 240 days and more in cach calendar ycar till his scrvices were terminated , the refusal of work to the workman amounts to retrenchment as defined under section 2 (oo ) of the ID Act and since there was no compliance of Section 25F ( a&b) ofthe ID Act , retrenchment amounts to illegal termination and therefore, the first party is entitled to reinstatement in service . On the point of delay, learned counsel submitted that it is on account of financial difficulties and the hardship suffered by the first party duc to termination order and the assurances given by the bank officials . he did not raisc the dispute well within time and therefore , delay may be condoned and appropriate relief may be given to him .

8. On going through the records , more particularly, the very documents produced by the management and the statement of management witness it can be safely concluded that the action of the management in refusing work to the first party tantamounts to retrenchment as defined under section 2 (oo ) of the ID Act and there being no compliance of Section 25F ( a& b ) . it is a case of illegal termination . As per the case made out by the first party in his claim staternent as well as in his statement in examination chief, he worked with the management bank from 12-8-81 till 11-4-1984 initially as a Sweeper and then as a Sweeper as well as an Attender continuously till he was refused work w.c.f. 11-4-1984 . To begin with as noted above , the managernent by its counter statement disowned the first party taking the contentions that at no point of time he was appointed as a Sweeper or worked as a Sweeper as well as ar Attender with the bank but very strangely the management through the statement of its witness . MW1 came out with an altogether different casc . As scen above, in his statement in examination chief. MWI in no uncertain terms he admitted the appointment of the first party as Part time Sweeper at Almal Branch in Bijapur District and also refcrred to the appointment order at Ex.MI. Further he came out with the version that by giving a letter Ex.M3 the first party expressed his inability to do the work and resigned from the job on the ground that he has got work elsewhere and accordingly Almel branch relieved him form duties as per the relief order at Ex.M4 dated 17-9-1985 . In his cross examination MWI admitted that first party worked as a part time Sweeper up till December 1985 getting salary of Rs . 40 per month. It was clicited from his mouth that as per Ex .M4 the first party has been relieved from duty as a part time Sweeper as on 17-9-1985 and that means to say that he has worked in that capacity till the day of his relief. Therefore , from the very statement of MWI it becomes crystal clear that the firstparty worked with the management bank atleast from the date of his appointment taken place on 31-5-1983 till he was relieved from duty as per order dated 17-9-1985 . However, for the first time MWI introduced a story of 863 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

resignation of the job by the first party as per his letter at Ex.M3 . The fact that Ex.M3 was submitted by the first party under his signature stating that he did not like to continue the job having got some other job elsewhere is very much admitted by the first party himself but it is his case that his signature was obtained on Ex.M3 by force by the then manager giving assurances that he will be given a permanent job of the Attender . The story put forth by the management with regard to the resignation is liable to be discarded on its face itself, there being no such case made out in the Counter Statement filed by the management . As noted above , the case of the management was of total denial . It suppressed the fact of appointment ofthe first party by written appointment order at Ex.M1 and it also did not hint its defence of resignation by the first party vide Ex.M3 and the relieving order at Ex.M4 . In fact Ex.M4 also did not disclose or indicated that a resignation of first party having been accepted by the management , he has been relieved from duty. The wordings of Ex .M4 are just to the effect that the first party was informed that he has been relieved as part time sweeper from today. Therefore, it is in this view of the matter one has to reject the theory of the resignation put forth by the management and at the same time must accept the explanation given by the first party that his signature was obtained on Ex.M3 under force by the then Manager on certain false assurances . Of course , as seen above , the first party came out with the case that he joined the services of the management on 12-8-1981 as Sweeper and worked up till 11-4-1984 but as could be disclosed from the very statement MW1 , the first party in fact worked up till September 1985. Therefore , if we act upon the statement of the first party that he worked from August 1981 till April 1984 continuously or we go by the case of the management made out in the statement of MW1 that first party was in the service of the management from 31-5-1983 till he relieved from duty on 17-9-1985 , in either case it is to be followed that first party was in the service ofthe management bank continuously for a period of 240 days and more when his services came to be terminated either by way of oral instruction or by way of the alleged relieved order at Ex.M4 . It is here one has to accede to the arguments advanced for the first party that he being in the services of the management bank continuously for a period of 240 days and more , his termination by way of retrenchment as defined under Section 2( oo) of the ID Act could have been done legally by fulfilling the requirement of Section 25F (a& b ) of the ID Act . Undistiputedly the management has not complied with the provision of Section 25F ( a&b ) of the ID act and therefore it is a case of illegal retrenchment resulting into illegal termination liable to be set aside as illegal and void abinitio .

9. Now coming to the question of delay, there appears substantial force in the arguments advanced by the management that the dispute raised by the first party somewhere in the year 2000 after being terminated from services in the year 1984 was a stale dispute not at all existing at the time it was raised by the first party. The explanation given by the first party in raising the dispute after the delay of more than 15 to 16 years from the date of

his alleged termination , as argued for the management is neither plausible nor acceptable. At Para 7 , the first party came out with the explanation that after he was refused work he approached the management on number of occasions submitting several representations and the officials of the bank went on assuring him the job in the bank and therefore , he could not approach or raised the dispute at the earlier point of time. At para 8 , he comes out with a different version saying that because of the management terminating his services , he had financial difficulties in approaching this court . Therefore , the above said self- conflicting explanations offered by the first party deserves no consideration and as argued for the management , the aforesaid reasons given by the first party also cannot be considered to be sufficient and reasonable in raising the dispute after a gap of more than 15 to 16 years . The reasons , rather, the explanation offered by the first party is neither convicing nor satisfactory so as to condone the delay in raising the dispute on hand . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 69 held the view that ' termination challenged as illegal after lapse of 13 years , there being no explanation ofdelay offered, the court was right in refusing the relief on the ground that it was stale claim ' . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a decision reported in AIR 2000 SC839 also observed that a complaint made after a lapse of 7 years cannot give rise to an industrial dispute or that industrial dispute can be said to have been apprehended . Their Lordship further held that reference of such dispute is bad both on the ground of delay and lack of industrial dispute existing as apprehended . Their Lordship of our Hon'ble High Court in a decision reported in 2002 II LLJ page 297 held the view that unexplained delay of 8 years by workman raising the dispute , rendered reference stale and dead . Their Lordship of Supreme Court in a latest decision reported in 2005 ( 5 ) SC 91 referred to supra and cited on behalf of the management , have again made it abundantly clear that though there is no time limit prescribed under the statute for raising the dispute so as to say for making of the reference by the government concerned, it does not mean that irrespective of facts and circumstances of each case , a stale claim must be entertained and relief granted by the authority concerned under the ID Act. Their Lordship at paras 18 & 12 of the said decision have also it clear that the object of ID Act , is not to automatically entitle a workman to relief against the employer irrespective of his conduct holding further that procedural laws like estoppel , waiver and acquiescence are equally applicable to industrial proceedings . At paras 21 & 22, their Lordship observed that while exercising the powers under Section 11A of the ID Act , considerations , such as nature of post , vacany from which dismissal was made , whether it was permanent or temporary and existence of vacancies in the establishment where reinstatement sought and rights of intervening third party if any cannot be ignored by the court granting the relief. In the instant case also lot of water has flown under the bridge and it is in the words of first party himself in his claim statement that to his place have been posted as Attender. There is no case of the first party that there is an existing vacancy to which he can be accommodated at this stage . His case 864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

Shri Sunaram Cook Helper, M. P. Khanij Nigam, Sub Office ,

Akashwani Road ,

Workmen/Union

Jagdalpur

Versus

M. P. Khanij Nigam Ltd. ,

Sub Office , Akashwani Road,

Jagdalpur (MP) .

OfficiatingOfficer,

M. P. Khanij Nigam Paryavas Bhawan , B. No. 1 Second Floor -A , Jal Road ,

Management

AreraHill , Bhopal (MP) .

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of December, 2005 to give a direction to the management to consider him for the post of Attender also cannot be entertained . Merely because his name was recommended for the post of Attender by the then Manager while working at the bank , it does not confer any right or claim on the first party to seek the relief against the management to consider his case for the post of Attender, that too , again at this distance of time. Therefore, in the light of the above , I must hold that though on facts , the order made by the management terminating his services is bad in law amounting to illegal retrenchment as defined under Section 2 ( 00) read with Section 25F ( a&b ) of the ID Act so as to get the relief of reinstatement in a normal course . Unfortunately this tribunal is unable to grant him the said relief as the refcrence suffered from an inordinate delay of more than 15 to 16 years and that delay as noted above , has not been explained by the first party giving out convicing and compelling reasons . Accordingly, the reference is answered and following award is passed .

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 29011 / 83 /2001 - IR (M) dated 21-1-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

AWARD

The reference stands dismissed . No order to cost.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 21st December 2005)

A.R. SIDDIQUI , Presiding Officer.

" क्या म.प्र. खनिज निगम मर्या. भोपाल के प्रबंधन भो द्वारा श्री सुन्नाराम की दि. 1-10-84 से लगातार नियमित सेवा दैनिक मजदूरी पर करने के बाद पहले उसकी योगयता को आधार न बनाना लेकिन निगम की सेवा में नियमित नियुक्ति देने के लिए हीयोग्यता को आधार बनाना न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं, तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष का हकदार है ? "

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

2. In this reference, workmen Shri Ch. Malyadri and Shri Sunaram moved application No. 15 & 16 respectively stating therein that there exists no dispute between the parties and therefore the reference be closed . It is worthwhile to mention here that the name of Shri Ch . Malyadri does not find place in the schedule of reference.

3. In view of the above two applications , the reference was closed for Award.

का. आ. 356. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एम. पी. खनिज निगम लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-29011 / 83/2001- आईआर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

4.As is clear from the above that there is no dispute between the parties therefore it is a fit case for passing no dispute award accordingly no dispute award is passed without any order as to costs .

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

C. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी , 2006

S.O. 356. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hercby publishes the award ( Rcf. 24/2002 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M. P. Khanij Nigam Ltd. , Sub-office Akashwani Road , Jagdalpur and their workman, received by the Central Government on 3-1-2006 .

का. आ. 357.- औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स कोनकोर्ड बारजस प्रा.लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण मुम्बई नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 39/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[No. L - 29011 / 83 / 2001 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

[सं ० एल-31012/16/96- आईआर ( विविध ) ] बी. एम . डेविड, अवर सचिव BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR-COURT JABALPUR

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006 No. CGIT /LCR/ 24/2002

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI C. M. SINGH

Shri Ch. Malyadri , No. 5 , 11nd Street .

Daiva Nagar. West Tambaram ,

S.O. 357. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Rcf. No. 39/96 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Mumbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure in the Chennai . Chennai -600045 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Concord Barges Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Govern- ment on 3-1-2006.

[No. L- 31012/ 16 /96 - IR(M) ] B. M. DAVID , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT- INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 1. MUMBAI

PRESENT

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS

Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 39 of 1996

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Concord Barges Pvt . Ltd. ,

And

Their Workmen

Appearances :

For the Management Shri Nabar, Adv. For the Workman

Shri J. Sawant, Adv. State

Maharashtra Mumbai the 19th December , 2005

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub- section 1 and sub - section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 (the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , Order No. L- 31012/16/96- ZR (Misc) dated 13-11-1996. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s. Concord Barges Pvt Ltd. , in terminating the services of S /Shri Shivdas Ekanath Mayekar Dhondu R. Parkar , Vikas Arjun Shirke , Babu Dhondiram Kadam , Pashuram Sahadev, Rumde , Rajendra M. Jadhav, Datta P. Gaikwad, Kamlakar H. Hardankar , Suresh K. Narvekar , Dashrath S. Jadhav, Haribhau B. Rajguru , Keshav B. Kamble , Karishchandra B. Jadhav, Dattaram H. Lad, Ramdas S. Durgawali and Barka S. Pawaskar w.e.f. 18-2-1995 is justified ? If not to what relief are the workmen entitled to ? "

2. The matter came up for hearing today . The workmen through their Advocate Shri J.P. Sawant moved an application today that the reference may kindly be disposed of for want of prosecution . This application has not been opposed by the Counsel for the First Party M/ s . Concord Barges Pvt . Ltd.

3. The Parties had filed their Statement of Claim and Written Statement . The parties had also lead some evidence . The workmen did not want to prosecute the reference at this stage . In this view of the matter I have no option but to dismiss the reference with the finding that

865

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

the action of the management of M/ s . Concorde Barges Pvt. Ltd. , in terminating the services of the workmen named under the terms of the reference , is justified and hence the workmen are not entitled to any relief .

4.The reference is disposed of accordingly.

GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 3 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 358. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 57/2005 ) की प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 03-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं० एल -12011 /9/2005- आई.आर. ( बी. II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

S.O. 358. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 57/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 03-01-2006.

[No. L- 12011 /9 / 2005 - IR(B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 57/05

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

The Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office , E-5 , Arera Colony, Bhopal (MP) -462016

The General Secretary, Daily Wages Bank Employees Association , Hardev Niwas , 9 , Sanwer Road, Ujjain Versus Workmen/Union ..Management

AWARD Passed on this 8th day of December , 2005 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12011/ 9/ 2005 ( IR ( B - II ) dated 21-6-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager , UCO Bank in not regularizing the empanelled daily wagers ( as per list attached) is justified? If so , to what relief these workmen are entitled to ? " 866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE

Dated: 19th December , 2005

Present :

Presiding Officer : Shri A.R. Siddiqui

C.R. No. 5/04

2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 22-7-05 and notices were issued to the partics to file their respective statements of claim . In this case onbehalfofthe Union/workmen Shri Ram Nagwanshi , General Secretary of the Union moved an application Paper No. 3 whereby he prayed that no dispute award be passed in the case . Thereafter the management moved an application paper No. 13 that the reference be decided in terms of settlement arrived at between the partics .

IParty:

Shri B.R. Devanal C/o Shri M. Ramarao , Dharwad Dist . Emp . Assn . , 9, Corporation Building , Broadway. HUBLI - 580020

IIParty:

The Regional Manager. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Sambaji Road , Ranichennammanagar , P. Box . No. 529 , Belgaum District -590006 Karnataka State

AWARD

3. I have very carefully gone through the record. The record reveals that the dispute has been settled between workmen Sarva Shri A.K. Talwar, Mohan Rathore, C.N. Sher , L.C. Bagtotia, M.K. Sunhare , D.R. Malviya , V.K. Amlavad , Jeevan Sharma , Gopal Shinde , Tulsiram Sharma and the management . All of them have prayed that the reference be closed . All of them have mentioned in their application that the UCO Bank has already regularized the services of empanelled casual wagers including them in Bank and at the present there exists no dispute regarding non - regularisation of empanelled daily wages including them. It is clear from the above that no dispute is left between the parties . 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.

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- 30012 /47/ 2003 (IR (M) dated 19th January, 2004 for adjudication on the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

C. M. SINGH. Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 3 जनवरी, 2006

"Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation is justified in short fixation/ payment of pension and purchasing of annuity for lesser amount to Shri B.R. Devanal ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled" ?

2. The case of the first party workman at paras 1 to 3 ofhis Claim Statement is as under :-

का. आ. 359. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कार्पो. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्व नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय बैंगलोर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल- 30012/47/2003- आई.आर. ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd January, 2006

S.O. 359. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hercby publishes the award Ref. 05/2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court Bangalore as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between management of the Managing Director, The Group General Manager and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2006.

[No. L- 30012/47 /2003 - IR(M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Sccy.

That the first party served the Second Party from 18-11-1981 to 30-11-2000 till the date obtaining Early Retirement Schedule benefits and the first party served the Second party for 19 years continuously; the first party is entitled for pension as per the schemes of the second party. However, the second party has fixed the monthly pension of the first party at Rs . 1819.94 as per Second party letter dated 17-4-2001 . The Second Party while calculating pension, has taken the last drawn salary as Rs . 7870 and percentage of Pension is taken as Rs . 23.23 . As per the Pension Scheme , the Second Party has to purchase Annuity for the payment of pension at Rs . 1819.94, but the Second Party Purchased the Annuity for payment of pension of Rs . 1,660 . the Second Party has not considered the repeated requests of the first party to pay pension at Rs . 1819.94 , that a long term settlement took place between the Second Party and its Union and the said settlement is applicable to the first party and as [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

=-

per the provisions of the settlemment, the first party is entitled for the Fitment benefits in rspect ofBasic Pay , DA . PPA and also the Pension benefits and also the revised gratuity benefits ; that he has requested the Second party to pay the balance amount of grauity as per the revised Basic pay, DA etc. interms of the LTS provisions . The Second Party after raising the dispute in the appropriate forum has paid the revised gratuity through their Revised HPCL Staff Gratuity Plan . The Second Party, while paying the revised gratuity has taken into account the Basic Salary of the First Party at Rs . 10. 035. Personal pay Rs . 854, VDA at Rs . 959. The first party submits that , he is entitled for the Pension on this pay of Rs . 11..848 and hence . the first party has requested the Second party to revise the pension as per this new revised pay. As per the Pension Scheme of the Scnond Party, the first party is entitled at 23.13% of the Pay of Rs : 11,848 i.c. Rs . 2740-44 as Pension per Month . The sencod Party has to purchase the Annuity for the payment of Rs . 2740.44. However, the Second Party has not considered the requests of the first party and is delaying the revision of pension causing loss to the first party .

3. Therefore , in the light of the above , the first party requested this tribunal to pass an award holding that the action of the management in not fixing the pension at Rs . 2740-44 and in not purchasing the Annuity for the payment over said amount. is illegal and accordingly the management may be directed to purchase the Annuity for the payment of Rs . 2740-44 as a pension to the first party with retrospective effect. along with arrcars and cost of Rs . 5000/ - towards the additional relief.

4. After the case was registered, notices were issued against the parties . This tribunal received the Claim Statement of the first party through post and on 2-4-2004 Shri Desai . Advocate filed power for the Second party Management seeking time for filing of Counter Statement . On 7-5-04 . 14-6-04 and 19-7-04 the case underwent adjournments for filing of the Counter Statement and since itwas not filed . the matter came to be posted for evidence of first party . On 10-9-04 , first party filed an affidavit by way of his examination chief and cross examination was deferred as counsel Second party did not turn up. Then. the matter came to be adjourned on 18-11-04, 24-11-04 and 12-1-05 and when it was taken up on 18-01-05 the first partywas present before this court rendering himself for cross examination but there was no representation on behalf of the management and therefore , he was discharged and matter was posted for arguments . On 12-7-05 , learned representative for the first party filed his written arguments and case cameto be adjourned for reply arguments of the management . On 12-9-05 counsel for the management filed a memo reading as under :--

That the Second Party management submits that the payment of pension to retired employees is being managed by a separate body called " Super annuation Benefit Fund Scheme" . This body will purchase annuity from LIC and in turn LIC will make pension 104 G1 /06-19

867 payment to the retired employees . Once annuity is purchased from LIC . It is LIC which will make pension payment directly to the retired employee with prospective effect i.e. from the time annuity is purchased and that LIC will not make the pension payment retrospective effect.

As per the demand of the first party based on the revised salary " Super annuation benefit fund scheme " has purchased annuity from LIC and m turn LIC is making pension difference amount of Rs . 1996/ - per quarter with effective from October 2004. It is to be noted that second party is not making any payment directly to the retired employees .

Wherefore, the second party prays that this tribunal maybe pleased to close the above reference is settled, in the interest ofjustice and equity.

5. The case was adjournedto hear learned representative for the first party and on 24-11-05 after hearing the argument, the case is now posted for award .

6. The first party by way of his evidence filed an affidavit, almost . reiterating the various averments made byhim in his Claim Statement referred to supra . As noted above. there was no cross cxamination of the first party. he is being discharged for lack of representation on behalf of the management , when the matter was taken up . Now therefore, in the light of the above , this tribunal is to answer the points of reference as noted above .

7. Learned representative . Shri MMR in his written argument while repeating the case of the first party as made out in the Claim Statement and in his affidavit contended that on 28-6-01 a long term settlement has taken place between the management and the union representatives and as per clause 2 of the said Settlement . itis valid for a period of 10 years commencing from 1-10-98 to 30-9-08. He submitted that since the first party retired under ERS on 30-11-2000 , the terms of the said settlement are applicable to his case . He also invited the definition of Fitment Methodology and the revised basic pay in respect ofworkmen who were on the pay roll of the management corporation on 30-9-98 contending that keeping in view the said methodology, the basic pay of the first party and personal pay as on 30-9-1998 plus 20 % of basic pay plus merger of VDA applicable between AICPI 1099 to 2010 at varying neutralization rates plus all fixed Dearness Allowance as on 30-9-1998 plus additional fitment benefits. Therefore, he contended that since the first party is entitled to the said fitment benefits . he applied for payment of revised gratuity and management conceded the claim of the first party and enhanced gratuity at the revised basic pay of Rs . 10.035 / - plus personal pay of Rs. 854/- plus VDA of Rs . 959/ - and that total pay of Rs . 11,848/ - as on 30-11-2000. Therefore . learned representative submitted that when the second party has paid the first party enhanced gratuity taking his total emoluments as Rs . 11.848 /- , it was also necessary for the management to revise the pension as per the above said salary and to purchase the Annuity, accordingly. Since the management has not done so despite the several requests of the first party, the present dispute is raised .

868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 360.-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 मुम्बई नं. -1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को4-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-2011/54 /94 आई आर ( बी- II ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th January , 2006

S.O. 360. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( 45/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Mumbai No. 1 now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-01-2006 .

[No. L- 12011/54 / 94 - IR(B - II) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 MUMBAI

PRESENT :

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT-45 OF 2003

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management ofUnion Bank of India

And Their workman.

APPEARANCES :

For the Management : Mr. Kantharia, Sr. Manager .

For the Union

: Mr. V. H. Bhada

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated the 8th day of December, 2005 AWARD

of the pas on the tes uncons 8. As scen above , there are no arguments on merits advanced on behalf of the management and it remained contented by filing the above said memo . After having gone through the records . it appears to me that the claim made by the first party is legal andjustified. It is interesting to note that the avennents made in the Claim Statement of the first parts and in his affidavit with regard to the revision the payment of enhanced gramity to him s have remained unchastenged and enforesaid meme the mаnаgеmет , nowhere des narrated in the affidavit of the first party affidavit evidence also has gone unchallenged there being no cross examination to first party. By way of the above said memo what is stated by the management does not meet the case of the first party workntan. Its contention that the annuity will be purchased from LIC be separate body called Super Annuation Benefit Fund Scheme and thereafter LIC only will make pension payment to the retired employees , in no way , is an answer put forth by the first party workman. There is no denial of the fact that the management purchased Aunuity for lesser antount de for a sum of Rs . 1660/- as against a sum of Rs . 1819.94 based on the last drawn wages of Rs . 7870 / - by the first party .It is again not disputed by the management in the said memo that after the above said long term settlement took place between the partics w.e.f. 1-10-98 which was applicable to the employees retired, the pay of the first party was revised and accordingly enhanced gratuity was paid to him. It is also not the case ofthe management that after the pay of the first party was revised . his pension also was raised and accordingly annuity was purchased from the LIC for the above said period. Therefore , the case of the first party as made out in the Claim Statement as well as in his affidavit has remained undisputed and undenied either by filing of the Counter Statement by cross examining the first party or by adducing any evidence by the management . The above said memo infact , as noted above, is silent as to why the management purchased annuity for lesser amount at the rate of Rs . 1660/- instead of Rs . 1819.40 and as to why it did not revise the pay and pension of the first party though it revised and paid enhanced gratuity amount to the first party as per the revision of the pay . In the result I must hold that management was not justified in the fixation/ payment afPansion and purchasing of Annuity for lesser amount the following award: --

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clause ( d) of sub - section 1 and sub - section 2 A 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- 12012/9/54/94 IR-B (II) dated 29-8-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

SCHEDULE

The monagement is direcedt to fix the pension at 41 and shali purchase the Annuity for the prasad Pension accordingly . The management shail is the pension at the above said amount of Rs 2740.44 with retrospective effect along with the arts No order to cost .

(Diste mmscribed by her corrected and signedby me on r. 2005)

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India , Mumbai in enhancing the rate of interest on Clean Loan to 16% per annum without giving a notice of change under Section 9 - A of the ID Act, 1947 is lawful and justified Ifnot, what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to ?" A. R. SIDDIQUI Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. It would be wothwhile to mention at this very juncture that in the instant case when the industrial dispute was raised and the matter was referred to the Conciliation Officer; but the talks failed. The matter was referred to the Government , but the Central Government refused to make the reference . This order of refusal dated 24-5-1995 was challenged before the High Court of Bombay in writ petition No. 1479 of 1996. the Union Bank of India Employees Vs. Union of India and others . The writ petition was allowed by the Honourable High Court. The Union Bank of India preferred letter Patent Appeal No. 359 of 2002 which was dismissed by the Honourable Division Bench of Bombav High Court with the observations that the learned Single Judge was justified in reversing the order of the Government with a clarification that as and when the matter will come up before the Industrial Tribunal it will be decided on its own merits without being inhibited or influenced by the observations made by the learned single Judge . It is how the instant reference was made by the Central Government.

3. The statement of claim dated 14-11) -2003 has been filed by the Union Bank of India Employees Union . Pune through its General Secretary. (hereinafter referred to as "Union" for short ) . It is alleged that the workmen covered in the present reference are governed by various settlements and awards governed under the reference of Industrial Dispute Act 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ) as per terms and conditions of service . The workman are entitled to clean loan @ 4% simple interest per annum claculated on six monthly rests . This facility of loan at concessional rate is enjoyed by the workmen for several decades. It is contended that the Union of India unilaterally. arbitrarily without any just cause and also without any notice of change as required under Section 9 -A of the Act increased the rate of interest from 4% simple interest to 7.5% p.a. and 16% compound in February, 1989 and March . 1991 respectively which gave rise to the Industrial dispute to the workmen . The demand is therefore made for withdrawal ofthe changes made from time to time regarding the interest on clean loan facility.

3. The Union Bank of India has contended by filing written statement that the demand of the Union is not sustainable . In fact no notice of change as required under section 9 - A was required to be issued since there was no change in the rate of interest for the existing employees who enjoyed benefits of clean loans in view of staff circular No. 3440 dt . 17/5/1989 . No employee of the bank was adversely affected and for this reason too no notice of change was required to be issued . The instant referred is not maintainable . The authority of the person who espoused the claim of the workmen had also been challenged . The grounds of attack have been given in detail in written statement but the gist of the attack is that no notice of change under section 9 is required in view of the facts and circumstances explained therein.

4. The parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence . They have also filed documents . I have heard the parties which are not represented through advocate under the orders of this tribunal . I have also persued the

869

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

record and written submissions by the parties on record. The first point for consideration is regarding the maintainability of the reference . On this point the controversy appears to have been set at rest in view of the decision given by the Honourable High Court of Bombay in Letter Patent Appeal . The reference is being made by the Government under the directions of the Honourable High Court ofBombay. This tribunal is left with the option to consider the reference on its won merits . The authority of the person who raised the dispute appears to have been set at rest in view of the adınission made by the witness . Assistant General Manager. produced by the Bank who admitted Mr. Bhada to be the Gen. Secretary of the Union . He is thus empowered to raise the dispute . All contentions inthis respect raised carlier in the written statement have no force . They are hereby rejected.

6. Now, the question arises as to whether the notice of change as required under section 9 -A of the Act is necessary .

7. Section 9 -A is reproduced below:

9A . Notice of Change :

No employer, who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule , shall effect such change: ---

(a) Without giving to the workmen likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected: or

(b) within twenty - one days of giving such notice; PROVIDED that no notice shall be required for effecting any such change-

(a) Where the change is effected in pursuance ofany( settlement or award) ; or

(b) where the workmen likely to affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules , Civil Services (Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules . Civil Services ( Temporary Service) Rules . Revised Leave Rules , Civil Services Regulations . Civilians in Defence Services (Classification . Control and Apcal ) Rules or the Indian Railway Establishment code or any other rules or regulations that maybe notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazatte , apply.

8. The Union Bank contended first that the employees are not affected adversely and hence no notice of change is required . The work affect is contended to be interpreted as " affected" adversely. I agree with the submission but the adverse effect is apparently and conclusively there if the rate of interest to be changed 2.4% p.a. with half yearly, rests is changed to 7.9 % and to 16% and next to the rate of interest at PLI .

9. The next contention is that the facility of grant of clean loan @ 4% p.a. cannot be said to be a condition of service nor it is covered in any of the clause of 4th Schedule .

870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8. 1927

10. The fourth. Schedule of Section 9 -A is reproduced below:

THE FOURTH SCHEDULE

CONDITIONS OF SERVICE FORCHANGE OF WHICH NOTICE IS TO BE GIVEN (Section A)

1. Wages, meluding the period and mode of payment;

2 Contribution paid, ar payable . by the employer to any provident fund or pension fund or for the benefit of the workmen under any law for the time being in force:

3. Compensatory and other allownces ;

4. Hourse of work and rest intervals:

5. Leave with wage and holidays:

6. Starting, alteration or discontinuance of shift working otherwise than in accordance with standing orders:

7. Classification by grades :

8. Withdrawal of any customary concession or privilege or change in usage:

9. Introduction of new rules of discipline , or alteration of existing tales . except in so far as they are provided in standing orders :

10. Rationalisation , standardization or improvement of plant or technique which is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen;

11. Any increase or reduction ( other than casual ) in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or shift. (not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control)

In the instant case , relevant clause is sub - clause 8 uch is with respect to withdrawal of any customary concession or any privilage or change in usage . Admittedly. the facility of grant of clean Loan at a concessional rate of 4% p.a. has been enjoyed by the employees since decades . It has come on record that this facility had been given to the employees even in the year 1971 and even prior to that This facility was again adhered to in the staff circular No. 3440 on 17-5-1989 . h is a privilege of the employees to have the clean loans at concessional rate of interest. It also amounts to usage stice facility had been enjoyed for a considerable long time , in this view of the matter the contention of the Union Bank of India that the change in The rate of interest does not amount to change in conditions of service is not terable . Hence notice is necessary. The 1 contention that the scheme of clean loan is to be sccepted by the employees in totality . Regarding this contention I have to say that any scheme if not in violation of the Staff cirur No. 3440 dated 17-5-1989 has to be accepted by Unton and not otherwise . Any violation to the circular is not acceptable under the law being against the non - compliance of due procedure provided under the vide suchen A of the Act . Admittedly , no notice was or issued by the Bank under section 9 -A . The rulings dapon by thenk reported in ( 1970 ) 3 SCC 618-1971 LU570 SC . The workmen of M/ s . Sur Iron & Steel Co. Lid . vs. M/s . Sur Iron & Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Another

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) and 1982 I LLJ 330 SC - 1982 1 SCC 645 L. Robert D'Souza vs. Executive Engineer Southern Railway and Another are not helpful at all to the Bank.

12. It is next contended that no notice of change is required since the employees of the Bank were given an option to exercise for accepting either the earlier scheme or the subsequent scheme . As mentioned carlier, notice of change is necessary but option given by the employces to the employer in the instant case dilutes the gravity of the matter in hand . If the employees who were cligible for clean loan in the year 1989 are not disturbed of this facility ; certainly no notice is required . In the case in hand the change in rate of interest is being made with certain riders . It is submitted that the employees who came in service in 1991 or became eligible as such employees cannot raise the grievances . This contention appears to be true . Employees who joined the service of the Bank in the year 1991 can not claim the benefit of the clean loan at the rate of 4 % p.a. They are to be governed by the terms and conditions of the service which were prevalent on the date of joining with the Bank . They cannot keep themselves at per with the employees who claimed the facility of clean loans at a concessional rate of 4 % p.a. only under the scheme in the year 1989 since it is the existing right of workmen which is enforceable under I.D. Act. The rulings relied upon by the Bank in 1962 II LLJ 136 Madras between Tamilnadu Electricity Workers Federation v/sMadras State Electricity Board and 1973 3 LLJ 427 SC between Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. Ram Mohan Roy are not in any way hepiful to the Eank .

13. On a plain reading of the terms of reference, it appcars that the Central Govt . made the reference with a presumption that the rate of interest on clcan loan has been enhanced to 16 % and without issuing any notice under Section 9 - A of the act . The Union Bank has the reservations about the ternis of reference . I feel that it is clear to the partics as to what the actual dispute is. Even if, the terms of reference are not happily worded as they are being notified under certain presumptions , that does not make the reference to be bad or not maintainable .

14. The controversy to the tunc of Industrial Dispute has arisen in view of the changes made by the Union Bank from time to time with respect to the rate of interest which was 4 % p.a. in the staff circular No. 3440 dt. 17-5-1989 . This circular was issued by the Union Bank in view of the understanding reached between the representa- tive of the managenient and those of All India Union Bank Employees Association at the mecting held on 3rd/4th April 1989. The scheme for clean loan was modified to a final shape to be implemented w.c.f. 01-4-1989 . The cligibility ofthe employces was detailed with categories of employees along with the categories of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

871

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

other facilities of other kinds of loan including clean loan for a higher amount and for a higher period of repayment as provided in subsequent staff circular referred to above by the Bank . The Union has certainly a cause of grievance if the spiritof the staff circular No. 3440 is changed or modified in any manner . The consistent case of the bank is that they have not touched the employees covered under the aforesaid circular No. 3440 and they still continue to enjoy the facility of clean loan under the terms and conditions mentioned therein . The circulars issued by the bank from time to time raising the rate of interest does not give cause to the Union since none of its member who was the member as such in the year 1989 is going to be adversely affected. There is no change in the rate of interest for them . The facility of other kinds of loan , the repayment ofwhich is to be paid in a higher period, has been floated by the bank for the welfare of the employees considering their needs of the day and the directions/ guidelines issued by Govt . of India , Ministry of Finance and Reserve Bank of India . It is however, clarified that Bank cannot change the spiritof staff circular No. 3440 without following due provisions of the Act.

16. In view of what has been discussed above , I conclude that the Union has no grievance which needs redressal under this reference by this tribunal . Hence, it is not entitled to any relief.

17. The reference is answered accordingly.

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2006

7 का. आ. 361. 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 . II, नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-01- 2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-40012/282/2000- आई आर ( डीयू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th January, 2006 purposes of the loan and the limits of the amount of loan for each category . The repayment of the clean loan was to be made with a interest @ 4% with half yearly rest . This circular is very exhaustive. The demand of the Union is that this circular be accepted as final and there should be no change without following the procedure under Section 9 -A of the Act . The Bank issued another staff circular on 2-2-1990 and raised the rate of interest to 7.5 % . However, it was made clear that this revised guidelines will not apply to all employees who joined the Bank on or after 18-9- 1989. Those employees who were already in service as on 17-9-1989 will have the option to be governed by the existing guidelines or the new set of guidelines . Thus , the bank asked the employees to opt as to which scheme was to be accepted for grant of loan . Thereafter, another staff circular No. 3709 was issued by the Union Bank of India on March 2nd , 1991 making reference to the aforesaid two staff circular and raising the rate of interest to 16 % p.a. ( compound) The eligibility of the employees , maximum limit of loan were also changed and the rate of interest was made at 16% p.a. In this circular too , the Bank clarified that the employees who will be joining the Bank or become eligible for loan on or after Ist April 1991 will be governed by this scheme only and the existing employees adversely affected by this scheme may be allowed to avail loan under the banks existing scheme . The reason for enhancement of the rate of interest has been explaind by the Bank in the manner that this enhancement is being made under the directions/ instructions received from theGovt . of India , Ministry of Finance vide letter No. F - 14/ -88 / IR dt . 18-9-1989 and another lette F. No. 14/ 16 /86 - IR dt. 10-1-1991 . Lastly, the Bank has issued another circular No. 4861 dt . 20-6-2002 wherein the facility of clean overdraft to staff members is being provided laying down in detail the grounds therein raising the limit of the loan and mentioning that the interest would be charged atPLR. This circular covered the facility of Clean, Over draft Loan in lieu of clean loan, personal loan, computer loan and earth quake relief loan/ Flood loan. The staff memebrs were given the option to repay the present outstandaing under the above schemes viz . clean loans , personal loan, computer loan etc.and henceforth no fresh/ personal/computer loan under the earlier schemes will be sanctioned .

S.O. 361.-. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( 95/2000 ) 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 Deptt . of Telecom and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 04-01-2006.

[No. L- 40012/282/2000 - IR(DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA , Desk Officer.

15. Considering the matter as a whole I feel that the Union does not have any cause of grievances in view of the admission made by the bank in clear terms that the existing employees who were there in the year 1989 and availed the facility of clean loan under the circular No. 3440 would continue to avail the facility as such without any enhancement of rate of interest if they opt for that . The employees cannot claim that they would pay the rate of interest @ 4% p.a. but would claim the 872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT - II

NEW DELHI

Presiding Officer : R.N. RAL

I.D. No. 95/2000

In the Matter Of :-

Shri Ram Niwas ,

S/o . Rattan Lal,

R/ o. Mohalla Beldaran,

Rampur(UP) ,

Pin: 144901 .

Versus

The Officer Incharge ,

TelegraphOffice,

Rampur(UP) ,

Pin: 244901 .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 40012/282/ 2000/IR (DU) CENTRAL GOVERNMENTdt. 29-08-2000 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The points runs as hereunder :-

"whether the action of the management of Vibhagiya Tar Ghar merged with Telecome Department , Rampur in regard to terminating the services of Shri Ram Niwas , Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 16-05-1999 is just, fair and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled and from what date . " The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the claim it has been stated that the workman was initially appointed as a Sweeper on part time basis on 07-03-1989 by the Opposite Party and was posted in the Telegraph Office at Rampur . The related letters are enclosed at Annexures " D " and " E " respectively.

That the workman continued to perform his duty with full devotion, dedication up to 15-05-1999 without any complaint either from the public or his superiors and colleagues. Thus the workman remianed in service of Opposite Party for more than 10 years .

That it is unfortunate that the workman was not allowed to perform his duties after the aforesaid date without any notice and thus his termination from service was illegal and arbitrary.

That another unfortunate aspect is that a new hand employed in his place while workman was ousted from the department of Opposite Party. That the Opposite Party admitted during the proceedings before the ALC ( C) , Dehradun that the workman was initially appointed by Vibhagya Tar Ghar, Rampur ( UP ) which was at that time independent and separate entity but later on came under the control ofTelecom Divisional Manager , Rampur (UP) .

That the workman comes within the purview of ID' Act, 1947 and thus he is entitled for the claim as envisaged

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] under the Act viz . his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits of pay and seniorityetc. that in the whole process from the date of appointment of worker till he was terminated from service , he had neither committed any illegality nor irregularity.

That the opposite party did not give its consent for voluntary arbitration or joint reference although the workman agreed to it . The opposite party concealed the fact that the Government of India through their memo No. 269-13 / 99 - STN - II dated 16-09-1999 approved the conversion of part time casual labour working for four hours or more regularized as full time casual labour . The copyofmemo dated 16-09-1999 is placed at Annexure "G" .

That the workman worked with the opposite party for more than 10 years and thus he has lost his youth period to the organization . Unfortunately, the workman got bitter results in as much as that he was ousted from service without assigning any reason what to talk of giving any notice . The opposite party has committed an inhuman act by ousting the workman from service and totally ignored the fate of his dependence but was thrown at the brink of starvation.

In the aforesaid circumstances , the workman respectfully prays for his reinstatement in service from the date of his termination with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances and seniority etc. It is specifically prayed that the workman may kindly be ordered to be paid the emoluments which were not paid to him for the period he had with the opposite party.

Notice has been sentto the respondent/manageinent on two dated i.c. 06-07-2005 and 30-09-2005 . The management has turned up and sought adjournment on 31-01-2005, 24-03-2005 . 22-05-2005 and 20-7-2005 .Despite presence the management has failed to file any written statement , So the case has been heard ex - parte . Affidavit of the workman has been taken and argument was heard.

Itwas argued from the side of the workman that he was appointed as Sweeper on part time basis on 07-03-1989 and was posted in the Telegraph Office at Rampur (UP) . He continued with his services and he continued till 15-05-1999 and the management dis- continued himfrom services on 19-09-1999 . It was argued that the workman did not commit any illegality or irregularity. According to the memo of of Government of India dated 16-9-1999 the workers working for four hours or more than on part time basis has been regularized but the management has not taken up his case and the action of the management regarding termination of services is quite is illegal and arbitrary . The management has not turned and no written statement has been filed . The workman applicant has worked for 10 years and his services were terminated on 15-05-1999 without paying any pay in lieu of notice or retrenchment compensation so he is entitled to be reinstated from 15-05-1999 along with continuity of service and full back wages .

The reference is replied thus: -

The action of the management of Vibhagiya Tar Ghar merged with Telecom Department , Rampur (UP) in regard [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

873

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

to terminating the services of Shri Ram Niwas , Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 16-05-1999 is neither just , nor fair nor legal. The management/respondent is directed to reinstate the workman from the date of his termination i. e. 16-05-1999 along with continuity of service and full back wages.

Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 29-12-2005

R.N. RAI , Presiding Officer श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 4 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 362. ( अ ) उपदान संदाय अधिनियम , 1972 (1972का 39 ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की दिनांक 12 अप्रैल, 1999 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 1252 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए, केंद्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित विनिर्दिष्ट अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 2) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 3 ) में उनके सामने तत्स्थान प्रविष्टियों में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्र / अधिकार क्षेत्र के लिए तथा ऐसी सभी स्थापनाओं के संबंध में, जिनके लिए उक्त अधिनियम कीधारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अधीन केंद्रीय सरकार समुचित सरकार है , अपीलीय प्राधिकारी के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

अधिकार क्षेत्र

अधिकारी

क्रम सं.

(3)

(1) (2)

1. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , अहमदाबाद

गुजारात राज्य, दादरा और नगर हवेली और दमन एवं दीव संघ शासित क्षेत्र 2. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , राजस्थान राज्य अजमेर

3. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , आसनसोल

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में बर्दवान, बीरभूम, बांकुरा और पुरूलियाजिले 4. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , कर्नाटक राज्य बंगलौर

5. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , उड़ीसा राज्य भुवनेश्वर

6. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , ( i ) महाराट्र राज्य -निम्नांकित मुम्बई

जिलों को छोड़कर - नागपुर, भंडारा, अकोला, अमरावती, वर्धा , बुलढाना, जलगांव, चन्द्रपुर, गड़चिरौली , नांदेड़, परभनी, यवतमाल, उस्मानाबाद, लातूर, वासिमहिंगोली और बीड,

( ii ) गोवा राज्य

(3)

(1) (2)

7. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , कोलकाता

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य ( बर्दवान, बीरभूमी, बांकूरा और पुरूलिया जिलों को छोड़कर) सिक्किमऔर संघ शासित प्रदेश अंडमान निकोबार द्वीप समूह

( i ) केरल राज्य 8. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , कोचीन

( ii ) लक्षद्वीप संघ राज्य क्षेत्र (iii ) पांडिचेरी संघ राज्य क्षेत्र मेंमाहे

( i ) हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य

(ii ) हरियाणा राज्य 9. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , चंडीगढ़

(iii ) पंजाब राज्य

(iv ) जम्मूऔर कश्मीर राज्य

(v) चंडीगढ़ संघ राज्य क्षेत्र 10. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) धनबाद

, झारखण्ड राज्य के निम्नांकित जिले- धनबाद, बोकारो , हजारीबाग , कोडरमा, रांची, लोहरदगा, गुमला, सिमडेगा , चतरा , पूर्वी सिंहभूम , पश्चिमी सिंहभूम, गिरिडीह, देवघर, सरायकीला ( खरसांवा ) और जामताड़ा

11. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , गुवाहाटी

असम, नागालैंड, मेघालय, त्रिपुरा , मणिपुर, अरुणाचल, प्रदेश और मिजोरम राज्य 12. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , हैदराबाद

आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य और पांडिचेरी संघ राज्य क्षेत्र में यनम का ( केन्द्रीय ) क्षेत्र

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य 13. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , जबलपुर

14. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , कानपुर

उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य - निम्नांकित जिलों को छोड़कर सहारनपुर, बिजनौर, मेरठ, गाजियाबाद, बुलंदशहर, मुजफ्फरनगर, बरेली, मुरादाबाद, पीलीभीत , शाहजहांपुर, बदायूं, रामपुर, बागपत और गौतमबुद्धनगर 15. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , देहरादून

उत्तरांचल राज्य और उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नांकित जिले-सहारनपुर, बिजनौर, मेरठ , गाजियाबाद, बुलंदशहर, मुजफ्फरनगर, बरेली, मुरादाबाद, पीलीभीत , शाहजहांपुर, बदायूं, रामपुर, बागपत और गौतमबुद्धनगर 16. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , चैन्नई

तमिलनाडु राज्य और पांडिचेरी संघ राज्य क्षेत्र ( यनम और माहे को छोड़कर) 874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

(2)

(3)

(1)

17. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , नागपुर

महाराष्ट्र राज्य के निम्नांकित जिले- नागपुर , भंडारा , अकोला, अमरावती, वर्धा , बुलढाना, जलगांव, चन्द्रपुर, गड़चिरौली, नांदेड, परभनी, यवतमाल, उस्मानाबाद, लातूर, बीड, हिंगोली और वासिम

राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली 18. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , दिल्ली

19. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , पटना

बिहार राज्य और झारखण्ड राज्यके गढ़वा, पलामू, लातेहार, दुमका, गोड्डा, साहिबगंज तथा पाकुर जिले

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य

20. क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , रायपुर

संपूर्ण भारत

21. उप मुख्य श्रम आयुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , क्षेत्रीय श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , मुख्यालय, मुख्य श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) काकार्यालय नई दिल्ली

संपूर्णभारत

22. अन्य सभी उप मुख्य श्रम आयुक्त ( केंद्रीय )

[सं. एस -42012/02/2005 - एस.एस . II ]

के.सी. जैन, निदेशक MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 4th January, 2006

S.O. 362. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- Section ( 7 ) of Section 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (39 of 1972) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O. 1252 dated 12th April 1999 , the Central Government hereby specified the officrs mentioned in the Column (2 ) ofthe Schedule specified here under to be Appellate Authority for the arca/ Jurisdiction as specified in column ( 3 ) of the said schedule in relation to all establishments for which the Central Government is the appropriate Government under clause ( a ) of Section 2 of the said act .

SCHEDULE

Jurisdiction

Sl . Officers No.

(3)

(1) (2)

The State of Gujarat and Union Territories of Dadra , Nagar Haveli , Daman and Diu.

1. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ahınedabad

The State of Rajasthan 2. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ajmer

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

(3)

3. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Asansol .

The Districts of Burdwan , Birbhum , Bankura and Purulia in the State of West Bengal

The State of Karnataka 4. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bangalore

The State of Orissa

5. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bhubaneshwar

6. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Mumbai

( i) The State of Maharashtra excluding the following Districts: --Nagpur, Bhandara, Akola , Amravati , Wardha, Buldhana, Jalgaon , Chandrapur, Gadchiroli , Nanded, Parbhani , Yeotmal Osmanabad , Latur, Wasim, Hingoli andBid . ( ii) State ofGoa .

7. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Kolkatta

The State of West Bengal (excluding the District of Burdwan , Birbhum , Bankura and Purulia) Sikkam and the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands .

8. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Cochin

(i) The State of Kerala . (ii) Union Terrirtory of Lakshdweep . (iii) Mahe in the Union Territory of Pondicherry

(i) The State ofHimachal Pradesh.

9. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Chandigarh

(ii ) The State ofHaryana. (iii ) The State of Punjab (iv) The State of Jammu and Kashmir. (v) The Union Territory of Chandhigarh.

10. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dhanbad

The following District of the State of Jharkhand, Dhanbad, Bokaro, Hazaribagh , Kodarma, Ranchi , Lohardaga , Gumla , Simdega , Chatra , East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum, Giridih , Deoghar , Sarai Keala (Kharsanwa) and Jamtara.

11. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Guwahati The State of Assam , Nagaland, Meghalya , Tripura , Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(2)

(3)

12. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Hyderabad .

The State of Andhra Pradesh , and the ( Central ) , Area of Yanam in the Union Territory ofPondicherry.

The State of Madhya Pradesh 13. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jabalpur.

14. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Kanpur.

The State of Uttar Pradesh excluding the Districts of Saharanpur, Bijnore , Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar, Muzaffarnagar, Bareilly, Mordabad , Pilibhit, Shahjahanpur , Badaun, Rampur, Bagpat and Gautam Budh Nagar.

15. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dehradun .

The State of Uttaranchal and District of Shaharanpur, Bijnore , Meerut Ghaziabad, Buland-shahar, Muzaffarnagar , Bareilly, Moradabad , Pilibhit , Shahjahanpur , Badaun, Rampur, Bagpat and Gautam Budh Nagar of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

The State of Tamil Nadu and UnionTerritory of Pondicherry (exceptYanam and Mahe) .

16. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Chennai .

17. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Nagpur.

(i) The following Districts of the State of Maharashtra: - Nagpur, Bhandra , Akola , Amravati , Wardha, Buldhana, Jalgaon Chandrapur, Gadchiroli , Nanded, Parbhani , Yeotmal , Osmanabad , Latur, Bid, Hingoli and Wasim

National Capital Territory of Delhi.

18. Regional Labcu Commissioner (Central) NewDelhi .

19. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna.

The State of Bihar and the Districts Garwaha, Palamu , Latehar, Dumka , Godda, Sahibganj and Pakur in the State of Jharkhand.

The State of Chattisgarh 20. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Raipur.

Whole of India 21. Dy. Chief Labour Commissioners

104 G1 /06-20

875

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

(1)

(2)

(3)

(Central), Regional Labour Commissioners ( Central ) , Headquarter, Office ofChief Labour Commissioner (Central) , NewDelhi .

Whole of India 22. All other Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central).

[No. S -42012/ 02/2005 - SS.II ]

K. C. JAIN, Director नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 363. ( अ) उपदान संदाय अधिनियम , 1972 (1972का 39 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 903 दिनांक 17 मार्च , 1999 का अधिक्रमण करते हुए, केंद्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित विनिर्दिष्ट अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 3 ) में उनके सामने तत्स्थानी प्रविष्टियों में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्र/ अधिकार क्षेत्र के लिए तथा ऐसी सभी स्थापनाओं के संबंध में, जिनके लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अधीन केंद्रीय सरकार समुचित सरकार है , नियंत्रक प्राधिकारियों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

अधिकार क्षेत्र

क्रम

अधिकारी

सं.

(1) (2)

(3)

राजस्थान राज्य,

1. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , जयपुर और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , अजमेर क्षेत्र

2. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ), आसनसोल क्षेत्र

3. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , अहमदाबाद क्षेत्र

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य में बर्दवान, बीरभूम , बांकुर और पुरूलिया के जिले गुजरात राज्य, और दादर, नागर हवेली और दमन एवं दीव संघ राज्य क्षेत्र

कर्नाटक राज्य

4. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , बेल्लारी और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , बंगलौर क्षेत्र

उड़ीसा राज्य

5. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , राउरकेला और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , भुवनेश्वर क्षेत्र 876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

(1) (2)

(3)

6. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , पुणे और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , मुम्बई

( i ) महाराष्ट्र राज्य, निम्नलिखित जिलों को छोड़कर - नागपुर, भंडारा, अकोला, अमरावती, वर्धा, बुलढाना, जलगांव, चन्द्रापुर, गढ़चिरोली, नांदेड़, परभनी, यवतमाल, उस्मानाबाद, लातूर, वासिम हिंगोली और बीड,

( ii ) गोवा राज्य

7. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , नागपुर क्षेत्र

महाराष्ट्र राज्यके निम्नलिखित जिले- नागपुर, भंडारा , अकोला, अमरावती, वर्धा , बुलढाना, जलगांव , चन्द्मपुर, गढ़चिरोली , नांदेड, परभनी, यवतमाल, उस्मानाबाद, वासिम लातूर, हिंगोली और हिंगोली

8. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , कोलकाता क्षेत्र

पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य ( वर्दवान, वीरभूम, बांकुरा और पुरूलिया सिविल जिलों को छोड़कर, सिक्किम राज्य और केन्द्र शासित क्षेत्र अंडमान तथा निकोबार द्वीप समूह

( i) केरल राज्य

9. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , कोचीन क्षेत्र (ii ) लक्षद्वीप संघ शासित क्षेत्र

(iii) संघ शासित क्षेत्र पांडिचेरी मेंमाहे क्षेत्र

( i) हिमाचल प्रदेश राज्य

( ii ) हरियाणा राज्य

(iii ) पंजाब राज्य 10. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , जम्मूसभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय) , चंडीगढ़ क्षेत्र

(iv ) जम्मूऔर कश्मीर राज्य ( v) संघ शासित क्षेत्र चंडीगढ़ 11. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , रांची और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , धनबाद क्षेत्र

झारखण्ड राज्य के निम्नलिखित जिले - धनबाद, हजारीबाग , रांची, गुमला, कोडरमा , लोहारदेगा, छतरा, सिमदेगा, बोकारो पूर्वी सिंघभूम , पश्चिमी सिंघभूम , गिरिडीह, देवघर, सरायकेला ( खरस्वान ) और जामतारा

12. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , गुवाहाटी क्षेत्र

असम, नागालैंड, मेघालय, त्रिपुरा, मणिपुर, अरुणाचल ,

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

(3)

प्रदेश और मिजोरम राज्य 13. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , हैदराबाद क्षेत्र

आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य और संघ शासित क्षेत्र पांडिचेरी में यनम क्षेत्र

मध्य प्रदेश राज्य

14. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , भोपाल और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , जबलपुर क्षेत्र

छत्तीसगढ़ राज्य

15. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , रायपुर क्षेत्र

16. क्षेत्रीय श्रमायुक्त ( केंद्रीय ) , लखनऊ और सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , कानपुर क्षेत्र

उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य- निम्नलिखित जिलों को छोड़कर - सहारनपुर, बिजनौर, मेरठ , गाजियाबाद, बुलंदशहर, मुजफ्फरनगर, बरेली, मुरादाबाद, पीलीभीत , शाहजहांपुर, बदायूं, रामपुर, बागपत और गौतमबुद्धनगर 17. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , चैन्नई क्षेत्र

तमिमनाडु राज्य और पांडिचेरी संघ शासित क्षेत्र ( यनम और माहे के अलावा)

राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली 18. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , नई दिल्ली क्षेत्र

19. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , पटना क्षेत्र

बिहार राज्य और झारखण्ड राज्यके गढ़वा, पलामू, लातेहर, दुमका, गोड्डा, साहिबगंज तथा पाकुर जिले 20. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , देहरादून क्षेत्र

उत्तरांचल राज्य और उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य के सहारनपुर , बिजनौर, मेरठ, गाजियाबाद, बुलंदशहर, मुजफ्फरनगर, बरेली, मुरादाबाद, पीलीभीत, शाहजहांपुर, बदायूं, रामपुर, बागपत और गौतमबुद्धनगर सिविलजिले

संपूर्ण भारत

21. सभी सहायक श्रमायुक्त (केंद्रीय ) , मुख्यालय, मुख्य श्रम आयुक्तका कार्यालय ( केंद्रीय ) नई दिल्ली

[सं . एस-42012/02/ 2005 - एस एस- II ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi . the 4th January, 2006

S.O.363.In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Payment of Gratuity Act. 1972 (39 of 1972 ) and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour No. S.O 903 dated 17th March, 1999. Central Government hereby [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

appoints the officers mentioned in Column ( 2) of the Schedule specified hereunder to be the Controlling Authorities for the area/ Jurisdiction as specified in column (3) ofthe said schedule in relation to all establishments for which the Central Government is the appropriate Government under clause ( a) of Section 2 of the said Act .

SCHEDULE

Sl . Officers

Jurisdiction

No.

(3)

(1) (2)

The State of Rajasthan .

1. Regional Labour Commissioner

(Central ) Jaipur and all Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central ) in Ajmer Regions.

The Districts ofBurdwan , Birbhum, Bankura and Purulia in the State of West Bengal .

2. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Asansol Region.

The State of Gujarat and Union Territories ofDadra , Nagar Haveli , Daman and Diu.

3. All Assistant Labour Commissioners ( Central) Ahmedabad Regions .

The State of Karnataka .

4. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) Bellary and All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central ) in Bangalore Regions.

The State ofOrissa .

5. Regional Labour

Commissioner ( Central)

Rourkela All Assistant Labour Commissioners ( Central) in Bhubaneshwar Regions.

6. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) Pune and All Assistant Labour Commissiones (Central) in Mumbai Regions .

( i ) The State ofMaharashtra excluding the following Districts: -Nagpur, Bhandara , Akola , Amravati , Wardha, Buldhana , Jalgaon, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli , Nanded , Parbhani , Yeotmal Osmanabad, Latur, Wasim, Hingoli andBid.

( ii) State ofGoa .

7. All Assistant Labour Commis- sioners ( Central) in Nagpur Region.

The following Districts of the State ofMaharashtra :- Nagpur, Bhandra, Akola , Amravati , Wardha , Buldhana, Jalgaon, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli , Nanded, Parbhani , Yeotma, Osmanabad , Wasim , Latur, Bid and Hingoli .

877 (1) (2)

(3)

8. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Kolkata Region .

The State of West Bengal (excluding the Civil Districts of Burdwan, Birbhum, Bankura and Purulia ) , The State of Sikkim and the Union Territories of Aandaman and Nicobar Islands .

( i) The State of Kerala . (ii) Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

9. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in CochinRegion . (iii) Mahe in the Union Territory of Pondicherry.

(i ) The State of Himachal Pradesh.

(ii) The State ofHaryana. ( iii) The State of Punjab

(iv) The State of Jammu and Kashmir.

10. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Jammu . AllAssistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Chandigarh Region . (v) The Union Territory of Chandigarh .

11. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Ranchi and All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Dhanbad Region.

The following Districts of State of Jharkhand , Dhanbad, Hazaribagh, Ranchi , Gumla, Kodarma, Lohardega Chatra, Simdega, Bokaro , East Singhbhum, West Singhbhum, Giridhi , Deoghar, Sarai Kela (Kharswan) and Jamtara.

The State of Assam , Nagaland, Meghalaya, Tripura, Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram.

12. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Guwahati Region .

13. All Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in Hyderabad Region.

The State of Andhra Pradesh and the area of Yanam in Union Territory of Pondicherry .

The State of Madhya Pradesh ,

14. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) , Bhopal and All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in JabalpurRegion .

The State of Chattisgarh .

15. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Raipur Region.

16. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) Lucknow and All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central ) in Kanpur Region .

The State of Uttar Pradesh excluding the Districts Saharanpur. Bijnorc , Meerut, Ghaziabad. Bulandshahar, Muzaffarnagar, Barcilly, Moradabad, Pilibhit , Shahajahanpur, Badaun. Rampur , Bagpat and Gautam BudhNagar.

878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

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

(3)

ANNEXURE

The State of Tamil Nadu and the Union Territory of Pondicherry ( except Yanam &Mahe) .

17. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central ) in Chennai Region .

BEFORE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 43 OF 2003 National Capital Territory of Delhi .

In the matter of dispute between :

18. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in New Delhi Region .

19. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central) in Patna Region.

The State of Bihar and the Districts of Garwah , Palamu , Latehar, Dumka , Godda , Sahibganj and Pakur in the State of Jharkhand .

Sri Kedar C/ o P.N. Srivastava , 68-B, Kakomi Bungalow, Kanpur And The Dy. Chief Engineer ( Const ) North Eastern Railway, DRM Office , Lucknow

AWARD

20. All Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in Dehradun Region.

1. Central Government Ministry of Labour vide notification No. L -41012/ 24/ 2003 IR (B -I ) dated 27-11-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

State of Uttaranchal and CivilDistricts of Saharanpur, Bijnore, Meerut, Ghaziabad, Bulandshahar, Muzaffar- nagar, Bareilly, Moradabad, Pilibhit, Shahajahanpur, Badaun, Rampur, Bagpat and GautamBudh Nagar of the State ofUttar Pradesh .

Whole of India

"Whether the action of the management of NE Railway in terminating the services of Sri Kedar sonof Sri Yadunandan w.e.f. 16-4-82 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief he is entitled for ?" 21. All Assistant Labour Commissioners (Central ) Headquarter, Office of Cheif Labour Commissioner (Central ) New Delhi .

[No. S - 42012/02/2005 -SS -II ]

K. C. JAIN , Director

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी, 2006

2. It is needless to mention full details of the case as after exchange of pleadings between the parties , the concern workman involved in the instant case stopped putting his appearance before the tribunal in the proceedings of the case despite availing of repeated opportunitics provided to him by the tribunal for adducing his evidence in support of his case. In view of above the tribunal is inclined to believe that the concern workman is not interested in prosecuting his case before the tribunal.

3. Itis therefore held that the workman is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him for want of proof and evidence pursuant to the present reference made to this tribunal .

का. आ. 364. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. ई. रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-43/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

4. Reference is answered accordingly. SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer [सं. एल-41012/24/ 2003- आई. आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2006

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

का. आ. 365 . औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. ई. रेतावे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-39/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

S.O. 364. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID -43 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court. Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of N.E. Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2006 .

[No. L - 41012/ 24/2003 - IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.

[ सं. एल-41012/99/2003- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी [भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2006

S.O. 365. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID -39/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of N.E. Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2006.

[No. L- 41012/99/2003 -IR (B -I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 39 OF 2003 In the matter of dispute between :

Sri Vishwakarma Sharma Son of Sh . Madho Sharma, Wasaratpur Ramjanki Nagar, Paschim Post , Wasaratnagar, District Gorakhpur

879

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

New Delhi , the 6th January , 2006 S.O. 366. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (ID -341/2001 ) 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 State Bank of Patiala and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-1-2006.

[No. L - 12012/340/2001 - IR(B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT-L, CHANDIGARH

CASE NO. LD . 341/2001

Shri Mohinder Singh , C/o Shri Tek Chand Sharma, 25, Sant Nagar , Civil Lines ,

Ludhiana - 141008

And The General Manager , N. E. Railway, Gorakhpur

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi vide its notification No. L - 41012 /99 /2003 IR (B - I ) dated 21-11-03 has referred the following dispute for adjudica- tion to this Tribunal :-

" Whether the action of the management of NE Railway Gorakhpur in terminating the services of Sri Vishwakarma Sharma w.e.f. 16-8-84 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief workmen is entitled for?"

2. It is needless to give full particulars of the case as after exchange of pleadings between the parties concern workman stopped attending the proceedings of the case despite availing of sufficient opportunities provided by the tribunal for adducing evidence on his behalf. It therefore appears that the workman is not interested in prosecuting his case before the tribunal . Therefore the tribunal is left with no other option but to hold that the workman is not entitled for any relief whatsoever pursuant to the present reference order for want of evidence .

3. Reference is therefore answered against the workman and in favour of the Railway Management .

SURESH CHANDRA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

.Applicant

Versus

TheAsistant General Manager - I ,

State Bank ofPatiala, G.T. Road, Jalandhar Bye Pass Ludhiana

.....Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the workman

: Shri T.C. Sharma

: Sh. N.K. Zakhmi Forthe management

AWARD

Passed on 9/12/2005

1. Central Government vide No. L - 12012/340/2001- IR(B - I) dated 18-12-2001 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Patiala in terminating the services of Shri Mohinder Singh is justified ? If not what relief the applicant is entitled ?"

2. Counsel for the workman Shri T.C. Sharma stated thatworkman is not contacting him and he has also no address of the workman and it appear that workman is gainfully employed somewere and the reference may be return for want of prosecution as workman is not contacting him. The Ld . counsel for the management has also no objection to the return of the reference . In view of the statement ofthe representative of the workman, as workman is not contacting him and he has no address of the workman, thepresent reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Govemment be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh

का. आ. 366.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, सं . I , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-341/ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को6-1-2006 को' प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Dated 9-12-2005

[सं ० एल -12012/340/2001- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी RAJESH KUMAR, Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 410/2004 anċi notices were issued to both the parties and both the partic's entered appearance through theiradvocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :

का. आ. 367. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-410/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को06-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-12012/118/2004- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 367. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID -410/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on06-01-2006.

[No -L- 12012/118/2004 - IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 29th November, 2005

PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN, PresidingOfficer

Industrial Dispute No. 410/2004

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their workmen ) . BETWEEN

Sri Jacob P. Sundar

: I Party/Petitioner

AND

: II Party/Management

The Deputy Manager, State Bank of India . Z.O. Madurai

: M/ sBalan Haridoss &

APPEARANCES : For the Petitioner

R. Kamatchi Sundaresan ,

Advocates

Forthe Management :Mr. V.R. Gopalaratnam,

Advocate

AWARD

1. Central Government Ministry ofLabour vide order No. L- 12012/ 118/2004 -JR (B - I) dated 20-08-2004 has referred this Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the punishment imposed upon Shri Jacob P. Sundar by the management of State Bank of India , Madurai of removal from service is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

The Petitioner joined the scrvices of the Respondent/ Bank as clerk pm 11/3/89 and was working in Tuticorin Bazzar branch during August , 1983 and he was promoted as Senior Assistant in the same branch . While so, the Respondent /Bank issued show cause notice dated 1-12-2000 in respect of certain alleged incident when the Petitioner worked in Tuticorin Bazzar branch . The crux of the allegations are that the Petitioner has clandestinely retained certain unused cheque leaves in respect of a closed account pertaining to a customer namely Smt . T. Secniammal and he connived with one Mr. M. Paramasivam by opening a S.B. Account and enabled him voluminous transactions . He has also issued the said cheques to discharge his loan . Thus , he was unauthorisedly using the said cheque leaves knowing fully well that it belonged to some other person . For this, the Petitioner has given a detailed explanation. But , even after that the Respondent issued charge memo dated 3-1-2001 containing six charges . The first charge is that the Petitioner with ulterior motive in order to utilise the cheque leaves given by Smt . T. Seeniammal for his personal benefits without accounting for them properly . The second charge is that he connived with Sri M. Paramasivam by opening S.B. Account No. CH/626 and current account No. 21.42 under his introduction and the said Sri M. Paramasivam issued the cheque leaves surrendered by Smt . T. Seeniammal and surreptitiously rernoved by the Petitioner. The third charge is that on 12-5-2000 , the Petitioner handed over the Branch Manager the four cheque leaves bearing Nos . 521965, 521964 , 521962 , 521958 along with letter purportedly signed by Sri M. Paramasivam and further seven leaves bearing Nos . 521954, 521955, 521870, 521973 , 521952 , 52953 and 521956 directly by him which shows his involvement in the fraudulent usage of the cheques relating to the closed account of Smt . T. Seeniammal . The fourth charge is that he on 26-3-2000 with an ulterior motive issued a cheque bearing No. 521974 favouring Sri S. Kanagaraj for Rs . 1.00 lakh which cheque leaf was again related to S.B. account No. Ch3 /358 of Smt . T. Secniammal . The fifth charge is that he carried out transaction in his S.B. account No. 906 maintained at Tuticorin branch for some other specific purpose and from the transaction made in that account he had engaged in trade /business outside the scope of his duties in the Respondent/Elank without the knowledge of the bank . The sixth charge is that the Petitioner has del iberately without altering the name of the branch and with ulterior motive issued a cheque bearing No. 951129 dr.. 3-11-2000 for Rs . 56,500 drawn on current account No. P 906 maintained at Tuticorin branch to Sri P.S.K. Murugan which was returned by Tuticorin Bazzar branch knowing fully well that the said cur . rent account at Tuticorin Bazzar branch has already been closed and transferred to Tuticorin branch and by this he has acted prejudicial to the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

881

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

conducted in a fair and proper manner after following principles of natural justice . The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence available on record and after analysing them had arrived at and given the finding to the effect charges 1,3,5 and 6 were proved and charges 2 and 4 were proved partly. Since the Petitioner has not questioned the fairness of enquiry or conduct of enquiry, it is just and proper for the Tribunal not to interfere either with the findings or with the Punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The charges levelled against the Petitioner are serious in nature and therefore , the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy. The Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority after considering the representations made by the Petitioner had passed the orders. Since the Petitioner herein was holding the post of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning and he was required to discharges his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and since the Petitioner has not conducted himself in the manner mentioned above , the punishment imposed cannot be considered grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the Petitioner. Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

5. In such circumstances , the points for may determination are:-

( i) "Whether the punishment imposed on the Petitioner by the Respondent/Bank of removal from service is legal and justified ?

(ii) To what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

Points No. 1 :-

interest of the bank and it would amount to gross misconduct . For this , the Petitioner has submitted his explanation but not satisfying with his explanation , the Respondent/Bank ordered domestic enquiry against the Petitioner. The Respondent has examined three witnesses in the enquiry and on the side of the Petitioner three witnesses were examined . Though none of the charges alleged the Petitioner vwere proved, the Enquiry officer by his cryptic enquiry report, without any semblance of evidence, held that Charge Nos . 1,3 , 5 and 6 were proved and Charges 2 and 4 were partially proved . The findings of the Enquiry Officer is contrary to evidence on record and the Disciplinary Authority after following the procedure has passed an order in a mechanical manner and with a predetermined mind imposed the punishment of removal from service . Though six charges have been levelled against the Petitioner , none of the charges were proved in the enquiry, but without any basis and without any legal evidence, after conducting a farce of enquiry, the Respondent imposed the extreme punishment of removal from service . When there is no evidence , the Enquiry Officer has held that charges have been proved in a most perverse manner. Further, when there is no evidence that the Petitioner has surreptitiously removed the cheque leaves and the Enquiry officer has held that charges against the Petitioner have been proved . Further, the Assistant General Manager and Branch Manager have asked the Petitioner to get the removed cheque leaves from Sri M. Paramasivam and it is false to contend that the Petitioner has produced the alleged missing Cheques . When the Petitioner has stated that Mr. Kanagaraj was not known to him and he never issued any cheques to him , the Enquiry Officer has curiously come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has not examined the said Kanagaraj on his side. Therefore , the Enquiry Officer without looking into any evidence has come to the perverse Finding contrary to evidence on record without any legal evidence and in an arbitrary manner . The Disciplinary Authority also without considering any of the objections raised by the Petitioner has imposed the capital punishment of removal from service by his order dated 4-12-20002 . The Appellate Authority also has confirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority after giving a farce of personal hearing by an order dated 28-3-2003 . Further, the Respondent has not considered the unablemished past record of the Petitioner . Even though the alleged incident happened during 1999, the Respondent took their own to conclude the proceedings after four years while knowing fully well that the Petitioner has completed pensionable service of 25 years in another three months with a sole intention and in a preconceived manner, the Respondent had imposed the punishment of removal from service in December, 2002. This will prove the malafide of Respondent/Management . Hence, for all these reasons , the Petitioner prays that this Tribunal to pass an award directing the Respondent/ Management to reinstate him into service with full back wages, continuity of service and other atttendant benefits with costs .

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement alleged that all the allegations made by the Petitioner are false. The domestic enquiry has been

6. In this case , the Petitioner has raised this dispute questioning the punishment imposed against him for the removal from service . The allegation ofthe Petitioner is that while he was working as a clerk in the Respondent/ Bank branch at Tuticorin Bazzar branch, it was alleged that he has clandesinely retained certain unused cheque leaves in respect of closed account pertaining to Smt. T. Seeniammal and secondly, he was engaged in commercial business and thirdly, he was connived with one Sri M. Paramasivam by opening a saving bank account and enabled voluminous transactions and he was a business partner for the said Sri M. Paramasivam and it was alleged that he has retain the cheque leaves belonging to Smt . T. Seeniammal for repaying the loan to third parties and he has borrowed money from Kanagaraj and he also used the cheque leaves belonging to Smt . T. Seeniammal for repaying to Mr. Kanagaraj . Further, it was alleged that he used the cheques pertaining to Tuticorin Bazzar branch knowing fully well that the account was closed . Thus , six charges were framed against him and Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that four charges out of six were fully proved and two charges were partly proved , without going into the legal evidence in a perverse manner and contrary to evidence he has given the report . it is further allleged by the Petitioner that Disciplinary Authority [PART II- SHC . 3 ( ii ) ] 882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

without considering any of the objections raised by the Petitioner has imposed the capital punishment of removal from service by an order dated 4-12-2002 and it was also his contention that the Appellate Authority also confirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority without applying his mind.

7. In this case , both sides have not adduced any oral evidence and the Petitioner has not questioned the conduct ofenquiry or fairness of the enquiry and both sides have marked documents and they argued the matter. On the side of the Petitioner 15 documents were marked. The Petitioner marked the copy of the show cuase notice issued by Respondent as Ex . W1 and his reply to show cause notice as Ex. W2 . Xerox copy of the charge memo issued by Respondent is marked as Ex. W3 and he has filed copy of correction to charge memo as Ex. W4 . Xerox copy of the explanation to the chargememo is marked as Ex . W5 . Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings is marked as Ex . W6 . Xerox copy of the statement of Presenting Officer to Enquiry Officer is marked as Ex . W7 . Xerox copy of the defence submission toEnquiry Officer is marked as Ex . W8 . Xerox copy of the letter enclosing enquiry report is marked as Ex. W9 and Xerox copy of the defence comments on enquiry report is marked as Ex. W.10 . Xerox copy of the 2nd Shaw cause notice issuedby Respondent is marked as Ex . W 11. Xerox copy of the order imposing punishment of removal by the Disciplinary Authority is Ex. W12 . Xerox copy of the appeal against the order of Disciplinary Authority is marked as Ex. W 13. Xerox copy of the exhibits in enquiry proceedings were marked as Ex. W14 and W 15. On the side of Respondent copy of the order ofAppellate Authority is marked as Ex . M1 . With thesc doocuments , it has to be seen whether the Petitioner has established his contention that Enquiry Officer , in a pre- determined way has come to the perverse finding and whether the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority has imposed the punishment without applying hismind.

Manager cannot be spoken anything about the letter of Smt . T. Sceniammal or handing over unused ofunused cheque leaves to the Petitioner . Only the third witness who was exaamined on the side of the Respondent has stated that after she was receving the letter and unused cheque leaves , she has entrered the same into account and she searched the register for recording the unused cheque leaves and since she could not found the same and she entrusted the remaining job to the Petitioner. She has not stated that she has given the unused cheque leaves to the Petitioner . With this evidence , the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion relying on the evidence of third witness that unused cheque leaves were given to the Petitioner . But on the other hand , it is clearly established by the Petitioner before the domestic enquiry thatafter handing over the letter and unused cheque leaves . it need not be recorded in any one of the registers and unused cheque leaves are required ' to be destroyed by the concerned clerk and only on a separate charge has been framed against her, she has given the false evidence before the domestic enquiry that she has handed over the same to the Petitioner . But, she has not clearly stated that she has handed over the unused cheque leaves to the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse and without any legal evidence . the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that charges have been proved and for deciding this , he has stated that this charge should be analysed with other charges framed against the Petitioner and he has stated that one Sri M. Paramasivam was introduced to the bank by the Petitioner and though the said Sri M. Paramasivam was examined onthe side ofthe Petitioner, his statement of inadvertently taking the cheque book from the Accountant table cannot be given any credence. Under such circumstances , the charge framed against the Petitioner has been proved . But, when there is no clear evidence and when the eve witnesses have not given any direct evidence that the unused cheque leaves were given to the Petitioner , it cannot be said that the charge framed against him has been proved. Further, unused cheque leaves were produced by Sri M. Paramasivam with a letter to the Branch Manager . The Branch Manager has refused to receive and refused to see the said Sri M. Paramasivam and therefore , Sri M. Paramasivam who was known to the Pctitioner has given the letter along with unused cheque leaves . Under such circumstances , when the direct evidence is there to show that unused cheque leaves were taken away by the said Sri M. Paramasivam , with a pre- determined mind the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has taken the unused cheque leaves with an ulterior motive which is perverse , contrary to evidence on record and the findings are arbitrary. On the other hand , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the reason given by the Enquiry Officer is proper and under such circumstances , it cannot be concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer is perverse.

9. But I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner because when DW3 Sri M. Paramasivam has clearly stated that he has taken the 8. Learned consel for the Petioner contended that the first charge framed against the Pettioner is that on 26-5-1999 Smt. T. Seeniammal , account holder of CH3/ 358 known to the Petitioner has handed over to him along with relevant pass book and 24 unused cheque leaves bcaring Nos . 521952 to 521975 through Sri Inbaraj and Sri Subhaidr, S/o Smt . T. Seeniammal and the Petitioner with an ulterior motive , in order to utilise the cheque leaves for his personal benefits, retained the unused cheque leaves without accounting for them properly. On the side of the Respondent/Management three witnesses were examined . The first witness namely the Accountant Mr. Karmegaraj who alleged to have received the letter from Smt . T. Sceniammal with unused cheque leaves . The second witness namely Branch Manager Mr. Gnana Mohan Ross , and third witness is Mrs. R. Kamala, who is S.B. account clerk. Out of these three persons , the first witness who alleged to have received the unused cheque leaves and letter from Smt . T. Seeniammal , has stated that he did not remember anything except that they were handed over to him by a small boy. The second witness who was examined on the side of the Respondent namely the Branch 883 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

12. But, I find much force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner because when the allegation that the Petitioner has surreptitiously removed the unused cheque leave belonging to Smt . T. Sceniammal has not been proved before the enquiry, it cannot be said that the Petitioner with the connivance of Sri M. Paramasivam has opened the S. B. account and Current account and the said Sri M. Paramasivam has issued unused cheque leaves of Smt . T. Seeniammal and therefore, I find the allegations with regard to second charge are vague and without any substance.

loose cheques from the table of Accountant and when he has produced the cheques through the Petitioner with a letter and said loose cheques and it was refused to receive by the Manager, it cannot be said that his evidence should not be believed in the enquiry. Further , when the Enquiry Officer has relied on the evidence of management witness No. 3 namely one Smt . Kamala, he has not stated any reason for rejecting the evidence given by DW3 namely Sri M. Paramasivam . Further , in the enquiry, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove that unused cheque leaves bearing Nos . 521952 to 521975 were given to Petitioner either by son of Smt. T. Seeniammal or by officials of Respondent/Bank . Under such circumstances , I find the findings given by the the Enquiry Officer and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority relying on the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and also the order ofAppellate Authority are perverse .

10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the second charge framed against the Petitioner is that he has connived with Sri M. Paramasivam by opening a Savings Bank Account No. CH/ 626 and Current Account No. 2142 under his introduction and the said account holder Sri M. Parasivam has issued Cheque No. 521967 on one ofthe cheque leaves surrendered by Smt. T. Seeniammal and surreptitiously removed by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that here again when the Respondent/Bank has not proved that the Petitioner has surreptitiously removed the unused cheque leaves of Smt . T. Seeniammal , it cannot be said that there was connivance between Sri M. Paramasivam and the Petitioner . No. doubt , Sri M. Paramasivam opened an account in the Respondent/Bank on the introduction of the Petitioner, but on that ground , no one can say that with the connivance of Sri M. Paramasivam , the Petitioner has opened the account and there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to the contention of connivance between the Petitioner and Sri M. Paramasivam and hence , it cannot be said that the second charge has been proved by the Respondent/ Bank. Further, it is established before the enquiry that Sri M. Paramasivam has got number of dealings with the Respondent/Bank and he was also given overdraft facility in the bank . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that Sri M. Paramasram has opened the account with the connivance of the Petitioner to use the unused cheque leaves belongingto Smt . T. Seeniammal . Therefore , learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that this charge also was not proved before the enquiry, but with a pre- determined mind, the Enquiry Officer has held this charge was also partially proved by the management .

13. The next charge framed against the Petitioner is that on 12-5-2000 , the Petitioner has handed over the Branch Manager four Cheque leaves bearing Nos . 521965, 521964 , 521962 and 521958 along with letter purportedly signed by the Sri M. Paramasivam and other seven cheque leaves bearing Nos . 521954, 521955 , 521870, 521973 , 521952 , 521953 and 521956 directly to the Manager , which shows his involvement in the fraudulent usage of the cheques relating the closed account of Smt . T. Seeniammal . Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that when the Assistant General Manager and Branch Manager asked the Petitioner to get the unused cheque leaves from Sri M. Paramasivam and when SriM. Paramasivam came to the branch to see the Manager to surrender the cheque leaves and when it was refused by the Branch Manager, It canot be said that the Petitioner who is known to Sri M. Paramasivam has handed over the cheques with a letter, which proves that he has not involved inthe fraudulent usage of cheque leaves of closed account of Smt . T. Seeniammal . Further he has argued that Sri M. Paramasivam was examined on the side of the Petitioner and he has stated that he has come to the office of the Branch Manager and that he tried to hand over the cheque leaves to the Branch Manager, but the Branch Manager refused to see him and to receive the same and then only he has handed over the cheque leaves to the Petitioner along with the letter. The Enquiry Officer has not stated any valid reason for rejecting this evidence of Sri M. Paramasivam . The Enquiry Officer's opinion that Sri M. Paramasivam has alleged to have handed over the unused cheque leaves on two instalments , which cannot be believed and it is only the Petitioner with the connivance ofSri M. Paramasivam has returned the same and therefore, he has come to the conclusion that this charge has been proved. But , it is far fetched idea that the Petitioner with the connivance of Sri M. Paramasivam involved in the fraudulent usage of cheque leaves . When there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to the claim ofthe bank that the Petitioner has involved in the incident , the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion with a vague inference to be drawn from the circumstances . Therefore , I find this charge has also not been proved by the management .

14. The fourth charge framed against the Petitioner is that on 26-3-2000 the Petitioner with ulterior motive issued cheque bering No.521974 in favour of Sri Kanagaraj for Rs . 1,00,000 and the cheque leaf issued by the Petitioner was again from the said lot of S. B. Account No. CH3 /358 of Smt . T. Seeniammal . Learned counsel for the Petitioner here again contended that it is not established that the 11. On the other hand , learned counsel for the respondent contended that no motive was attributed against the Enquiry Officer and fairness & conduct of enquiry has not been questioned before this Tribunal . The enquiry has been conducted in a fair manner and principles of natural justice has been strictly followed in this case . Under such circumstarices , it is just and proper for the Tribunal not to interfere either with the findings or with the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

104GI /06-21 884

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

cheque bearing No. 521974 was issued by the Petitioner and when the signature has not been identified by any one of the witnesses examined on the side of the Respondent/Bank, and no one has stated that the signature was that of the Petitioner , it cannot be said that the Petitioner has issued the cheque bearing No. 521974 to Sri S. Kanagaraj . It is further curious to note that Sri S. Kanagaraj was not examined in the enquiry . The Enquiry Officer relying on the evidence of Branch Manager , whgo has stated that the said Mr. S. Kanagaraj has told him that one ofthe cheques was issued by Mr. Jacob , ( the Petitioner herein)has come to the conclusion that the cheque bearing No. 521974 was issued by the Petitioner. But, I find that the charge has not been substantiated by the evidence produced by the respondent/ Management . The respondent/Management has not given any reason for non examination of Sri S. Kanagaraj before the domestic enquiry. Further , the signature found in the cheque bearing No. 521974 has not been identified as that of the Petitioner . Under such circumstances , I find there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to substantiate the contention of the Respondent/Bank , that the cheque No. 521974 was issued by the Petitioner. But on the other hand , the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the evidence of Branch Manager carries more weight on his opposition rather than the outside witness. I find there is no substance in the contention of the enquiry officer holding that the evidence ofBranch Manager carries more weight because of his position . When no reason was stated for non examination of Sri S. Kanagaraj when no reason was stated by the Respondent/Bank for non - sending of the disputed signature for comparison handwriting expert opinion , the findings given by the Enquiry Officer is perverse . Under such circumstances , I find this charge has also not been proved against the Petitioner .

for the Petitioner further contended that drawer of the cheque Mr. Vallirajan who was examined on the side of the Petitioner issued two cheques to him and these two cheques represent share of Petitioner's wife in the sale proceeds of immovable property and he has also produced copy of agreement entered into between Sri Vallirajan and his Mother - in - law and since there was encumbrance in the deal and which was not materialised, the money was returned back to Mr. Vallirajan and therefore , there is no substance in the allegation that the Petitioner has some other transactions or trade or business outside the scope of his duties. With regard to the allegation that he has received Rs.1,00,000/- from Mr.S. Kanagaraj , the Respondent/Management has not produced any material document to show that the Petitioner has received Rs. 1,00,000/- from Sri.S.Kanagaraj . Though the Enquiry Officer relied on the documents PE6 and PE42 , thedrawer's signature in PE6 and payee's signature in PE42 do not belong to Petitioner and it was also not established by the Respondent/Management that it was the signature made by the Petitioner and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that the said transaction was made by the Petitioner and with regard to other allegation that he has made an application for banker's cheque , the Petitioner has stated that he has filled up the banker's cheque application on behalf ofMr. Hendry, Chairman of Tuticorin Municipality , who happens to be his friend. Further, the Petitioner has examined the said Mr. Hendry in his evidence in the enquiry and he has stated that he has asked the Petitioner to fill up the application. Under such circumstances , when there is no contra evidence to rebut the evidence of Mr.Hendry and Mr. Vallirajan , it cannot be said that the Petitioner had dealings with these persons outside the scope of his duties . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that itwas not clearly established before the enquiry nor before this Tribunal that the 5th charge framed against the Petitioner has been proved and hence , it cannot be said that the charge No. 5 framed against the Petitioner has been proved in the enquiry .

16. Here again , I find much force in the contention ofthe learned counsel for the Petitioner because though the Respondent/Bank has framed the charge that the Petitioner has engaged in trade or business outside the scope of his duties , the Respondent /Bank has not established from what evidence they have come to such conclusion . Further, when the Petitioner has given an explanation for the transaction made in his account and when he has proved the same through documentary evidence and also oral evidence that these transactions were made only for the purpose he has mentioned in the Claim Statement and when there is no evidence contra to these things , it cannot be said from vague inferences that the charge has been proved by the Respondent/ Management. Therefore , I find this charge has also not been proved by the Respondent/Bank.

15. Then the next charge framed against the Petitioner is that he has carried out transaction in his current account (Staff A/ C . ) No. 906 for some other specific purpose which is evident from the transactions he made in two cheques for Rs. 1,00,000/ - each in his favour drawn on Canara Bank, Chidambaram Nagar branch and credited to his account on 6--5-1998 and 23-5-1998 respectively and he has received the amount of Rs . 1,00,000/- from Sri S. Kanagaraj by means of cheque drawn on Canara Bank, Chidambaram Nagar branch and his application for banker's cheque dated 4-6-98 for Rs. 2,00,000/ - favouring Sales Officerby remitting cash and its cancellation subsequently on 8-5-98 clearly establish that he has engaged in trade / bussniess outside the scope of his duties without the knowledge ofthe Respondent/Bank. Learned counsel for thePetitioner contended that when the Petitioner has given an explanation for what reason he has received all these amounts in his account and when there is no contra evidence produced by the Respondent/Bank that it was the dealing for some other purpose alleged by them , the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that these transactions were made as alleged by the Petitioner . But, on the other hand , he has come to a contrary view stating that the charge framed against the Petitioner in this case has been proved, in a perverse manner . Learned counsel

17. The sixth charge framed against the Petitioner is that he has deliberately without altering the name of the branch and with ulterior motive issued a cheque bearing No. 951129 dt. 3-11-2000 for Rs . 56,500/- drawn on in his currentaccount No. P906 maintained at Tuticorin branch to Sri.P.S.K.Murugan which was returned by Tuticorin 885 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Witnesses Examined :-

Oneither side

None

Documents Marked:-

For the I Party /Petitioner:-

Ex.No. Date

Description

W1 01-12-2000 Xerox copy of the show-cause notice issued to Petitioner

W2 06-02-2001 Xerox copy of the reply to show- cause notice

W3 03-09-2001

Bazzar branch and he was well aware that the said current account at Tuticorin Bazzar branch has already been closed and transferred to Tuticorin branch . In this case, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that no doubt , the Petitioners's account was transferred to TuticorinBranch pursuant to his transfer from Tuticorin Bazzar branch and it is the usual practice in the Respondent/Bank that even if the account is transferred the remaining cheques can be issued by. altering the branch name . Further, even assuming that the cheque was issued without altering the name, it was only an omission and therefore , it cannot be said that the Petitioner has acted prejudicial to the interest of the bank . Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that this charge framed against the Petitioner has been proved.

Xerox copy of the charge memo issued to Petitioner

W4 18-09-2001 Xerox copy of the correction to chargememo

W5 21-09-2001 Xerox copy of the explanation to chargememo

W6

Nil

Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings

W7 16-07-2002 Xerox copy of the submission of PresentingOfficer

W8 22-08-2002 Xerox copy of the defence submission

W9 07-09-2002 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent enclosing enquiry report

Nil

W10

Xerox copy of the comments on enquiry report

W11 12-11-2002 Xerox copy of the 2nd show -cause notice

18. I find some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner. No doubt , it is admitted that the petitioner has been transferred from Tuticorin Bazzar branch to Tuticorin branch and it is no doubt true thathis account has been transferred to Tuticorin branch . It is the contention of the Petitioner that it is the usual practice in the Respondent/Bank that when the account has been transferred, the unused cheques can be utilised by changing the name of the branch and it is not the case ofthe Respondent/Bank that there is no such practice as alleged by the Petitioner. Under such circumstances , I do not find by issuing the cheque without altering the name ofthebranch is an act prejudicial to the interest of thebank and therefore , it cannot be said as a misconduct or gross misconduct in terms of clause 521 (4) (j ) of SastryAward. Under such circumstances , I find the findings givenby the Enquiry Officer in respect of all the charges are perverse and contrary to evidence on record and which is arbitrary in nature. I also find that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority has considered the defence forwarded by the Petitioner and they have blindly relied on the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and imposed the severe punishment of removal from service on the Petitioner. Therefore, for all these reasons , I find this point in favour ofthepetitioner.

W12

Point No. 2 :-

04-12-2002 Xerox copy of the order imposing punishment of removal

WI3

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief, the Petitioner is entitled?

15-02-2003 Xerox copy of the appear preferredby Petitioner

WI4 Nil

Xerox copy of the Petitioner's exhibits marked in Enquiry proceedings

W15 Nil

19. In view of my foregoing findings that the punishment of removal from service imposed by the Respondent/Bank against the Petitioner in this dispute is not legal andjustified, I find the Petitioner is entitledto the relief as prayed for. Therefore , I direct the Respondent/ Bank to reinstate the Petitioner forthwith with full back wages , continuity of service and all other attendant benefits . No Costs .

Xerox copy of the Respondent's exhibits marked in Enquiry proceedings

20. Thus, the reference is answered accordingly.

For the II Party/Management :-

Ex.No. Date

Description

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this days the 29th November , 2005. )

M1

28-03-03 Xerox copy of the order of Appellate Authority K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer 886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II- SEC. 3(ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

referred this industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication. The Schedule mentioned in that order is-

"Whether the dismissal of Shri G. Karunakaranby the management of Karur Vysya Bank is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

का. आ. 368 . औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार करूर वैश्य बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्रके संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-144/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 06-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 144/2003 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through theiradvocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

[सं. एल-12012/244/2003- आई. आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

3. The allegations of the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

New Delhi , the 6th January , 2006

S.O. 368. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID No. - 144/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofKarur Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 06-01-2006 .

[No. L - 12012/244/2003 - IR (B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 14th September , 2005

Present:

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 144/2003

In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between theManagement of Karur Vysya Bank and their workmen .

BETWEEN

TheGeneral Secretary, KarurVysya Bank , Employees Union, Bangalore.

: I Party/Claimant

AND

The Deputy General , Manager. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur

: II Party/Management

Appearance:

For the Claimant Ms.D.Hariparanthaman, Adovate

For the Management : M/ s. T.S. Gopalan & Co. , Advocates

AWARD

1. The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 12012/244/2003 - IR(B - I )12 / 244/ 2003 - IR (B - I) dated 14-11-2003 has

The petitioner Union espouses the cause of Sri G.Karunakaran who was working as a clerk in the Respondent/Bank . He joined the services of the II Party/Management as a clerk in August, 1969 and his services were confirmed during August, 1970. He was appreciated by the II Party/ Management for his involvement in marketing and for his remarkable achievement in mobilisation of rainbow savings accounts. While so , II Party /Management issued memo dated 28-8- 2001 to the concerned workman with regard to outside borrowings and called for his explanation . The concerned employce has submitted his explanation . Instead of appreciating the concerned employee for disclosing the details , the II Party /Management issued a memo dated 21-9-01 to the concerned employee with malafide intention. The first charge alleged against the concerned employce is that he borrowed huge sums of money from third parties and he was not in a position to keep up his financial commitment and thereby increasing huge debts and failure to repay the loans promptly was an act unbecoming of a bank employce and in a manner affecting the image of the bank . The second charge levelled against the concerned employce is that cheque book issued to him for withdrawal of amounts was misused by him for raising of and repayment of loan. The third charge against the concerned employee is that he sold the bike purchased by him by availing loan from the bank to one Mr. Veeramani without the knowledge of the bank and without closing the bank loan and that he unauthorisedly sold the vehicle to a third party and acted against the interest of the bank and they classified as acts of gross misconduct under clause 19.5 (j ) of the Bipartite Settlement . Though the concerned employee has given an explanation , the II Party/ Management ordered an enquiry . The said enquiry was not fair and proper and the same is liable to be set aside . The allegations made against the concerned employee are almost pertaining to his private affairs and personal transactions and therefore , initiating disciplinary action for the same is without power and jurisdiction . The Enquiry Officer was subordinate to the complainant , hence the total enquiry is biased and against the principles of natural justice . When the concerned employee wanted to mark a letter dated 1-12-2001 which he received from his co -brother Mr. Thirugnanasambandam in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer rejected the same. Thus , the denial of marking the document is against the legal provisions . Though the allegations would not constitute any misconduct under 887 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

the provisions ofBipartite Settlement regarding disciplinary action , though the concerned employee has not committed any misconduct and though there was no legal and acceptable evidence to establish the charges and misconduct levelled against the workman concerned, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings in a biased and partisan manner which is not legal . Without considering the explanation of concerned employee , the Disciplinary Authority also accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and issued 2nd show cause notice proposing to dismiss the concerned workman form service and by an order dated 18-9-2002 the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the concerned employee from service without any notice . Borrowing of loan and receiving cheque book and using the same for his personal transaction would not amountto misconduct much less an actionable misconduct under the provisions ofBipartite Settlement , therefore , the II Party/ Management cannot take disciplinary action for anything and everything against the concerned employee . When there was no complaint from any of the creditors against the concerned workman , initiating disciplinary action against the concerned employee is malafide and also a clear case of colourable exercise of powers . Further , incurring of debts which is excessive according to Respondent/Management is only a minor misconduct under clause 19.7 ( 1 ) ofBipartite Settlement and maximum penalty is only stoppage of increment not longer than six months. When there was no evidence to prove any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or causing loss to the bank , the II Party /Management cannot invoke the clause under Section 19.5(j ) . When the concerned employee clearly established the source of income which are sufficient to discharge the loan and the interest , the findings of the Enquiry Officer is against the evidence on record. When the concerned workman has not violated any rule , regarding the Savings Bank account , the finding that the concerned employee has misused the cheque book facility is illegal and unjust . When the clerk like the concerned employee is entitled to avail loan on various heads upto Rs. 12.00 lakhs from the II Party /Management itself, it is not justifiable to dismiss the concerned employee for incurring loan to the tune of Rs.4.70 lakhs and come to a conclusion that he has committed a grave misconduct . Both the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have failed to see the vehicle was sold only after clearing the loan and cancelling the hypothecation and hence , no question of seeking permission or unauthorised sale would arise . Further, the Disciplinary Authority failed to take into account the long unblemished and meritorious service of the concerned employee while passing the dismissal order, hence, it is illegal .Hence, for all these reasons , the Petitioner Union prays that an award may be passed to reinstate the concerned employee into service with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

within their means . Thus , the employees are expected not to indulge in excess borrowings as it may tend them to resort to malpractices in the matter of handling of moneyes ofbank and its customers . The bank employees are required to maintain a S.B. account for the purpose of crediting their salaries and they are also required to issue cheques after ascertaining that they are having sufficient balance in their account at the time of issue of cheques and cheques are not to be used as security for getting loans . In the last week of June, 2001 , a fraud committed at Karur Central Branch ofRespondent/Bank came to light. When the matter was probed into it was found that Mail Transfer advices received by the Karur Central Branch were not of the bank stationery and signature of the officer of issuing branch (Palani branch) was also forged . It was found that the S.B. account in the name of Mr. R. Boobathi fictitiously opened and introducer of this account namely one Mr.B. Suresh also denied of having introduced any customer by name R. Boobathi . Thus , by the above fraudulent transaction , Rs . 8.2 lakhs was unauthorisedly withdrawn from the bank . The Chief Branch Manager of Karur Central Branch were the concerned employee was working submitted a detailed report giving detailed reasons as to how the involvement ofconcerned employee in the fraud could not be ruled out. It was followed by a further detailed report in December, 2001. The police also interrogated the concerned employee and in the course of interrogation the concerned employee informed that he had a borrowing of Rs . 4.7 lakhs from 19 parties besides a sum of Rs . 1.8 lakhs taken as loan from his co-brother. In that he confessed that he used to issue post dated cheques for getting loans from financiers and by repaying the loans , the cheques were not presented. On 23-10-1998 the concerned employee availed a vehicle loan ofRs.46,000/ - and the said vehicle was also under hypothecation with the bank . When the loan was outstanding without the Knowledge of the bank , he had sold the vehicle to one Mr.Veeramani by handing over the vehicle to him . Thus , he unauthorisedly sold the vehicle to a third party and acted against the interest of the bank . It is no doubt true that notwithstanding several circumstances placing needle of suspicion against the concerned employee in fraud of unauthorised withdrawal of Rs.8.2 lakhs , the Respondent/Bank felt that the excess borrowings , the issue of cheques as security for getting loans , the disposal ofvehicle which was purchased with a loan taken from the bank were sufficient to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned employee . Since the explanation givenby the concerned employee was not satisfactory, an emquiry was ordered to be conducted against him . The EnquiryOfficer gave his report holding that charges against the concerned employee have been proved. Thereafter , considering the submissions made by the concerned employee, the Disciplinary Authority after issuing 2nd show cause notice imposed the punishment of dismissal . Even the appeal preferred by the concerned employee was rightly dismissed by the Appellate authority. Apart from the charges proved in the enquiry, the circumstances pointed out by the Branch Manager of Karur Central Bank branch strongly suggesting the involvement of concerned employee in the fraud and therefore , the Respondent/Bank could not repose confidence in him. The enquiry was 4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the Respondent/Bank is a banking company paid wages and other allowances to award staff on par with the nationalised banks . Further, the Respondent/Bank functions on the faith and confidence reposed on its employees and it expects its employees to maintain absolute integrity and conduct their private affairs [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

conducted in a just and proper manner against the concerned employee and principles of natural justice has beenfollowed and not violated as alleged by the Petitioner. Merely because Mr. Swaminathan was Scale IV officer which is a higher scale than Scale II of Mr. Ramakrishnan , it cannot be concluded that Mr. Ramakrishnan , was subordinate to Mr. Swaminathan. The burden of proving that he has received the gift from his co -brother is upon the concerned employee which is not proved in the enquiry and therefore , the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer cannot be questioned by the Petitioner, the Respondent/Bank issued several periodical circulars governing the conditions of employment and breach of those circulars would amount to an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Though the excess borrowings is a minor misconduct , the same coupled with other acts would assume grave consequence and would be an act incompatible to employment in the service of the Respondent/Bank. By using his position as employee of the Respondent/Bank by issuing post dated cheques , he was able to borrow such a huge loan which he could not repay out of his normal known source of income namely his salary. The maximum loan for award staff from the bank including housing loan cannot be more than Rs . 7.15 lakhs and in the present case , the concerned employee had already availed loan from the bank to the extent of Rs . 2.09 lakhs and the borrowings referred to in charge sheet were over and above the loan taken from the bank. With regard to parting with the possession of vehicle, it is clear evidence that he has parted with the possession ofvehicle even in December, 1998. Hence , the findings of theEnquiry Officer cannot be questioned by the concerned employce . In any event , consideration of past record is to mitigate the misconduct and the concerned employee has not brought out any extenuating circumstances warranting lenient punishment . Hence , for all these reasons , the dismissal of the concerned employees is fully justified and valid in law and there is no scope to interfere with the punishment imposed on him . Hence , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim with costs .

5. Under these circumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i ) " Whether the dismissal of the Sri G. Karunakaran by the respondent/Management is legal andjustified ?

(ii) To what relief the concerned employee is entitled?"

Point No. 1 : -

sums of money from third parties and was not in a position tokeep up the financial commitments and he has confirmed the borrowings a sum Rs . 4,70,000 apart from Rs . 1,80,000 from his co -brother for his son's education and he was informed that the net salary drawn by him is not sufficient to meet even the interest obligation on the amounts borrowed by him, thus, by incurring huge debts and failing to promptly repay the same , he acted unbecoming of a bank employee in a manner affecting the image of the Respondent/Bank . Before the domestic enquiry, the Respondent/Bank has examined two witnesses . The first witness is with regard to purchase ofvehicle and the second witness namely the Manager of the Karur Vysya Bank was examined to prove the first charge against the concerned employee. On the side of the Respondent/Bank, nine documents were marked . The contention of the Respondent/Bank is that the award staff namely the concerned employee and other employees are paid wages and other allowances on par with the nationalised banks and the Respondent /Bank functions on faith and confidence reposed in its employees and therefore, the Respondent/Bank expects its employees to maintain absolute integrity and conduct their private affairs within their means and the employees of the Respondent/Bank are expected to no indulge in excess borrowings as such borrowings may tend them to resort to malpractices in the matter of handling of monies ofthe bank and its customers . In this case, the concerned employee has borrowed more than Rs . 4.70 lakhs besides borrowal of Rs . 1.80 lakhs from his co -brother and though the concerned employee has stated that it was a gift to his son , who was studying in Engineering in Computer Science, there is no proof to show that it was given to him as a gift . The maximum loan an award staff can avail from the Respondent/Bank including housing loan cannot be more than 7.15 lakhs , but in the instant case , the concerned employee had already availed loan from the Respondent/Bank to the extent of Rs . 2.09 lakhs and the borrowings referred to in charge sheet were over and above the loan taken from the bank . In this case it is admitted by the concerned employee that he used to issue post dated cheques for getting loans from financiers and by repaying the loans , the cheques were not presented. During the relevant period he was getting a salary ofRs. 6846.05 per month and he was paying an interest of not less than Rs . 10,000/- , which is over and above the net salary received by the concerned employee and in such circumstances , it was not possible for the concerned employee to repay the loan which is against the provisions ofall the rules and regulations . Even though the excessive borrowing is a minor misconduct, the same coupled with other acts would assume grave consequence and would be an act incompatible to employment in the services of the Respondent/Bank and therefore , the Respondent/Bank has imposed the major punishment .

6. In this case , though the Petitioner has raised doubts about the conduct of enquiry is not just and proper, subsequently , the learned counsel for the Petitioner represented that he will argue in all the issues and therefore , the Tribunal need not consider the preliminary issue with regard to conduct of enquiry. as such , we have to consider the entire case under section 11A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act.

7. The Respondent/Bank has framed three charges against the concerned employee. the first charge against the concerned employee was that he had borrowed huge

8. But , as against this , the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that first of all the charges framed against the concerned employee pertains to his private affairs and personal transactions and hence , issuing of charge memo and initiating disciplinary action against him is without power and jurisdiction of the Respondent/ Bank. Secondly, the Enquiry Officer was subordinate to the 889 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

complainant who also came as a witness in the enquiry as MW2 , hence , the total enquiry is biased and against the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, when the concerned employee wanted to mark letter dated 1-12-2001 , which he received from his co -brother Mr. Thirugnanasambandam in the enquiry, the Presenting Officer objected the same on the ground that author was not examined . Though the concerned employee contended that he was the recipient ofthe letter and hence he could mark the same , the Enquiry Officer rejected his request by simply accepting the contention ofthe Presenting Officer. Thus , the concerned employee was denied fair and reasonable opportunity to defend himself and to prove his innocence . Though the allegations would not constitute any misconduct under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement regarding disciplinary action and though the concerned workman has not committed any actionable misconduct and though there was no legal and acceptable evidence to establish the charges and misconduct levelled against the concerned workman, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings as expected by the Respondent/Bank in a biased and in perverse manner. It is further argued on behalf of the Petitioner that for borrowing of loan and receiving cheque books and using the same for personal transaction would not amount to any misconduct much less an actionable misconduct under the provisions of Bipartite Settlement . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings reported in 1953 II LLJ 439 LAXMI DEVI SUGAR MILLS LTD . Vs. NAND KISHORE SINGH wherein the standing order of a company inter- alia providing dismissal for an act subversive of discipline , a worker changed for alleged instigation of fellow workmen to pass a resolution for removal of the General Manager of the company, the concerned workman refusing to furnish information asked for by the General manager regarding his speech and therefore, the concerned workman was charge sheeted only for sponsoring such resolution and not with any other act ofinsubordination and in that case, the Supreme Court has held that " the prayer of management for permission to dismiss such workman could not be allowed to be justified on any grounds or charges other than those mentioned in the charge sheet . The concerned workman not having been chargedwith the act of insubordination which could have really justified the management in dismissing him , the employer could not take advantage of the same even though those acts could be brought home to him in proper proceedings . Passing of resolution for the removal of General Manager by itself could not be considered to be an act subversive of discipline and held that the dismissal orderpassed by the Respondent/Management is not valid . " Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further argued thatwhen therewas no complaint from any of the creditors the against the concerned employee , complaining either non - payment of principal or interest, the action of the Respondent/ Management in initiating disciplinary action against the concerned workman with regard to borrowing is malafide and also it is a clear case of colourable exercise of powers . Learned counsel further argued that only provision available in the settlement with regard to incurring ofdebts which is excessive according to the management is only a minor misconduct under clause 19.7 ( 1 ) of Bipartite

Settlement, therefore , when there was no evidence to establish that the debts incurred by the concerned workman were excessive, the Respondent/Bank cannot even proceed under clause 19.7 ( 1 ) of Bipartite Settlement . Even the excessive borrowing is proved under clause 19.7 ( 1 ) , the maximum penalty is only the stoppage of increment not longer than six months . Therefore , the action of the Respondent/Management in proceeding against the concerned employee as if he has committed a gross misconduct under clause 19.5(j ) ofBipartite Settlement and dismissing him from service for the same is malafide and vindictive. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further argued that when a clerk like the concerned workman who has put intwenty years of service is entitled to avail loan on various heads upto Rs . 12.00 lakhs from the Respondent/Bank, the Respondent/Bank was not justified in dismissing the concerned workman from service on the ground that he incurred loan to the tune of Rs . 4.70 lakhs . It is his further argument that concerned workman has established before the domestic enquiry that source of his income which was sufficient to discharge the loan and the interest and further before the enquiry, it was proved that he has discharged loan of Rs . 70,000 and Rs . 1.10 lakhs as on date of his deposition before the domestic enquiry. Under such circumstances , the findings of the Enquiry Officer that his net income was not sufficient to pay the interest is contrary to the evidence available on record and the findings of the Enquiry Officer that borrowing of Rs . 4.70 lakhs from the private financiers and money lenders was an act unbecoming of a bank employee is illegal and no such Act was either enumerated or prescribed to be a misconduct under the Bipartite Settlement . Further , when there was no evidence as to whether the creditors were the customers of the bank or not, the findings of the Enquiry Officer that concemed workman has borrowed loan from the customers is illegal . Under such circumstances , the findings with regard to borrowings is perverse and is against the evidence adduced before the domestic enquiry. It is further argued that in the absence of any specific clause in the Bipartite Settlement prohibiting either borrowing of money or issuing cheques or restricting number of cheques to be used, the II Party/Management cannot take disciplinary action for anything and every thing against the concerned workman . Learned counsel for the Petitioner futher relied on the rulings reported in 1990 II LLJ 23 M.L.L. KUMAR Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, APSRTC , CUDDAPPAH AND ANOTHER wherein it was held that " when the person whogave the complaint and the person who gave evidence before him is an officer immediately superior to him the enquiry should not have been conducted by the officer, who was subordinate to the complainant himself and particularlywhen the superior officer is also a witness in the case. The principles of natural justice as applicable todomestic proceedings have been held to include within their right to have a fair trial . Under such circumstances , the enquiry cannot be conducted by a subordinate to the complainant, especially when superior officer is also a witness in the case . " Learned counsel further relied on the rulings reported in 1998 3 LLN 878 INDIAN PISTONS LTD . Vs. C. KUMARASWAMY AND ANOTHER wherein the Division Bench of the High Court has relied on the 890

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

taken by the Respondent / Bank cannot be held has unauthorised or against the principles of natural justice or vitiated for the reasons urged by the Petitioner .

10. But , I find the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is sound, since in this case only because of suspicion against the concerned employee , the Respondent/Bank has taken action on flimsy grounds . When the clause 19.7 ( 1 ) of Bipartite Settlement clearly stated that incurring of debts which is excessive according to the management , is only a minor misconduct , even assuming for argument sake that the concerned employee has incurred debts which is excessive according to the Respondent/Bank , they can only take action for minor misconduct and it cannot be stated as a major misconduct . Though the Respondent contended that he can not discharge the debts within his means, he has not offered any tangible security for getting such loans and he has obtained these loans by using his position and issuing post dated cheques as security, which he could not repay out of his salary, I find even prior to domestic enquiry he has discharged loan amount more than Rs . 70,000 within his means and he has also discharged more than Rs. 100,000 before his examination as witness and under such circumstances, it cannot be said that he has borrowed excessive amount , as alleged by the Respondent . Further , learned cousel for the petitioner contended that the concerned employee as a clerk can borrow upto Rs . 12.00 lakhs and when the Respondent/Bank contended that he can avail loan only to the tune ofRs . 7.5 lakhs , it cannot be said that borrowal of the concerned employee in this case isexcessive . Under such circumstances , 1 find the findings givenby the Enquiry Officer is perverse and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is also illegal .

rulings reported in AIR 1970 SC 1401 Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. A.K.Roy, wherein the Supreme Court has held that "right ofan employer to discharge or dismiss an employee is no longer absolute and it is subject to severe restrictions, if the exercise of power was malafide or colourable amounting to victimisation or unfair labour practice or in violation of principles of natural justice, the Labour Court can direct reinstatement and normally the rule in such cases should be reinstatement and only in exception cases , compensation can be granted in lieu ofRespondent. TheApex Court also gave instances of such exceptions namely (i) strained relations between the employer and employee and (ii) the post held by the employee was one oftrust of confidence ; and (iii) the employee acted subversive or prejudicial to the interest of the industry. and the Division Bench has also held that " merely because hewas employed in stores receiving section , it cannot be said that the employer had lost confidence in the worker only on account of suspicion . The past conduct of the workers has got to be taken into account .... presumption and assumption made by the management against the Respondent also disclose that their action was not bona fide in making the first Respondent as a scapegoatfor the illegal act of the contractor. In our view, the management will do well to inspire confidence in their workers , if they do not start doubting the worker for anything and every thing . Unless the management has cliching evidence about the illegal activity of a worker, they should not indulge in takingfrivolous action against their own workers . " Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that Respondent/Bank had suspicion with regard to the fraud cominitted at Karur Central Branch of the Respondent/ Bank and therefore, the Respondent/ Bank victimised the concerned employee which is against the provisions of 1.D. Act . The

11. The 2nd charge framed against the concerned employee in this case is that the concerned employee using the cheques given by the bank obtained loan from private financiers and for this purpose , he has obtained many cheques for issuing post dated cheques towards repayment of loan on instalments . But, admittedly, the Respondent/Bank has not produced any rule or clause in agreement that using of cheque for obtaining loan is against the provisions of Bipartite Settlement . Further, when the provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act has clearly stated that post dated cheques can be given, it cannot be said that it is not legal. Further, the learned counsel for the Respondent has not produced any rule that an employee of the bank cannot use his cheques in respect of his S.B. account for obtaining loans as security . Though it was said that it is not permissible for bank employees to issue cheques for getting loans , no relevant rule or clause of Bipartite Settlement has been produced to show that it was not permissible for the bank employees .

9. But , as against this , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that in the last week of June , 2001 a fraud was committed at the Respondent/Bank at Karur Central Barnch . By this , a sum of Rs . 8.2 lakhs was unauthorisedly withdrawn . The Chief Branch Manager of the Karur Central Barnch , where the concerned employee was working , submitted a detailed report giving detailed rcasons as to how the involvement of the concerned employce in frauds could not be ruled out . This was followed by a detailed report in December, 2001. The police also interrogated the concerned clerk and in the course of interrogation by the police , in reply to a query, the concerned clerk informed that he had a borrowing of Rs . 4.7 lakhs from 19 parties besides a sum of Rs . 1.8 lakhs taken as a loan from his co- brother . He has also confessed that he used to issued post dated cheques for getting loans from financers and by repaying the loans , the cheques were not presented. It is no doubt true that notwithstanding several circumstances placing the needle of suspicion against the concerned employee in the fraud of unauthorised withdrawal of Rs . 8.2 lakhs , the Respondent/ Bank felt that excess borrowings , the issue of cheques as security for getting loans , the disposal of the vehicle which was purchased with a loan taken from the bank was sufficient to intiate disciplinary action against the concerned employee . Under such circumstances , the action

12. Though it is stated that the concerned employce has misused his cheque facility when the Manager who was examined as MW2 has clearly stated that rules of S.B. account are same for customers of the bank and bank employees and it cannot be said that concerned employee has misused the cheque facility given to him under S.B. account . Learned counsel for the Respondent further argued that the Respondent /Bank issued periodical 891 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

circulars with regard to conditions of employment and breach of such circulars would amount to prejudicial to the interest of the bank . But, no such circulars were produced before this Tribunal with regard to conditions of employment and which of those circulars have been breached by the concerned employee and threfore , I find there is no substance n the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the acts done by the concerned employee are prejudicial to the interest of the Bank.

13. The next and last charge framed against the concerned employee in this case is that he has availed vehicle loan on 23-10-1998 for Rs . 46,000 under the employee's vehicle loan scheme or purchase of ' Yamaha RX' motorbike and in the month of December, 1998 during the pendency of the loan , he sold the vehicle to one Mr. Veeramani , proprietor of M/s . Annai Printers without the knowledge of the bank and also he did not get the loan account closed before selling the vehicle to Mr. Veeramani . Thus , he has unauthorisedly sold the motorbike hypothecated to the bank and thus , the loan account was closed by him only on 14-5-2001 which is a grave misconduct . But , as against this , the concerned employee contended that he has sold the vehicle only on 1-6-2001 and the name in the RC book also changed subsequent to thatand before that he has discharged the loan and he has produced a copy of the letter given by the said Mr. Veeramani with regard to the transfer and also copy of RC book with regard to transfer in the name of Mr. Veeramani as Ex . W6 to W11 . It is contended that any amount of oral evidence against these documentary evidence will not help theRespondent/Management to come to a conclusion that the vehicle was sold when the hypothecation of vehicle is pending in the bank.

of the learned counsel for the Respondent , from the document produced by the Petitioner side , I consider the allegation that the transfer ofvehicle was made in December, 1998 against the documentary evidence produced by the Petitioner is not valid. Legally the vehicle was transferred only in June, 2001 and on that date, there was no hypothecation of vehicle with the bank . Further, in each and every year, the auditors of the bank will enquire and verify whether the hypothecated articles with the bank are in tact . In this case , no document was produced before the enquiry that verification was made by the auditors with regard to hypothecation of motor bike , but they relied only on the oral evidence given by Mr. Veeramani who is a customer of the bank and who is expecting orders from the bank. Under such circumstances , I find oral evidence given byMr. Veeramani cannot be relied on by the parties against the documentary evidence . Therefore , the conclusion arrived at by the Respondent/Bank in the enquiry against the concerned employee is illegal , arbitrary, unjust and malafide . Further, in this case , the action of the Enquiry Officer in rejecting the Petitioner's request for marking of document which he received from his co- brother is also a denial of fair and reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Because it cannot be said that in each and every case while marking a document , author of the document is to be examined before the enquiry. Further, it is the evidence of concerned employee that he has received this letter from his co-brother and therefore , the Enquiry Officer only to reject the contention of the concerned employee has come to a conclusion that author of the letter has to be examined before marking the letter written by the co-brother of concerned employee. Thus , in all the circumstances it can be seen that with a prejudiced mind the Enquiry Officer has approached the case and the Respondent/Bank has got suspicion over the concerned employee with regard to the fraud committed in the bank and wanted to take advantage ofthe minor circumstances and had come to a conclusion that the concerned employee should be dismissed from service and take this step , which I find is unjust and illegal .

14. But , as against this, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the concerned clerk has sold the vehicle unauthorisedly to one Mr. Veeramani and in this case , it is the allegation against him that he has parted with the possession of vehicle even in December, 1998 and the said Mr. Veeramani was examined as MW1 and it is the evidence ofMr. Veeramani that he has taken possession of the vehicle in the year 1998 which was not disputed by the concerned employee . Further , during the course of cross examination of MW 1 the said Veeramani narrated the voluntary declaration made by the concerned employee to the police and thereafter he stated for the reasons best known to him , now he was saying that the amount received was by way of gift. Further, the witness concerned MW1 has also produced documents for payments made to the concerned employce which clearly shows that possession ofvehicle was parted even in December, 1998. While so , the change of name in RC book and also letter was only after the discharge of loan but the physical possession of vehicle was already given to Mr. Veeramani and therefore, it is clearly established that vehicle was transferred while the vehicle was under hypothecation with the bank . Under such circumstances, the action taken against the concerned employee is legal and it is clearly proved that this action of the concerned employee is a grave misconduct .

15. But , though I find some force in the contention

16. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings reported in 1984 II LLJ 186 A.L. Kalra Vs. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. wherein the Supreme Court has held that " a general expectation ofa certain decent behaviour in respect of employees keeping in view Corporation culture may be a moral or ethical expectation . Failure to keep such high standard ofmoral, ethical or decorous behaviour befitting an officer ofthe company by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the specific conduct falls in any of the enumerated misconduct in Rule 5.. Where the misconduct when proved entails penal consequences , it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex- post factor interpretation of some incident may not be camouflaged asmisconduct . Therefore, it would appear that even if the facts alleged in two heads of charges are accepted as wholly proved, yet that would not constitute misconduct as prescribed in rule 5 and no penalty can be imposedfor such conduct . " It further held that " if rules for granting the advance themselves provided the consequence of the breach ofconditions, it would be idle to go in search of 104 GI /06-22 892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Date

Description

Ex No.

W8 Nil

Xerox copy of the renewal policy for vehicle.

W9 04-07-01 Xerox copy of the transfer of insurance certificate .

W10 04-07-01 Xerox coy of the motor extra endorsement for the policy.

W11 Nil

Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. D. Veeramani .

W12 29-08-01

any other consequence by initiating any disciplinary action in that behalf unless the Rules specifically incorporate a rule that the breach of House Building advance rules would by itself constitute a misconduct" and argued that in this case , even assuming for argument sake that the concerned employee has transferred the vehicle even when the hypothecation is pending with the bankby transferring the vehicle , it cannot be said that it is amisconduct because the Respondent/Bank is entitled to collect the entire amount from the person when it was transferred or it can claim penal interest against the transfer. Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that it is a grave misconduct.

17. I find much force in this contention. Therefore , I find the dismissal of the concerned employee Sri G. Karunakaran by the Respondent/Management is not legal andjustified.

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to concerned employee .

W13 14-09-01 Xerox copy of the reply given by concerned employee to Assistant GeneralManager .

W14 02-04-01

PointNo. 2:

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the concerned employee is entitled?

18. In view of my foregoing findings that dismissal order passed by the Respondent/Management is not legal , I find the Petitioner is entitled to the relief claimed namely the reinstatement of concerned employee into service . Therefore , I direct the Respondent/Bank to reinstate the concerned employee Sri G. Karunakaran into service with continuity of service , back wages and other attendant benefits . No costs .

19. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 14th September, 2005. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

:

None

Forthe I Party/Claimant

:

MWI Sri K.P. For the II Party/

Swaminathan Management

Documents Marked:

For the I Party/Claimant :

Ex Date

Description

No.

WI 29-10-98

Xerox copy of the appreciation letter issued by Respondent .

W15 29-01-01 Xerox copy of the service certificate issued to concerned employee .

W16 14-09-01 Xerox copy of the explnation given by concerned employee for the memo dated 28-8-01 .

W17 04-12-01 Xerox copy of the letter from Enquiry Officer to Petitioner.

W18 07-02-02 Xerox copy of the written arguments ofdefence Representative. 19-04-02

W19

Xerox copy of the notice issued by Respondent enclosing Enquiry findings.

W20 08-10-02 Xerox copy of the letter sent by Respondent to concerned Employee regarding pension .

W21 21-10-02 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by concerned employee .

W22 31-01-03/ 10-02-03

Xerox copy of the appeal preferred by concerned employee to Chairman &Board ofDirectors .

W23 01-07-03 Xerox copy of the ID raised by Petitioner before Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central).

W24 26-08-03

Xerox copy of the certificate of registration .

W2 Nil

Xerox copy of the S.B. account rules .

W3 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement showing charges for issuance of cheque books.

W4 29-08-01 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent/Bank to Petitioner.

W5 05-09-02 Xerox copy of the proceedings of proposed punishment .

W6 01-06-01 Xerox copy of the RC book- name duly transferred to Mr. Veeramani .

W7 Nil

Xerox copy of the insurance policy.

Xerox copy of the remarks filed by II Party/Management Before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) .

For the II Party/Management :

Date

Description

Ex No.

21-09-01

M1

Xerox copy of the charge sheet issued to Mr. Karunakaran .

M2 10-10-01 Xerox copy ofthe reply given byMr. Karunakaran.

M3 24-10-01 Xerox copy of the order issued by Disciplinary Authority for enquiry.

M4 27-12-01 Xerox copy of the Enquiry Notice .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

893

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Date

Description

Ex No.

M5 27-12-01 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings.

M6 28-12-01 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings.

M7 08-01-02 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings .

M8 09-01-02 Xerox copy of the enquiry proceedings.

M9 25-08-01 Xerox copy of the letter from Mr. Veeramani to Respondent/Bank:

M10 Nil

Xerox copy of the statement maintainedby Mr. Veeramani .

M11 17-08-01 Xerox copy of the letter of Central Branch to Central Office of Respondent/Bank.

M12 Nil

Xerox copy of the list containing names ofpersons who lent money to Mr. Karunakaran.

18-08-01

M13

Xerox copy of the statement of account ofMr. Karunakaran .

M14 Nil

Xerox copy ofthe list containing list of cheque books issued to Mr. Karunakaran.

M15 Nil

Xerox copy of the pay slip of Mr. Karunakaran for Aug. 2001.

M16 19-04-02 Xerox copy of the letter from Central Office enclosing Findings ofEnquiry Officer.

M17 13-05-02 Xerox copy of the written representation submitted by Defence representative.

12-08-02

M18

Xerox copy of the show cause notice issued to Mr. Karunakaran .

18-09-02

M19

Xerox copy of the final order passed by Disciplinary Authority.

M20 22-10-02 Xerox copy of the appeal preferred byPetitioner.

22-01-03

M21

Xerox copy of the order ofAppellate Authority.

M22 29-06-01 Xerox copy of the letter of IRAD, Central Office, Karur regarding Fraud atKarur Central Branch.

M23 17-08-01 Xerox copy of the letter of Karur Central Branch Regarding Fraud at Karur Central Branch .

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 369.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार करूर वैश्य बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई डी-74/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12011 /10/2003 - आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 369. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID- 74/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 6-1-2006 .

[No. L- 12011/10/2003 -IR(B-4) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Wednesday, the 2nd November, 2005 PRESENT:

K. Jayaraman, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 74/2003

( Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause(d) of sub -section (1) and sub -section 2(A) of Section 10ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between the Management of Karur Vysya Bank Ltd. and their workmen.)

BETWEEN

: I Party/Claimant TheGeneral Secretary KarurVysya Bank, EmployeesUnion , Bangalore.

AND

KarurVysya Bank, Ltd. Karur. The Chairman,

II Party/Management APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant

: M/s. D. Hariparanthaman, Advocate FortheManagement : M/s . T. S. Gopalan & Co. , Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 12011 / 10/2003 - IR(B - I) dated 7-5-2003 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is- "Whether the action of closure of the branch and retrenchment of workmen by the management of Karur Vysya Bank Limited without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 74/2003 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through theiradvocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

894

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows: -

filed W.P. No. 14038/03 praying for a direction to the Government of India to refer this dispute to this Tribunal and after the order passed by the High Court, the matter was referred to this Tribunal . Since the action of the Respondent/Managementby way of rationalisation/ modernisation is leading to retrenchment of part time workmen and violative of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act , and it is illegal and non - cst in the eye of law and in operative . Since the II Party /Management has not obtained prior permission as contemplated under Section 23 of the Banking Regulation Act , the action of the Respondent/Bank is illegal and discriminatory and malafide. Further , the Respondent/Management has not followed the provisions of Section 25G of the Act and therefore, the action of Respondent is illegal , unjust and violative of Section 33 ( 1 ) ( a) of the I.D. Act. Hence, the Petitioner Union prays that as the order passed by the Respondent / Management is illegal and unjust, II Party /Management may be directed to reinstate all the retenched part time employees into service pursuant to such closure/ merger ofbranches with continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the Respondent is a banking company registered under Companies Act . and at present it is having 219 branches of which 39 are rural branches. In order to cater to the needs of large customers like colleges. hospitals or major manufacturing units , an extension counter is set up to function under the control of nearby parent branch. In view of the severe competition from foreign and other new generation banks , the Respondent/ Bank is obliged to periodically review the performance of every branch and constantly take remedial measures to remove unviable extension counters and loss making branches . Therefore , at the first instance unviable branches are converted into satellite branches attached to nearby branch and unviable extension counters are merged with parent branch . Further, the branch has got part time sweepers in branches having an area of 2000 sft . and above and they are paid part of seale wages namely ¼ , ½ or rd as applicable to regular sub - staff. In respect of branches having less than 2000 sft the branches utilises the services of local person invariably a woman and engages them as part time sweepers to attend the cleaning of premises and their working hours are below six hours per week . They were paid consolidated wages of either Rs . 450/ or Rs . 740 / per month depending upon the area of the branch and they are not transferable and they are also not subject to retirement even on reaching the age of superannuation and these part - time sweepers are not entitled to benefits like HRA , DA , CCA etc. in other words , in the case of such part- time sweepers, their services are utilised in pursuance of their occupation and not as an employment . The Respondent/Bank had a branch at Ambhur in North Arcot district. In view of water problem , employees made a complaint that they were affected with water borne disease and in deference to their representation the branch was merged with nearly branch at Vellakuttai and subsequently the merged branch was shifted to Vaniyambadi . Similary, in 2002 on a review of performance of various branches , Karaikudi EC was merged with Karaikudi branch, Kottayam The II Party/Management is having 193 branches all over India in urban, semi urban and some branches in rural areas totalling to 217 branches and opening of new branches and transfer of existing places of business including sub - office , pay office and any place of business at which deposits are received, cheques cash or money lent is governed by Section 23 ofthe Banking Regulation Act and only after obtaining prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India , a bank can either open a new branch or transfer an existing branch . The conditions of service of award staff of the Petitioner union are governed by Shastri Award, Desai Award and various All India level settlements entered into from time to time for the banking industry. The Respondent/ Management employccs are classified into four categories namely permanent , probationer , temporary and part time employees . As per para 508 of Shastri Award, part time employees means an employee who do not or is not required to work for full period for which an employee is ordinarily required to work and who is paid on the basis that he is or may be engaged in doing the work elsewhere. Further , the conditions of service of part time employees are also governed by the above said awards and settlements . The part time employees drawing scale wages are entitled to all the benefits like full time permanent workmen and they are entitled to preference while filling up full time vacancies. While so, the II Party / Management in the name of rationalisation and modernisation effected several changes to the adverse effect and detriment of service conditions of award staff and part time employces . The II Party /Management have cither converted some branches to satellite branches or closed the branches by merging with nearby branches even though there was no reason , necessity or justification for such conversion or merger. Though all the officers and award staff were re -deployed and accommodated in nearby and other branches , the Respondent/Bank without any justification did not extend the same treatment and benefits in the case of part time employees and all the part time employees were sought to be terminated or retrenched. Further. before effecting such changes no notice under section 9A was issued neither the Petitioner union or concerned employces . The Petitioner union made protest and requested the II Party/Management to desist from effecting any changes altering in conditions of service and more particularly not to go ahead with any change which will result in non -employment/ retrenchment of workmen or part time workmen . Since there is no positive reply the Petitioner union raised an industrial dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ). Even while the conciliation was pending before the conciliation officer and even though he advised the partics to maintain status quo during the pendency of conciliation , the II Party/ Management continued to go on with the same violation without any prior permission in utter disregard of provisions ofIndustrial Disputes Act. Since the conciliation ended in failure , the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) addressed the Government for reference . But at the first instance , the Government has not inclined to refer this dispute to this Tribunal . Subsequently, the Petitioner Union 895 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Act , while keeping juniors in service and retrenched the senior part time employees and all the more , even during the pendency of the conciliation without seeking prior permission, they have retrenched the part time sweepers which is illgal and in operative and also violation of Section 33(1 ) ( a) ofthe I.D. Act .

ECwas merged with Kottayam branch, Hyderabad EC was merged with Hyderabad Abids branch , Rajkot specialised savings branch was merged with Rajkot main branch and Vizag EC was merged with Vizag branch . In respect of branches converted into satellite office all the officers and award staff were accommodated in the nearby branches . Before effecting all these mergers and conversion of branches , permission from Reserve Bank of India was obtained under section 23 of Banking Companies Regulations Act and further permission was obtained from District Consultative Committee . In all these branches , which were subject to merger or conversion , the part - time sweeper were all on consolidated wages and they were not really employed in service of the branches. They could not be accommodated in any of the nearest branches as every branch required only one sweeper and already such branches had sweepers . Hence , as and by way of gesture of goodwill they were paid one month's salary in lieu of notice and compensation calculated at 15 days wages for everycompleted year of service or part thereof and it cannot be called rationalisation or standardisation . The Respondent/Management has clearly stated merger or conversion of branches with satellite offices the service conditions of award staff were not in any way altered and there was no necessity to issue any notice under section 9A ofthe I.D. Act . Therefore, exercise of such managerial function does not call for interference at the instance of Petitioner union . The non -engagement of concerned part- time sweepers on consolidated wages had taken place even before the commencement of conciliation , apart from Section 33 not being applicable , there was no conciliation pending at the relevant time. Hence, for all these reasons, the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs;.

5. In such circumstances , the points for my determination are--

( i ) " Whether the action of closure of the branch and retrenchment of workmen by the Respondent/management without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workmen are entitled?"

Point No. 1:-

6. The contention of the Petitioner Union in this case is that II Party/Management in the name of rationalisation and modernisation had effected several changes to the adverse effect and detriment of service conditions of staff/ members of the Petitioner union i.e. the Respondent/ Management have either converted some branches into satellite branches or closed the branches by merging with nearby branches , even though there was no reason or justification for such conversion or merger. They further alleged that Respondent/Bank has not obtained prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India as per Section 23 of Banking Regulation Act ; secondly, even effecting such changes , no notice under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act was issued either to the Petitioner union or to concerned workmen . Similarly, the Respondent/Bank have not followed the provisions of Section 25 G of the I.D.

7. As against this , the Respondent/Management contended that the changes made by the Respondent/Bank cannot be termed as rationalisation or standardisation as mentioned by the Petitioner union . Since the Respondent/ Bank is engaged in banking business and since there are severe competition from foreign and other new generation banks,, the Respondent/Bank is obliged to periodically reivew the performance of every branch and constantly take remedial measures to remove unviable extension counters and loss making branches and as a part of that process , at the first instance , unviable branches are converted into satellite branches attachedto nearby branches and univable extension counters are merged with the parent branches . While doing such merger or conversion ofbranches into satellite branches , all the officers and staff working therein were all accommodated in the nearby branches . Further, before effecting all these conversion and merger, permission was obtained from Reserve Bank ofIndia under Section 23 of Banking Companies Regulation Act. Furthermore , the permission was also obtained from District Consultative Committee for this . Only part time sweepers who were all on consolidated wages , were not really employed in the service of the branches , and who were not accommodated in any of the nearest branches as every branch required only one sweeper and already such branches had sweepers and as and by way of gesture of goodwill they were paid on months salary in lieu of notice and compensation calculated at 15 days wages for every completed year of service or part thereof and they were not retrenched and therefore , this action of the Respondent cannot be called as rationalisation or standardisation . Further, by this merger or conversion of these branches with satellite branches , service conditions of award staff were not altered and therefore , there is no necessity to issue any notice under Section 9A of the I.D. Act . Since there was no closure of the branch and the functioning of the concerned branch whether it be a rural or extension counter is only shifted or merged, it cannot be said that it is closed. Further, the retrenched persons are only part -time sweepers on consolidated wages and their services were utilised in the course of their occupation and not by way of employment in the services of the bank . Therefore , discontinuation of utilisation of their services would not amount to termination of employment much less by way of retrenchment. Even assuming that they were workmen, discontinuation of their services would not amount to terminationby way of retrenchment . Further, it is contended that since the Respondent/Bank has complied with the provisions of I.D.Act, no objection can be taken with regard to their cessation of their engagement . No doubt, industrywise awards and Bipartite Settlements apply to various categories of employess including part - time sweepers on consolidation by excluding them to be eligible for allowances as are available to part -time employees on scale of wages on the clear footing that they are not 896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)]

case , though the the Respondent contended that by closing of certain branches they have attached it to nearby branches or merging the same with the parent branches , by this action of the Respondent the services part time employees of the Respondent/Bank have been retrenched. It is established before this court by the Petitioner's documents that part time workers of the branch namely sweepers have been retrenched by the Respondent/Bank . Though the Respondent/Bank has stated so many reasons for doing this , since they have not followed the provisions under Section 9A of the Act, it is not valid in law. Further, even while the conciliation proceedings were pending before the conciliation officer, it was admitted by the Respondent witness that they have introduced this merger in several other branches which is in violative of Section 33. Under such circumstances , the action made by the Respondent/ Management is illegal and violative of mandatory provisions of the I.D. Act, and therefore , not valid in law.

employees in the services of the bank. Further, the part time employces on consolidated wages are entitled to carry on any occupation or pursue any other services because their hours of work under Respondent/Management is very limited. Therefore , under such circumstances , the action of the Respondent could not amount to rationalisation or modernisation and they have not affected the interest of permanent workmen . Under such circumstances, Petitioner union is not entitled to claim any relief in this industrial dispute. It is the further contention of the Respondent that even the dispute is not properly made by the union and there is no proof to show that a resolution was passed to raise this dispute for the retrenched workmen. It is also their contention that the non- engagement of part time sweepers on consolidated wages had taken place even before the commencement ofconciliation, therefore , apart from Section 33 not being applicable , there was no conciliation pending at the relevant time .

8. Though the Petitioner union has raised so many issues with regard to closure/ merger /conversion of branches , the Respondent/Bank has not obtained prior permission from the Reserve Bank of India under Banking Regulation Act and not followed the provisions of Section 25G, 25F and so on, at the time of argument , learned counsel for the Petitioner restricted his claim only with regard to Section 9A notice and also Section 33 ( 1 ) (a) ofthe I.D. Act .

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that accordingto Section 9A of the I.D. Act , no employer who proposesto effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workmen in respect of any matter specified in 4th schedule shall effect such change without giving notice . Further, without giving to the workmen likely tobe affected by such a change , a notice in the prescribed manner ofproposed to be effected or within 21 days of giving such notice , it amounts to various change in condition of service ofworkinen under item 10. In the 4th Schedule of I.D. Act it mentions therein that various conditions of service of workmen in which item 10 says ' rationalisation , standardisation , of improvement of plant or technique likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen and any increase or reduction ( other than casual ) in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or departinent or shift ( not occasioned by circumstances over which the employer has no control ) . Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on this section and also the schedule submits that in serveral judgements , the Supreme Court has stated that standardisation can be of anything, not necessarily of wages and it may be standardisation of workload. standardisation of product , standardisation of working hours , standardisation of leave privileges . The whole question whether this reorganisation falls under item 10 depends upon whether it was likely to lead to retrenchement of workmen . Therefore , if the proposed scheme of rationalisation has a likelihlood of rendering existing workmen surplus and liable to retrenchment then item No. 10 of Schedule IV would squarely get attracted and would require as a condition precedent to introduction of such a scheme a notice to be issued under Section 9A by the management proposing such an introduction of scheme of rationalisation . Further, he argued that in this

10. Though the Respondent/Management has made several allegations that these part time employees are not regular employees and they were not appointed by the Respondent/Bank and they were only engaged on casual basis, it cannot be contended that they are workmen of Respondent/Bank because even in the judgement reported in 2001 3 SCC 36 INDIAN BANKS ASSOCIATION Vs. WORKMEN OF SYNDICATE BANK AND OTHERS , the Supreme Court has held " though the commission agents/ deposit collectors of banks were not regular employees, nonetheless covered, the relationship ofmaster and servant did exist between the bank and such of persons on commission . " Under such circumstances , since without following the provisions of Section 9A of the Act , the Respondent/Management carinot introduce this scheme and therefore , the same is illegal . It is the further contention ofthe learned counsel for the Petitioner that standardisation and rationalisation by itself would not fall under Item 10 , unless it is likely to lead to retrenchment of workmen. In this case, since the part time workmen have been retrenched and since the Respondent/Bank has rationalised their services , definitely they have to issue a notice under Section 9A ofthe Act . For this , the counsel for the Petitioner relied on rulings reported in 1973 I LLJ 427 unreported case in W.P. No. 33982/2002 dated 10-3-2003 of Madras High Court and 1999 II LLJ 600 LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD . Vs. SHAN KARPRASAD and in 1973 1 LLJ 427 WORKMEN VS. HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD . the Supreme Court has held that " the non -payment ofwages amounted to in the circumstances ofthe case to an alteration in the conditions of service , ( ii ) the fact the scheme was introduced before reference under section 10 made does not bar an application under section 33A & ( iii ) that the Tribunal wasjustified in coming to the conclusion that the alterantion in conditions of service could not have been made without issuing notice under Section 9A. " In the unreported case of Madras High Court , Mr. S. SARVANAN & OTHERS VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO- OP. SOCIETY AND OTHERS wherein the Writ Petitioners were appointed as ledger clerks in the 2nd Respondent society in the year 2000. The Respondent stating that as perthe norms fixed with regard to cadre strength sanctioned in the society and having regard to the fact that due to [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

897 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28, 2006 /माघ 8 , 1927

introduction of new process or a better method ofworking in place of the earlier process or method, it would not amount to rationalisation or standardisation . " In this case, though it is alleged that part time employees were retrenched , they are not part time employees on scale wages and they are part time sweepers attending cleaning of premises and their working hours are below six hours per week and they were paid consolidated amount of either Rs . 450/ - or Rs . 750/- per month depending upon the area of the branch and their positions are not liable to be transferred and they are not subject to retirement , even on reaching the age of superannuation . These part time sweepers on consolidated wages are not entitled to benefits like DA , HRA , CCA etc. In other words , in the case of such part time sweepers , their services were utilised in pursuance oftheir occupation and not as an employment and under such circumstances , it cannot be said that 9A notice is must in this case before effecting the retrenchment . Learned counsel for the Respondent further contended that mere retrenchment is not unlawful or illegal , even there is a provision under I.D. Act and also in Bipartite Settlement for retrenchment of workmen and in this case , the Respondent/Bank has followed the provisions of Section 25F of the I.D. Act before retrenching these part time sweepers . Though the Petitioner alleged that Respondent had not followed the provisions of Section 25G and so on, itisnot established before this Tribunal that they have not followed the said provisions . Therefore , retrenchment of these part time sweepers had become inevitable .

mechanism and computerisation , there is not need to employ as many ledger clerks as are now in service and the society retrenched the Petitioners by adopting the principle ' last come first go' . In that case , the Respondent/Society argued that even in the impugned order it is specifically stated that due to mechanisation and computerisation , the Society is not in need of as many ledger clerks as are in service . The submission of the Respondent counsel appearing for society is that the impugned proceedings cannot be treated as being passed under Section 9A of the Act cannot be accepted . In such a case , retrenchment of workmen is made on the basis of standardisation and it amounts to change in conditions of service and therefore , the contention of the Petitioners was upheld. In the third case, Lokmat Newspapers Pvt . Ltd. Vs. Shankarprasad, the Supreme Court has held that "if the proposed scheme of rationalisation has a likelihood of rendering exisintg workmen surplus and liable retrenchment then item No. 10 of Schedule IV would squarely get attracted and would require as a condition precedent to introduction of such a scheme a notice to be issued under Section 9A by the management proposing such an introduction of scheme of rationaliation . But if the proposed scheme is not likely to displaced any existing workmen then mere rationalisation which has not nexus with the possibility offuture retrenchment ofworkmen would not attract item No. 10 ofSchedule IVand would remain a benign scheme of rationalisation having no pernicious effect on the existing working staff. " In this case , though the Respondent contended that the Respondent/Bank has reorganised their branches since the part time employees were retrenched by the management for introduction of the said scheme , a notice is required to be issued under Section 9A of the I.D. Act .

12. Though , I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent , in this case , even while the Reserve Bank of India under Ex. W3 stated that such change would amount to rationalisation of the banking industry and by such closure or transfer, the workmen of the Respondent/Bank namely part time employees have. been retrenched from the service of the bank, I find notice under section 9A is a must and therefore , without following the mandatory provisons , the effect made by the Respondent/Bank is not legal .

13. Then , the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that this dispute was not properly espoused by the Petitioner union and they have not produced any document to show that members of the Petitioner union have passed a resolution or resolved by the office bearers permitting the union to represent their cause of retrenched part time employees and therefore, since the dispute is not made properly, this cannot be a dispute at all and under such circumstances , it is not maintainable before this Tribunal . But , I find this stand has not been taken before the lower forum or before conciliating authorities. Therefore , I find there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent. As such , I find this point in favour of the Petitioner . Point No. 2:-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief, the Petitioner is entitled ?

11. As against this, the learned counsel for the Respondent contended that no notice under Section 9A is mandatory, if the scheme of standardisation is going to lead retrenchment of workmen . But , in the present case the bank has only reorganised their work by means of that reorganisation , unviable branches are converted into satellite branches attached to nearby branch and unviable extension counters are merged with the parent branches . By this action , no one can say that it amounts to rationalisation or standardisation and thereby the same requires notice under Section 9A . The Respondent/Bank has not introduced any new process or a better method of working, in place of earlier process or method . Even in rulings reported in 2004 3 LLN 952 ALARSIN AND ALARSIN MARKETING EMPLOYEES ' UNION Vs. ALARSIN PHARMACEUTICALS & ALARSIN MARKETING PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER, the Bombay High Court has clearly stated that " discontinuation of process in which the workmen represented by a union were working and this would not by itself leadto conclusion that Section 9A notice was required to be issued. When there is a discontinuation of a process without introduction of a new or better process in its place, it would not amount to rationalisation or standardisation . The discontinuation ofprocess by itself may be on account of economic reasons or due to non- availability of raw material etc. When there is no

14. In view of my foregoing findings that the action of the Respondent/Management in closing some of the. rural branches and also extension counters of the branches [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] 898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

Ex. No. Date

Description

01-05-76

W15

Xerox copy of the IBA Bulletin Vol. V.

W16 Nil

Xerox copy of the Chapter III of Break Even Analysis & Transfer Price Mechanism.

and retrenched the part time sweepers without following the provisions of I.D. Act is not legal , I find the concerned employees mentioned in the petition are entitled to be reinstated in service and the Respondent/Bank is directed to reinstate them into service without any back wages . No Costs.

W17 Nil

15. The reference is answered accordingly.

Xerox copy of the list of Direct Agricultural Advance .

W18 Nil

Xerox copy of the RBI Act, 1934 Sec. 42(6)(b )( ii).

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 2nd November, 2005. )

W19 Nil

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

Xerox copy of the RBI Act, 1934 Section 54AA .

Witnesses Examined :-

For the II Party/Management : -

: WWI Sri V. Krishnamurthy

Forthe I Party/ Petitioner

Ex.No. Date

Description

: MW1 Sri S. Balasubramanian

24-05-00

M1

For the II Party/ Management

Documents Marked : -

Xerox copy of the letter from RBI to Respondent granting permission for closure of Ambur Branch .

For the the I Party/Petitioner :--

M2 29-12-00

Ex. No. Date

Description

Xerox copy ofthe letter from RBI to Respondent granting permission for closure ofKaraikudi EC .

WI Nil

M3 03-01-01

Xerox copy of the relevant portion of Bipartite Settlement Regarding service conditons of part time employees.

Xerox copy ofthe letter from RBI to Respondent granting permission for conversion of Perumbakkam Branch as satellite office .

W2 Nil

Xerox copy of the Section 23 of Banking Regulation Act.

M4 11-04-01

W3 Nil

Xerox copy of the letter from RBI to Respondent granting permission for conversion of Uppukottai Branch as satellite office .

Xerox copy of the Directions of RBI regarding Sweeping and closing of bankpremises.

W4 10-08-02

M5 03-05-01

Xerox copy of the letter from union to Respondent Demanding reinstatement of part time workmen.

Xerox copy of the letter from RBI to Respondent Granting permission for closure of Hyderabad EC .

W5 27-08-02

M6 17-05-01

Xerox copy of the reply given by Respondent/Bank .

Xerox copy of the letter from RBI to Respondent granting permssion for closure of Kottayam EC .

W6 28-08-02 Xerox copy of the application to RLC raising industrial dispute .

M7 24-08-01

W7 28-09-02 Xerox copy of the remarks filed by Respondent.

Xerox copy ofthe letter from RBI to Respondent granting permission for conversion Of Umayalpuram Branch as satellite office .

W8 18-10-02 Xerox copy ofthe representation from union to RLC .

M8 27-08-01

W9 01-10-02 Xerox copy of the letter from union to RLC.

Xerox copy ofthe letter from RBI to Respondent granting permission for conversion of Markayankotai Branch as satellite office .

07-10-02

W10

M9 05-08-02

Xerox copy of the order of reference issued by Ministry, Regarding Tokyo Mitsubishi Bank .

Xerox copy of the letter from RBI to Respondent graning permission for closure of Rajkot specialized branch .

29-10-02

W11

M10 Nil

Xerox copy of the submission made by Union before RLC .

13-01-03

W12

Xerox copy of the Complaint by union to RLC.

25-02-03

Xerox copy of the proceedings of District Consultative Committee meeting granting permission for conversion of Perumbakkam Branch as satellite office .

W13

Xerox copy of the failure of conciliation report.

14-11-00

Mll

20-04-94

W14

Xerox copy of the proceedings of District Consultative Committee meeting granting permission for Xerox copy of the letter from RBI to Respondent/Bank .

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

899

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Ex. No. Date

Description

conversion ofUppukottai Branch as satellite office .

M12 Nil

Xerox copy of the proceedings of District Consultative Committee meeting granting permission for conversion of Umayalpuram branch as satellite office .

M13 Nil

Xerox copy of the proceeding of District Consultative Committee meeting granting permission for conversion of Markayankottai Branch as satellite office .

M14 Nil

Xerox copy of the extract of Bipartite Settlement provisions relating to part time Sweepers.

M15 26-11-92 Xerox copy ofthe settlement between Respondent /Bank and union regarding payment of wages to part timeSweeper.

M16 27-11-00 Xerox copy of the bank circular for closure ofKaraikudi EC.

M17 18-12-00 Xerox copy of the bank circular for closure of Ambur Branch.

M18 24-03-01 Xerox copy of the circular of Bank for conversion of Perumbakkam branch as satellite office .

M19 06-04-01 Xerox copy of the bank circular for closure ofHyderabad EC .

M20 18-06-01 Xerox copy ofthe circular ofbank for conversion of Uppukottai branch as satellite office .

M21 27-07-01 Xerox copy of the bank circular for closure of Kottayam EC .

M22 28-12-01 Xerox copy of the circular of Bank for conversion of Umayalpuram Branch as satellite office .

M23 03-04-02 Xerox copy of the Circular of Bank for conversion of Markayankottai Branch as satellite office .

M24 17-06-02 Xerox copy of the Circular of Bank for merger of Rajot Specialized S.B. Branch.

M25 04-09-02 Xerox copy of the notice dated 4-9-02 issued by Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) .

25-02-03

M26

Xerox copy of the failure of conciliation report.

104 GI/06-23

नई दिल्ली , 6 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 370.-औद्यागिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी-33/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-12012/276/2004- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 370. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID - 33 /2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmer: which was received by the Central Government on 6-01-2006.

[No. L - 12012/ 276/2004 - IR( L -1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Wednesday, the 16th November , 2005 PRESENT :

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 33/2005

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their workmen) .

BETWEEN

Sri N. Prakash Rao

: I Party/Petitioner

AND

The Deputy General Manager, II Party/Management State Bank of India , Chennai .

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

: M/ s . A.K. Palanichamy, Advocates

For the Management

:Mr. V.R. Gopalarathnam , Advocate 900

IL GAZE STEOPPADIA JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

AWIED

The overallent , Ministry of labour vide order No. LRB-T) danete - 2005 has referred 16:: baertal dispute to this fubunal for d in that order is: - adjudican...

ahal he nk of "Wher! was engas Indin as 284 17-6- of the per/cleater dated from theaction id in terpencvices of Sri N. Prala Rath effect frost 12-5-2004 is justified and whne is entitled to?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , tu was taken on file as I.D. No. 72005 and notices were issued to both the parties and the party in person appeared and filed the Claim Statement and the 11 Parts/Management entered appearance and filed their Counter Statement .

3. When the neatter was taken up for enquiry , the Petitioncs ius appeared before this Court and there was notion on his behalf: In spite of several adjourneither the Petitioner nor his counsel appeared absent a is Court. Hence , the Petitioner is called R'L

substapu any relict... theabove, I find the Petitioner has not and as such , he is not entitledto

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( i) ] workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 6-1-2006 .

[ No. L- 17012/ 13/2004 - IR (B - I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Tuesday, the 4th October, 2005

PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 406/2004 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of New India Assurance Company Ltd. and their workmen )

BETWEEN

:1 Party/Petitioner Sri P. Vijayaraghunathas

AND

The Assistant General ,

: II Party/Management Manager,

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Chennai

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner

5. Thas Perelarence is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by rue in the open court on this day the 16th November, 2005 ) .

:M/ s . Row & Reddy & W.T. Prabhakar. Advocates

For theManagement

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

On either sidu

None

Documents Marked:

On either side

:Nil

दिल्ली 6 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 371. भौद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की भाग के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यू इंडिया एसोरेन्स क.न्निधत के संबद्र नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, विदिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक श्रनियायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी- 405.कोपकाशित करती हैं , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-1-2006 था ।

1-17012/ 13 / 2004- आई.आर ( बी-1) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 234, the 6th January, 2006

8.0 . the pursuance of Section 17 of the Indu- in 1. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Governo publishes the award ( ID - 406/2004) ofthe taent Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court as shown in the Annexure in the

sweet the employers in relation to the

India Assurance Co. Ltd. and their

Mr. P. Sukunar. Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government . Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L- 17012 / 13 /2004 - IR ( B - I ) dated 17-8-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is :-

"Whether the action of the management of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. in not providing employment after 16-6-2001 to Shri P. Vijayaraghunathan is justified? If not, to what relief he is entitied to?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D No. 406/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively .

3. The allegations of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows: -

The Petitioner joined the services of Respondent Insurance Company as a sub - staff at Kancheepuram branch office from November, 1988. The Petitioner has worked for 287 days during this period. Some of his colleagues who were engaged as a temporary sub - staff were regularised in permanent posts , whereas in spite of his several requests , the Respondent/Management had failed to regularise or grant permanent status to the Petitioner , instead they terminated the service of the Petitioner from 16-6-2001 . He [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

901 was not paid any compensation nor any notice . Therefore, the termination of the Petitioner from service by the Respondent is illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , Hence , for all these reasons , the Petitioner prays to pass an award holding that his terminationby the Respondent/ Management is illegal and he is entitled to the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity of service , back wages and other attendant benefits .

4. As against this , the Respondent in its Counter Statement contended that the services of the Petitioner wasonlyutilised for doing miscellancous work like cleaning works etc. whenever it was required and was paid on daily basis on the days he was given work for such specific work . At no point of time his services was utilised for more than 240 days in a block of 12 calendar months as claimed by the Petitioner. It is not true to say that persons who were doing similar work like the Petitioner were regularised in permanent posts .

The appointment of sub- staff cadre in case of requirement is done only by calling for eligible candidates from the Employment Exchange and not by absorbing the persons like the Petitioner and this Respondent has recruited the sub- staff only by following the procedure laid down by the rules and followng the guidelines given by the Head Office. It is not open to the Petitioner to claim permanent service by claiming for reinstatement just because he was utilised by the Respondent intermittently todo certain miscellaneous work and even by chance such entrustment did not exceed 240 days . Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner with costs .

5. Under these cirrcumstances , the points for my consideration are-

(i ) " Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management in not providing employment after 16-6-2001 to the Petitioenr isjustified?

withhim were made permanent and they were not sponsored by Employment Exchange. Again the Respondent/ Management has engaged him temporarily till 1998 and he has not mentioned this in his Claim Statement due to oversight. From April , 2000 to June, 2001 he has worked for more than 240 days without any break and they had paid Rs . 50/- for regular days and during holidays they have paid Rs . 100/ - Thus , he has worked for more than 308 days before the date of his termination . He has produced copy of letters writtento Branch Manager in the year 1996, which is marked as Ex . W1 . Similarly, in tite vear 1997. he has addressed the letter to the Respondent/Management , copy ofwhich is marked as Ex . W2 . On 24-2-97 he has made a representation to Respondent, copy of wirich is marked as Ex. W3 . In all these letters, he has stated that he may be appointed in leave vacancy and it was so mentioned as per the direction of the Branch Manager. He Further stated that there was no leave vacancy and permanent vacancy was available . Further , he stated that on 18-6-2001 he sent a letter to Chairman & Managing Director , copy ofwhich is marked as Ex . W4 . He marked a copy of the letter sent to he Regional Office as Ex . W5 . He has produced a statement showing list of days he was employed by the Respondent/ Management and the same is marked as Ex . W6 . He produced some of the copy of vouchers which were in his possession and marked the same as Ex . W7 series . He has given work as sub - staff and not as iniscellaneous work. he has also produced copy of letter written by the Branch Office to Divisional Manager dated 1-12-2000 which is marked as Ex. W8 . Similarly, he procuced another copy of letter dated 3-1-2001 written by Divsional Office to Regional Office , Chennai which is marked as Ex. W9 . He has also produced official correstonden dated 7-3-2001 written by the Divisional Mage Regional Oflice , which is marked as Ex . W10 . The Petitioner contended that in all thsese lettes namely Ex , W8 , W9 and W10 Kanchcepuram office of the Respondent recommended lus regularisation to the Regional Office, sut subsequenti , the Regional Office droppedby him not regularising his services .

( ii) "To what relief the Petitioner is entitled? "

Point No. 1 :-

6. In this case , the Petitioner contended that he has workod for more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months preceding his termination . Therefore , the burden of proving that he has completed more than 240 days is upon the Petitioner. To substantiate his contention, the Petitioner has examined himself as WW1 and produced ten documents. On the other hand , the Respondent examined two witnesses namely one Mr. Gandhi , Assistant Administrative Officer of the Respondent and one Mr. Raman . Administrative Officer working in the Respondent/Management .On th le of the Respondent no docurnt has duced

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that even though the Petitione has not stated certain facts in his Claim Staternent , he has averred in his oral evidence , which cannot be simply rejected because even the Supreme Court in a case reported in 1964 ILLJ 737 TANDUR & NAVANDGI STONE QUARRIES PVT LTD . VS. THEIR WORKMEN held that "In industrial adjudicarion , Tribunals are naturally resciant to apply the lav of pleadings in all its strictness , out the fact that alle pros of the question in reference to the character labourer's employment were not set out by the " espre in their written statement, calmo se said to aff: credibility of the evideres led by thera in Because the Petitioner has not stated with his , ofemployment in the Claim Statem... his starch . this Court cannot be rejected in ftots the grow .. has not made the same in the Claim Fatemem A: the Petitioner has produced decane 7 show that worked for more than 240 days , entier , the witt.ss examined on the side of the Responder: 1. MWI has stated that as per their record , the resashes he

ner has established ed more than 240 dar ronths ? " IN will see whethe, che Petit efore the Tribunal that he has com days in a continuous period of 12 ca his evidence , the Petitioner alleged that he joined the Respondent/Management in the year 1998. Till 1992 , he worked for more than 287 days in a continuous period and he further alleged that persons , who had worked along THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

902

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] worked for 191 days , but they have not produced any document to show this fact as a proof. Even assuming for argument sake that he has completed 191 days, if we take/ include holidays namely Sundays and all Govt . holidays namely 52 days , it would come more than 240 days and in such circumstances , the Court can take cognisance that the Petitioner has completed 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months and in such circumstances . the Respondent has not followed the mandatory provisions ofSection 25F of the I.D. Act , and therefore , the termination ofPctitionerby the Rsepondent/Management is illegal and ab initio void. Under such circumstances , the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatment in service with all attendant benefits .

Management , the Petitioner has issued notice to the respondent to produce documents and also filed an I.A. to produce the internal correspondence between the Regional Office Branch office . But the Respondent/Management has produced the same on the ground that the said documents are not available . Therefore , Ex . W8 to W10 were marked, which are the copies of documents . Even though these documents are copies , since the original documents are with the other side and the other side has not produced these documents , the said documents can be relied upon by this Tribunal. Further, in these documents , it is mentioned that the particulars given by the Petitioner with regard to his work before the Respondent/Management had been accepted . Under such circumstances . it is clearly established that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days and that is why the Branch Office had recommended his case for regularisation. The Regional Office had also verified the same and advised the Branch Office to take further steps . but for the reasons best known to them , the Respondent has not regularised the services of the Petitioner. On the other hand , they have terminated the service of the Petitioner without following the mandatory provisions of ID Act . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that though it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that before appointing a sub - staff in their office they have to follow certain procedures and they have tocall for a list from the Employment Exchange and then only they have to appoint a sub staff. But on the other hand, the Petitioner has established through his evidence that more than ten persons have been appointed before him, who were not sponsored through Employment Exchange and further for appointment of class IV employees , they need not call for a list from the Employment Exchange and the said fact was upheld by the Supreme Court and various High Courts and in such circumstances , only to substantiate their contention that the termination is valid, they have stated that the appointment is irregular and the Petitioner was not sponsored through Employment Exchange. Further he relied on the rulings reported in 20013 LLN 820 DEEP CHANDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER wherein the Supreme Court has held that " when an employee had put in more than 240 days of service for several years his services cannot be put to an end without following the procedure under section 25F of the Act " . In this case since the Petitioner has establsihed the fact that he has completed more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months before his termination and since the Respondent has not followed the mandatory provisions under Section 25F of the ID Act, the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service.

9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relied on the rulings reported in 2003 2 LLJ 110 management of Agricultural Research Station , Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Vs. Controlling Authority under payment of Gratuity Act , wherein the Madras High Court has come to a conclusion that " to expect them to come out with documentary proof of their having workedfor more than 240 days in a year or for more than 32 years was not proper. On the other hand, the Petitioner did not produce records despite notice given to it for production of the same. An adverse inference had therefore , to be drawn against the Petitioner. " In this case , the Petitioner has issued a notice to produce document . Under such circumstances , the Respondent who is the authority having records has not producing the same before this Court and therefore , an adverse inference is to be drawn in such circumstances of the case . Learned Counsel further relied on the rulings reported in 2004 ILLN 532 RADHA RAMAN SAMANTA VS BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS wherein the Supreme Court has held that as the appellant had rendered service for more than 240 days in a block of 12 months, he had a legal right to be absorbed in terms of Bipartite Settlement published in Circular No. XVIII/90′ 20 dated 7-9-90 of the Federation of Banks . " The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is reported in 1993 I LLJ 1122 NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD . Vs. K. ABDULLAKUTTY & ORS . wherein the Kerala High Court has held that " provisions of Evidence Act are not made applicable to the proceedings before the Cominissioner, however, the principles of natural justice apply. The question for consideration in the circumstances is whether the provisions of EvidenceAct would apply to a proceeding before quasi -judicial Tribunal like the Commissioner. The provisions of Evidence Act are not made applicable to a proceeding before the Commissioner functioning under the Act . The administrative and quasi judicial proceedings are not fettered by technical rules of evidence and the Tribunals are entitled to act on materials which may not be accepted as evidence in a Court of Law. But, they should adhere to tules of natural justice . " It further held that "Evidence Act has no application to enquiries conducted by Tribunals even though they may be judicial in character, it was stated that they should observe rules of natural justice. " In this case , though the learned counsel for the Respondent objecıed for making of documents Ex . W8 to W10 which are office correspondence between the branch

10. On the other hand , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that the Petitioner though alleged that he has completed 24t) days service , he has not produced any valid document to substantiate his contention . The Petitioner has relied on vague inferences to the drawn in the circumstances shown by him and these circumstances cannot prove his contention. Further, he relied on the rulings reported in 2005 I LLJ 343 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V's. ILANGO wherein the Division office and Divisional/Regional Offices of the Respondent/ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

903

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Bench of the Madras High Court has held that " termination of service of daily rated labourers is not illegal as their appointments were not against the sanctioned posts and further mere completion of 240 days work did not entitle them to regularisation , especially as their initial entry was unauthorised and not against the sanctioned post or vacancy. " Relying on this decision learned counsel for the Respondent contended that since the Petitioner was appointed only on daily rated basis and only for the miscellarieous work on need basis , he cannot contend that hehas completed more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months and further, he cannot contend that he worked as a sub- staff. Though the Petitioner has produced certain copies of internal correspondence , which will not prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months . Further, his initial appointment was unauthorised and he was not appointed against any sanctioned post or vacancy . Under such circumstances , he cannot claim reinstatement or regularisation in the service of Respondent/Management .

11. Though I find some point in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent , in this case , I find the Respondent has not produced material documents available with them and they have taken the stand not to produce these documents namely original of Ex . W8 to W10 , which clearly shows that the list of number of days workedby the Petitioner, produced by him , is true and the Branch Office of the respondent has recommended for regularisation in service by admitting that the Petitioner has worked for more than 191 days in a continuous period of 12 months , we can safely rely on the evidence of the Petitioner that he has worked for more than 240 days in a period of 12 calendar months taking into account the Govt. holidays and Sundays prior to his termination . Under such circumstances , I am of the view that the Petitioner hascompleted more than 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months and since the Respondent/ Management has not followed the procedure laid down under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , the termination of the Petitioner from service is illegal and therefore, I find this point in favour of the Petitioner namely the action of the Respondent/Management in not providing employment to the Petitioner after 16-6-2001 is notjustified.

Point No. 2 :

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?

12. In view of my foregoing findings , I find the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service as a temporary sub - staff with continuity of service and other attendant benefits and with regard to backwages , there is no evidence that the Petitioner has all along without any employment during these long number of years and there is also no evidence on the Respondent side that the Petitioner has employed elsewhere during these period. Anyhow, in the interest ofjustice, I find half of the back , wages is to be awarded to the Petitioner . Under such circumstances , I find the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement in service as a temporary sub - staff and he is entitled to continuity of service and with regard to back- wages, he is entitled to half of the backwages . Ordered accordingly, No Costs .

13. Thus , the reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the PA transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 4th October, 2005) .

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

Forthe I Party/Petitioner : WW1 Sri P. Vijaya Raghunathan For the II Party/Management : MW1 Sri S. Gandhi

MW2Sri R. Raman Documents Marked :

Forthe I Party/Claimant :

Date

Ex. No.

Description

5-11-96

WI

Xerox copy of the letter from the Petitioner to Respondent

W2

5-8-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent requesting for appointment

W3

24-2-97 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Requesting for appointment

18-6-01

W4 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Requesting for appointment

27-6-01

W5 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent Requesting for appointment

W6 Nil Xerox copy of the statement showing list of dates the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent/Management W7 Nil Xerox copy of the statement showing number of days The Petitioner was engaged by Respondent 1-12-00

W8 Xerox copy of the internal correspondence of Respondent ( regularising of Petitioner as a sub - staff for 1992-98)

W9

3-1-01 Xerox copy of the internal correspondence.

W10

7-3-01 Xerox copy of the internal correspondence .

Forthe II Party/Management: Nil.

[PART 11 -- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGIA 8. 1927

904

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

2. On receipt of notice both the parties appeared before this Tribunal and filed their Written Statements .

3. The case of the workman , as it appears from their Written Statement filed on its behalf, is as follows:

का. आ. 372:- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के पबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण पटना के पंचाट । संदर्भ संख्या 24 ( सी )/2003 ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12012/8/ 2003- आई. आर. ( बी -1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डॅस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 6th January , 2006

S.O. 372-.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award { ( 24 ( c ) /20031 of the Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-01-2006 .

No. L - 12012/8/2003 - IR( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR. Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL PATNA

REFERENCE CASE NO . 24 ( C) OF 2003

The Chief Manager . State Bank of India . Darbhanga and their workssan representedby the General Secretary. State Bank of luha Employees Union . 215. Ashoka Place . Exhibition Road . Patna.

For the Management

Shri Sunil Kumar Upadhyay. Asstt .

Manager, ( Law).

For the Workman

Shri G. k. Merma

(i) That due to regular and prolonged Electric Power Disruption in Darbhanga Town , the Management of the S.B.I. Darbhanga installed a Captive Power Plant of its own inApril 1992. For the operation of the Generator it required ( 1 ) Electric Generator Operator-cum - Captive Power Plant Attendant at Darbhanga Branch of S.B.I. For selection of a good Operator interview was taken and the workman Vinod Kumar Jha was selected for this post . That no appointment letter was issued by the management in pursuance of anti - labour practice and he was served with letter No. BM/23 dated 29th April, 1992 , whereby the workman was informed about his selection as the operator ofthe Diesel Generating Set from Ist May, 1992 on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 1200. As per this letter he was required to work during the entire working hours of the Bank . He was also asked to work beyond usual working hours and also on Holidays if required due to exigencies of work without any extra remuneration or over tiine wages. From this letter it appeared that the post was permanent and payment of small wages was temporary only for first three months . This post falls under the subordinate cadre of the Bank with regular wage seale and other allowances . The workman's duties included daily lifting of water to the over Head Tank for Storage ofdrinking water for consumption by the staff as well as work as Electrician at the Branch . This Generator Operator worked under the Control and Supervision of named members of Award Staff and Officers posted at Darbhanga Branch . This works was not allowed to mark his attendance in theBranch Star's Attendance Register on the ground that his attend.pee was already marked in the Log-Book of Gotta ne opoteton by others . It would appear from the sard Log Book that the workinan worked for more hours than the other employees of subordinate cadre . The workman was paid conveyance charges for bringing Diesel from market for use in the Generator Set .

General Secretary . S.B.I. Employees Union Exhibition Road, Patna .

PRESENT :

Om Prakash Sinha , Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. Patna.

AWARD

The 24th December, 2005

By the adjudication order No. 1. - 12012/ 2003 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 27-5-2003 the Government of India . Ministry of labour New Delhi has referred under Clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) , the following dispute between the Chief Manager State Bank of India. Darbhanga and their workman represented by the General Secretary. State Bank of India Employees' Union for adjudication to this Tribunal:

(ii) It is further case of the workman that even after lapse of three months the workman still used to be paid a meagre sum of Rs . 1200/ - per month instead of the subordinate scale which was to tune of Rs.2750/- to Rs.5850/- Special Allowance of Rs . 858/ - to work as Electricial/ Plant Attendants . He was also denied regular wage scale D A. and other permissible allowance which he was entitled to . In 1997 the workman became a member of the Sponsoring Umon- State Bank of India Employees' Union ( Bihar Stare ) in 1997. It is stated that thereafter the workman and the local unit of the Union requested the management for payment of regular subordinate Staff Wage Scale and other service conditions attached to the post . but the management verbally denied the request on the ground that the concerned workman was contract labour and therefore he was not eligible to the Bank's Wages and other benefits in is the further case of the workman Gast the Bank Margement does not have a license for en , ing Contra aber nor its Darbhanga Branch estabirskine uis is registered under the Contract Labour "Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India . Darbhanga in not regularising the services of Sri Vinod Kantuar Jha. Generator Operator is legal and justified? If what relief he is entitled to ?" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Act ( Regulation and Abolition ) at 1997 and did not maintain any Record or Register as provided under the Act. This clearly shows that the concerned workman is neither a Contractor nor a Contract Labour. That the letter No. BM/23 dated 29th April . 1992 is not and cannot be treated as valid contract.

( iii ) That since the date of his appointment as the Generator Operator-cum -Plant Attendant from Ist May, 1992 no other person but this workman has performed these duties . That this post/ work cannot be said to be a job of Casual or Temporary nature in view of definition given in paragraph 508 ( c ) of the Shastri Award and as retained in paragraph 21.20 of Desai Award .

( iv) That from the above definition of temporary eamployee it is quite clear that the work and job of the concerned workman at Darbhanga Branch is neither casual nor temporary. It is clearly a permanent post in nature . That to appoint a daily rated workman to work on a permanent post for the past 11 ycars and more is nothing but an unfair labour practice on the part of the managernent . the sole object of which is to deprive the concerned workman of the status and privilege of a permanent employee of subordinate cadre .

(v) It is further stated that on 21st May , 2001 this Sponsoring Union made a written demand for inmediate regularisation of the services of Sri Jha w.c.f. Ist February, 1993 i.e. on completion of 9 month service as per rule and to pay him Bank Subordinate Staff Wage Scale and other allowances with retrospective effect . That when the management did nothing to regularics the services of the concerned workman , the Sponsoring Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Patna in February, 2002. The Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) started Conciliation but it failed due to the rigid stand of the management . The failure of Conciliation Report was submitted by the A.L.C. ( C) concerned on 11th December. 2002 as a result of which this reference was made .

(vi) That the workman Mr. Jha is entitled to the following reliefs :

( a) Regularisation of service as a permanent subordinate Cadre Employee of State Bank of India with the Subordinate Cadre Wage Scale and allowances with retrospective effect .

(b ) Annual increments in submordinate staff wage scale on 1st May. 1993 and thereafter every year .

(c) Grant of all such facilities of permanent employment , c.g. Contributory Provident Fund , Gratuity. Seniority . Leave encashment, uniform etc. which a permanent confirmed employee is entitled to with retrospective effect .

( d) Cummulative interest on arrears of wages 46 % perannunt .

In view of the above it has been prayed that the workman may be allowed the aforesaid reliefs and the reference may be Awarded accordingly.

905 4. The case of the management, as it appears from their Written Statement , is as follows :

(i) That the dispute does not fall within the meaning ofSec . 2K of the Act because the workman Vinod Kumar Jha is not a member of the State Bank of India Employees' Union ( Bihar State) by which the case of the workman has been espoused .

( ii) That there is no sanctioned post of Generator Operator at Darbhanga Branch of S.B.I. and , therefore , claim of regulaisation of service of Vinod Kumar Jha as Generator Operator is not maintainable. That the post of the Generator Operator cannot be sanctioned because the generation of Electricity through Generator is not a work of regular nature . It is an irregular and casual nature of work to be performed by a contractor as and when the need arises .

(iii) It is further stated that the Workman Vinod Kumar Jhahad agreed to operate the Generator installed atDarbhangaBranch as a Contractor as and when occasion arosc . A Contractor cannot claim to be regularised as an employee of the Bank. That neither the Shastri Award . Desai Award or Bipartite Settlement provides that if a person does or completes casual nature of works in the Bank on contract basis he shall be treated as the Bank's casual/ temporary /permanent employce . Even if it isassumed that there was a sanctioned vacancy ofGenerator Operator at Darbhanga Branch Vinod Kumar Jha would not have been a Contractor and even if he would have possessed necessary qualifications therefore his regularisation could not be done as this would amount to back door entry and without following the settled rules regarding appointment . This is the selttled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court that regularisation of service cannot be claimed as a matter of right .

(iv) It is the further case of the management that 110 interview for the post of Generator Operator was ever taken of Vinod Kumar Jha , workman and , therefore , his claim that he was appointed as Generator Operator is absolutely false . In fact Vinod Kumar Jha had agreed to operate the Generator as a Comtractor as and when required. That there is not sanction of the Post of Efcctric Generator Operator- cum-Captive Power Plant Attendant at Darbhanga Branch . That the letter No. BM/23 dated 29-4-1992 reads thus , - " The operation also includes daily lifting ofwaterto over Head Tank " . The term of contact was to lift water to the Over Head Bank by Generator case of non- supply of electricity. It is wrong to say that water was lifted by Sri Jha to the over Head Tank for consumption by the members of staff. This is a matter of common sense .

(v) It is further case of the management that as Vinod KumarJha was a contractor and not an employce ofthe Bank, he could not be allowed to mark his 906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

attendance in the Attendance Register meant for the staff of the Branch.

(vi) That on all these grounds the workman is not entitled to get any relief as claimed by him. Therefore, it has been prayed that the Award maybe made accordingly .

5. On the basis of the written statement filed on behalf of the parties it would appear that the workman's case is that he has worked in State Bank of India , Darbhanga Branch as Operator of the Generator- cum- Captive Power Plant Attendant for above 10 years. That he possess all requirement , for this work . That . therefore , he is entitled for his services to be regularised in the S.B.1 . service regular cadre . On the other hand the case of the Bank is that there is no sanctioned post of Generator Operator at Darbhanga Branch of S.B.L. and therefore his claim of regularisation of service as Generator Operator is not maintainable. That the post of Generator Operator cannot be sanctioned because the Generation of Electricity through Generator is not a work of regular nature . That the workman was a contractor and his appointment was on purely temporary basis for operating the Bank's owned Electric Generator Set .

6. On the basis of this dispute between the parties this reference has been made by the Govt . of India , Ministry ofLabour for adjudication on the following point:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India . Darbhanga in not regularising the services of Sri Vinod Kumar Jha , Generator Operator is legal andjustified ? If not, what relief is he entitled to?".

7. It would thus appear that the main point for consideration by this Tribunal is whether the workman is fitto be regularised in the service of the State Bank of India and whether he fulfils all the requirements for being absorbed in the service of State Bank of India .

8. In support of its case the management has examined only one witness . The management has also filed documents Exts . M to M/ 11 in support of its case .

9. The workman has examined four witnesses on his behalf. He has produced 10 documents Exts . W to W/9 .

10. There is no dispute between the parties that Vinod Kumar Jha has been working as Generator Operator in the State Bank of India . Darbhanga Branch since Ist May. 1992 a monthly remuneration of Rs . 1200. It is admitted that the Bank Management appointed the workman through its letter No. BM/ 23 dated 29th April. 1992 ( Ext . M ) as Operator of the Bank's own Diesel Generating Set from 1st May. 1992 .

11. It has been stated on behalf of the Bank Management that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the Bank and the workman because workman is not a permanent employce and is not a subscriber to the Union . In this regard we may refer to the evidence of workman's witnesses . Md. Mazahar Husain. W.W1 is a Special Assistant in the Darbhanga Branch of S.B.I. He has stated that he was the Unit Secretary of the Union at the Main Branch of S.B.I. Darbhanga . The concerned workman had made a prayer to him for deducting subscription for union from his pay every month . That as

[ PART II- SF.C . 3 ( ii) ] per his request Rs.5 was deducted from his salary and remaining Rs . 1195 was deposited in his Account . That after institution of this case | Reference Case No. 24 ( C ) of 2003 ] this practice was stopped and the workman started sending his subscription by draft . In support of his statement a photo copy of authorisation for deduction of Union's subscription from the monthly salary and allowance has been filed on behalf of the workman . which is Ext . W/3 . which bears the signature of workman Vinod Kumar Jha . In thisregard Ext. M/5 can be looked into which gives a guide- line for extending the facility of check - off for deduction of Union Membership Fee at the time of disbursement of salary. This fact is also established by Ext . M/7 , which is computerised statement for 1-1-99 to 4-5-99. From all these itis clear that the workman was a member of the State Bank of India Employee's Union ( Bihar State) .

12 It has been contended on behalf of the management that the workman is not an employce and hence his case can not be taken up by the union . In this regard it may be stated here that Sec . 36 ( 1 ) ( C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 provides that workman who is a party to a dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceeding under this Act by, where the worker is not a member of any Trade Union, by any member of the executive or other office bearer of any Trade Union connected with. or by any other workman employed in . the Industry in which the worker is employed and authorised in such inanner as may be prescribed . Thus it is clear that even if the worker is not a member of union he may be represented by any member of the executive or other office bearer of the Union to which he is connected with. On the basis of this provision and of the Act and other facts discussed above it is clear that the workman is a member of the Union and there is no flaw in his being represented by the Union.

13. It has been further argued on behalf of the management that as the worker is not a member of the S.B.I. Employees ' Union this dispute cannot be treated as an Industrial Dispute within the meaning of Sec . 2K of I.D. Act . We have discussed above that the workman is a member of the Union and has been paying the monthly subscription to his Union . Therefore , the workman is clearly a member of the Union and this dispute referred by the Central Govt. falls under the definition of Industrial Dispute.

14 It has been stated on behalf of the Bank management that the workman Vinod Kumar Jha was a contractor and not an employce of the Bank . It may be stated here that a Contractor can be said to be one who enters into an agreement for getting a work done . On the other hand, a worker offers himself to do the work or complete the work . Now in the light of evidence of the record we propose to examine whether the workman was a contractor or a worker .

15. In this regard we may refer to the contents of the appointment letter of the workman Ext . M. It reads as follows:

"We have decided to operate our own Diesel Generating Set from 1st May. 1992 and to engage you on purely temporary basis as an operator under the following terms and conditions " .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

From above extract it is clear that the Bank employed the workman to operate its own Diesel Generating Set and engaged the worker on a purely temporary basis as an operator for its Generator. We may state here that usually contractor who undertakes to supply Electricity to others uses and holds his own Generator Set. The Generator Set is not suppliedby the persons who consume electricity. It is clear from the above extract that the workman was appointed as an Operator and not as a Contractor.

16. It was contended on behalf of the workman that the management can not employ a contractor or a Contract Labour as Darbhanga Branch of the management is not registered under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970. This fact has not been controverted by the management . In this view of the matter also it is clear that the workman is a worker and not a contractor . In the light of foregoing discussion it is clear that the workman was an employee of Bank engaged by it for operating its Generator Set and not a Contractor .

17. Now we would refer to oral evidence regarding the purpose for which the workman was appointed . M. W. 1 in para 2 has stated that in Darbhanga Branch of S.B.I. Generator was purchased in the year 1991 and Operator wasappointed for operating it in April , 1992. The expenses of fuel and maintenence was borne by the Bank . He has stated in para 4 that only employees of the Bank get advance from Bank's Suspense Accounts . That this worker Vinod Kumar Jha was given advance from the Bank'sSuspense Accounts several times . That he was also sanctioned Motor -Cycle Advance by the Bank W. W. 2 has stated that he was posted at Darbhanga Branch of S.B.I. from 4-3-71 to 31-3-2001 . Looking to Ext . M/ 1 he has stated that it was the Account of Vinod Kumar Jha , which was not staff Account . Staff Account of only permanent staff is opened. That as per direction of the Bank Manager he supervised the work of this workman . In Additionto operating the Generator he also used to lift water on over Head Water Tank . W. W. 3 has stated that this workman was interviewed for the post of Generator Operator in the year 1992. That the worker's name was recomended for his appointment by the Branch Manager W. W. 4 is the workman himself, who has supported his own case . From their evidence it is clear that the workman was appointed by the Bank Management for operating the Generator Set owned by the Bank .

18. M. W. 1 is the A.G.M. of S.B.I. Darbhanga Branch. He has stated that there was no post of Generator Operator in his Branch. He has further stated that this workman worked in the Branch as Generator Operator. That his services were on contract basis . He has admitted . however, that the Bank bore the expenses of Diesel , Mobil and Repair of the Generator. He has stated in his cross- examination that the Generator belonged to the Bank. From his evidence it is clear that workman was employed by the Bank for operating its Generator Set . He has tried to give hue of contract Laour to the worker, but it can be safely concluded that he has not succeeded in his effort .

19. It has been contended on behalf of the management that there is no post of Generator Operator in 104 G1 /06-24

907

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

the Bank and hence the workman can not claim regularisation of the service in the Bank. In reply to that it was submitted by the Learned D.R. for the workman that in appointment letter Ext.M it is written that though the workman's appointment is on month to month temporary basis for three months , a permanent arrangement was to be made within three months of his appointment w.e. f. 1stMay, 1992. From this it can be inferred that the temporary status of the concerned workman was to be converted into permanent status within a period of three months from the date of his appointment provided he was found suitable for the job within the said three months . It was further submitted by the learned D.R. that the concerned workman has worked as a Operator of the bank's Electric Generator Setuninterruptedly for past twelve years . It goes to show that the post or work of Operator is of permanent natrue . That throughout his work has been found to be satisfactory and suitable and no complaint has ever surfaced against him.

20. It was submitted on behalf of the management that the workman can not seek the status of a Bank employee as he has been appointed against a post which is not permanent in nature . The learned D.R. submitted that this argument advanced on behalf of the management is not tenable. That the post of the workman who has been working as Generator Operator since 1st May, 1992 can not be termed as temporary. That as defined in para 508 ( c ) of theShastri Award and retained in para 21.20 ofDesai Award. "Temporary Employees means an employee who has been appointed for a limited period for work which is of an essentially temporary nature , or who is employed temporarily as an additional employee inconnection with a temporary increase in work of a permanent nature , and includes an employee other than a permanent employce who is appointed in a temporary vacancy of a permanent workman " . That from this definition of temporary employce itis clear that the workman does not fall under the category ofa temporary employee because the work of a Generator Operator is not temporary in nature , rather it is permanent innature.

21. It is clear from both oral and documentary evidence that the concerned workman has been working in the S.B.I.Darbhanga Branch since 1st May. 1992. It is , therefore , clear that the workman has worked for more than 12 years in the Bank . The learned D. R. submitted that in view of the workman having rendered his service uninterruptedly in the Bank for 12 years , he has assumed the status of a permanent staff . He submitted that there are several ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court in this regard . It has been held in a Ruling Reported in 1995 -PLJR Vol . Ipage303 ( Superintending Engineer, Rastriya Ucch Path Anchal . Muzaffarpur Vs.P.W.D. Worker's Union that whether the appointment is regular or irregular, those who work for years together are to be regularise . He referred to another Ruling Reported in 1994- I-PLJR - Page - 337 wherein it has been heldby the Hon'ble Patna High Court that persons having served for 240 days or more in a year must be regularised. In another Ruling Reported in 2000 - LLR - 182 ( 1999 ) , 2.LLJ- 1363 -Gujrat ( GSRTC Vs. Workmen of State Transport 908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

Corporation) it has been held, " Denial of permanency despite existence of permanent work is unfair labour practice and also denial of reght to life and levelihood with dignity. Continuance of such workman for years with a view to depriving such workmen permanent status is unfair labour practice . Without referring to a catena of rulings on this point it can be said on the basis of the reported rulings that an employce or workman who has worked for a number of years must be regularised and made permanent .

22. Extending his argument the learned D.R. submitted that the management has not cited any evidence to show that the concerned workman did not work for more than 240 days in a year. We have discussed above that the workman has rendered service for last 12 years in the Bank . Therefore , it can be safely concluded, that workman has become permanent staff and this status must be given to him by the Bank.

23. It was submitted by the learned representative for the management that even if it be assumed that there existed a sanctioned vacancy of a Generator Operator at Darbhanga Branch, he can notbe regularised legally as the workman did not possess the requisite qualification for the post, and it would amount to back door entry without giving opportunity to other eligible interested candidates and without following Rules for appointment of a person in Bank service . In reply to this it was submitted by the Icarned D.R. that it has been established that the workman also discharged the duties of an electrician . In the Saving Bank Account Opening Form of the concerned workman ( Ext . M/ I ) on reverse page of this Ext . word " Electrician is written ." On this page the Branch Manager has ordered for opening of the account . This clearly shows that the workman was an Electrician. This fact is also proved from Ext. M/ 7 , which is Saving Bank A/ C . Ledger Folio of the concerned workman . He further submitted that in addition to working as Generator Operator he also lifted water in the over Head Water Tank for storage of drinking water for consumptionby members of staff. That the work of Generator Operation is a part and parcel of the duties of an Electrician.

24. The learned D. R. further submitted that the Rules regarding appointment of subordinate cadre staff has been given in page 457 to 460 of the Banking Services Recruitment Rules . It is marked Ext . M/6 . It has been stated regarding eligibility for subordinate cadre appointee that the candidate should be a non - matriculate but must have passed eighth class . His age is to be within 18 to 26 years at the time of appointment. No specific eligibility criteria for a Generator Operator or Pump Attendant has been laid down . Pump Attendant is a post on which Special Allowance besides Scale Wage is givert . That from the evidence of W. Ws . it is clear that at the time of appointment the workman was aged about 24 1/2 years . He had passed Class VIII , This is clear from Ext . W/ 9 which is School Leaving Certificate . His date of birth is 30th December, 1967. This fact has not been controverted by the management . It was argued by the learned D.R. that from all these facts it is clear that the workman had the eligibility to be appointed against this post. From the consideration ofall these facts and evidence on the record we are of the

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] opinion that the workman fulfilled all the critiria for being appointed as Generator Operator in the category of subordinate cadre of the Bank .

25. From the above discussion it is clear that in spite of the fact that the workman has worked in the Bank for more than 12 years , he is not being regularised in the service of the Bank . We are of the opinion that this is nothing but exploitation of the worker by the Bank . We would not better than quote an extract from the Ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtreported in Jacob M. Puthparimal I's . Kerala Water Authority ( 1991 - II - LLJ - Page - 65 ) . It has been held in this ruling. " India is a developing Country . It has a vast surplus Labour market . Large scale unemployınent officers a matching opportunity to the cinplover to exploit the needy. Under such market conditions the employer can dictate his terms of employment taking advantage of the absence of the bargaining power in the other . The unorganized jobseeker is left with no option but to accept employment on take - it or - leaves - it terms offered by the employer . Employers have betrayed an increasing tendency to employ temporary hands even on regular or permanent jobs with a view to circumventing the protection offered to the working classes under the benevolent legislations enacted from time to time ."

26. From the facts of this case it is clear that though the workman has worked for 12 years in the Bank uninterruptedly, he is still working on a paltry sum of Rs. 1200 per month . He has not been absorbed in the Bank service till now. This is clear case of exploitation of the workman by the Bank managerment .

27. In the light of aforesaid discussion of the materials on the record we are of the opinion that the action of the management of State Bank of India , Darbhanga in not regularising the services of Sri Vinod Kumar Jha . Generator Operator is not legal andjustified. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of this ease we are of the opinion that the workman is entitled to be regularised as a permanent subordinate cadre employee of the State Bank of India with the subordinate cadre Wage Scale and Allowances w.e.f. 1st May, 1993 and thereafter every year . He is also entitled to all the ancillary benefits attached to his post from the date of his appointment i.e. Ist May, 1992. His prayer for cumntulative interest on arreare of wages 6 % per annum is , however, not allowed . In view of this finding the Bank management ofS.B.I. is ordered to regularise the services of Sri Vinod Kumar Jha , Generator Operator as a permanent subordinate cadre employees of the S.B.I. with the subordinate cadre wages scale and allowance w.e.f. Ist May, 1993 and thereafter every year . The Bank management is also ordered to provide all the ancillary benefit attached to his post from the date of his appointment i.e. 1st May, 1992. This order must be implemented within a period of one month from the date ofpublication of the Award .

28.Award accordingly. Dictated & corrected by me .

OM PRAKASH SINHA, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

909

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 373.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्दर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी-36/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 6-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-41012/ 95/2004- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 373-.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( No. ID -36/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Northern Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 6-1-2006.

[No. L- 41012/ 95/2004- IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW PRESENT : Shrikant Shukla

L.D. No. 36/05 Ref. No. L- 41012/95/2004- IR(B - I)

Dtd . 24-8-2005

BETWEEN

The Divisional Secretary, North Railway Karamchari Union , 39-11 J, Multistory Colony, Charbagh , Lucknow

AND

Divisional Personnel Officer Northern Railway , Hazratganj , Lucknow

The Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer Northern Railway, Hazratganj , Lucknow

AWARD

The Government , of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following dispute No. L- 41012/95/2004- IR(B - I ) dated 24-08-2005 to Presiding Officer , CGIT- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow for adjudication ;

" क्या उत्तर रेलवे द्वारा कर्मकार श्री कौशल किशोर को वेतनमान रु.2650-4000 में पदोन्नति उसी तिथि से नहीं दिया जाना जिस तिथि से उससे कनिष्ठ कर्मकार श्री जगजीवन को दिया गया है उचित तथा न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष को पाने का अधिकारी है ? " The copy of the order of reference was endorsed to the Divisional Secretary, North Railway Karamchari Union , Sr. Divisional Electrical Engineer, Northern Railway, Lucknow and Divisional Personnel Officer , Northern Railway Lucknow.

The order of reference was received in CGIT -cum- Labour Court , Lucknow on 14-9-05 amd the same was registered on 26-9-05 . The court waited for the statement of claim from the trade union upto 23-10-05 . When the trade union failed to file the statement of claim as ordered in the reference by the Government of India registered notice was ordered to be issued to the Secretary Kedamen asking him to file the statement of claim together with documents and list of witnesses by 18-11-05 . The registered article returned unserved with the remark that the addresses does not reside on the address given in the registered article . It is noteworthy that the correct address was mentioned in the registered article.

On 18-11-05 Sri D.P. Awasthi , Divisional Secretary of the trade union appeared and moved an application for adjournment. The same was allowed and 23-12-05 was fixed for filing of statement of claim .

Today i.e. 23-12-05 Sri D.P. Awasthi appeared and stated that the grievances of the worker Sri Kauskal Kishore have been met and therefore he does not want to pursue the case for adjudication .

In the circumstances aforemention there is no other alternative than to pass no claim award . Award pass accondingly.

Lucknow: 23-12-2005

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 374. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार जे.एण्डके. बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या आईडी-221 /98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं० एल -12012/82/98- आई आर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी 910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 9th January, 2006

S.O. 374- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( ID - 221 /98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of J&K Bank Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006.

[No. L- 12012/ 82/ 98 - IR (B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

issuance of any chargesheet . Assuming though not admitting that there is such a provisions in existence , the same is ultra - vires of the constitution as it violate the fundamental rights of the workman . As his services were terminated without following the principle of natural justice, it violates his fundamental right . Clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award itself ultra - vires of the constitution . The management was under obligation to reveal to the workman as to how he has acted against the interest of the bank . These were required to be conveyed to the workman so that he could exercise his right to reply that he was not acted against the interests of the bank. Workman on 3-9-97 filed a representation before the management to recall and revoke the said termination order but all in vain .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT- 1, CHANDIGARH.

Case No. I.D. 221/98

Shri Tilak Raj

S/o Shri Gian Chand,

R/ o Mohalla Panditattan Paloura ,

Jammu (J&K)

Applicant

Versus

1. The Deputy General Manager , Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd.

I. & V. Deptt.. B.C. Road, Jammu - 192101 .

2. The Chairman,

Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd, Zam -Zam Building, Ram Bagh . Srinagar ( J& K) -190001

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Sh . D.R. Sharma

For the Management Shri Ashok Jagga

AWARD

Passed on 26-12-2005

3. In written statement filed by the bank , the bank has taken a objection that workman has not come to the court clean hands . The precise facts leadingto the action against the workman are that he misutilised the bank leaves ofFDR book, fabricated and forged FDRs including some of which related to his father and other relatives and collected the money. When the said FDRs were produced before the Town Hall Branch of the bank , this forgery and fabrication came to the notice of the bank. Necessary averments with regard to the payment of the consideration too came from none other than the father of the workman . Seeing the gravity of the matter and the fabrication of documents and mis - appropriation of the money entrusted to him by the said persons for depositing the same in the bank for obtaining genuine FDRs , the matter was reported to the police which investigated the offence and found it appropriate to register the requisite FIR u/ s 381,467 and 471 ofRandhir Penal Code at Jammu . The said matter was putto Court in Jammu . Learned counsel for the management submitted that sequence of events as put forth unmistakably pointed out towards the only unmistakable conclusion that there was a complete lack oftrust and credibility in respect of the workman . Thus the management opted to discharge the services of the workman in best interest of the public at large. It is submitted that para 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastri Award empowers the employer bank to terminate the services of the employees in a case not involving disciplinary proceedings by giving him three months notice or three months pay and allowance in lieu of notice . The workman ceased to be an employce of the bank w.e.f. 24-7-97 and the management has invoked the said provisions against the petition in following grounds .

Central Govt. vide notification No. L - 12012/ 82/ 98/ IR(B - I ) dated 30-10-1998 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of J& K Bank Ltd.. Represented through its Chairman and Dy. General Manager , I & V Jammu in terminating the scrvices of Sh . Tilak Raj S/ o Shri Gian Chand, Asstt. Cashier w.c.f. 24-7-1997 isjustified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

(i ) On 20-6-1997 Sh . Gian Chand, the father of the petitioner came to our branch office , Town Hall , Jammuwith aTerm Deposit Receipt FDR bearing No. 200471 dated 9-6-1996 for Rs . 33,842/ favouring Ms. Kirna Devi (sister of the petitioner ) bearing 9-6-1996 as the date of maturity, and purporting to have been issued by branch office , Town Hall , Jammu . The man presented the FDR for ascertaining if his son had really deposited the said amount, in other words, he wanted to confirm the genuiness of the instrument thereby showing his presumptions about the honesty of his son .

2. As per claim statement the case of the workman is that he was initially appointed as peon with the bank and later on was promoted as Assistant Cashier in the year 1992. His work was satisfactory and on 24-7-1997 by invoking clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award, management terminated his services without holding any enquiry or [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

The official concerned in the branch found that the instrument has not been issued by them as there is no entry thereof in the FDR Ledger.

(ii ) The said FDR No. 20071 was seized by the branch officials , and the matter was reportedto higher authority. During a departmental probe itwas found that stationery department issued on 5-11-93 seven FDR books of 100 leaves each, bearing serial No. 200101 to 200800 to branch office Tutan-Di-Khoi of these seven FDR books the said branch sent four books from Serial No. 200101 to 200500 to its Collection Centre , Sidhra (where the petitioner was posted) . Thus the above mentioned FDR No. 200471 belonged to Collection Centre , Sidhra and could not be issued by branch office , Town Hall , Jammu .

( iii) Stationery Stock Register of Collection Centre, Sidhra reveals that the first FDR book bearing serial No. 200101 to 200200 has been issued for use as CDR'sby the Collection Centre , Manager (Mr. Duleep Nanda) on 6-11-1993 and the balance of FDR books is recorded as 3. The first CDR No. 200101 is put into use on 1-12-93 . All other three FDR books are recorded as issued by the petitioner himself on 1-03-1994 and 1-6-1995 serially. All these three Books are issued when all the 100 FDR of the serially preceding book are yet to be exhausted. The issue of the second FDR book ( on 1-03-1994) is authenticated by the Manager on 17-10-1994 i.e. when the first FDR therefrom (viz No. 200201 , is actually used . The fourth book is issued by the petitioner ( and the balance Nil recorded in stationery stock register ) on 1-6-1995 when only the first FDR from the third book (viz . FDR No. 200301 ) is actually used . This done by the petitioner deliberately with the intention of stealing because he knew that the Manager was under transfer, beforebeing relieved he would like to have the records of the centre updated as quickly as possible . Thus , the petitioner betrayed the trust of his own superior and take away the FDR book bearing serial No. 200401 to 200500.

(iv) On the fateful dated of 20-6-1997 when the petitioner's own father lifts the veil from his face, the Branch Managet of Town Hall branch lodges an F.I.R. with the Police . On the same date the petitioner confesses before the said Branch Manager telephonically from his then place ofposting at branch office , Azadpur, Delhi that he had stolen the FDR book bearing serial No. 200401 to 200500 from Collection Centre , Sidhra and had issued a few fake FDRs in favour ofhis family members without receipt of money and that the remaining leaves of the book are lying in his house at Paloura , Jammu .

(v) On 24-6-1997 S.H.O. Police Station , Nagrota informed the bank that he had recovered two

911 more used ( fake ) FDRs ( FDR No. 200432 for Rs .6,000 dated 9-10-95 favouring Pooja , minor daughter of the petitioner , and FDR No. 200443 for Rs . 30,000 dated 22-4-97 , favouring jointly the petitioner and his wife ( Chanchla Kumari ) the unused FDR book , and a rubber stamp (with the inscription Town Hall , Jammu) from the house of the petitioner. The Police gave the following details about the 100 leaves of the FDRBook (bearing No. 200401-200500) stolen by the petitioner : --

(a) FDR No. 200432, 200443 and 200471 issued by the petitioner personally by putting fake writing and signatures and by using the counter - feit seal on the counter folios thereofbeing intact;

(b) FDR No. 200459, 200460 and 200467 removed from the book along with their counter follows;

(c) FDR Nos . 400401 , 200431 , 200436 and 200437 removed from the books , but counter folios are intact ;

(d) The remaining ninety FDRs and their counter folios are quite intact in thebooks ;

(vi) Thus the petitioner has not only stolen property ofhis ex -employer bank, misused part of it , and retained the remaining part of it, certainly for more misuse in future , but has also not desisted from deceiving his own minor daughter, his father, sister and wife . He has not a bit of any right to continue to be employed in any public institution , more so in the respondent's bank in which people keep their hard-earned moneyjust because they trust its integrity. Clasue 522 ( I ) is the only appropriate provision under which justice could be and has been done to the petitioner, otherwise the consequences could havebeen worst like dismissal .

4. Theepetitioner did not file replication to the written statement and filed his affidavit Ex . EWI in evidence wherein he further added that his services was terminated vide order dated 24-7-97 passed by the Chairman of the bank management , the management stated to have ordered thetermination under clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award is not simpliciter but the reason behind the termination was ofalleged gravest misconduct for which an FIR was got registered against the workman before termination ofhis services . There is no other reason except that he was put to trial in that FIR before the Court and the criminal court acquitted him vide its order dated 12-10-2000 copy ofwhich has been enclosed that in view of the findings of the Hon'ble court, the said decision become final as no appeal whatsoever has been filed by the management or the state and that as he was honorably acquitted by the court and he automatically become entitled for reinstatement with all benefits particularly as no departmental enquiry whatsoever was held .

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

912

5. The management also filed affidavit of Uttam Singh Charak , who also supported the averments of the written statement filed by the bank . The workman also filed the judgment of the Criminal Court and also proved the termination order dated 24-7-97 .

6. Workman filed written arguments as well as made oral submissions . Learned counsel for the workman Shri D.R. Sharma submitted in arguments that workman was discharged. i.c. his services were terminated under clause 522( 1 ) of the Sastri Award on the basis of criminal case . FIR was lodged and the workman was honorably acquitted from the criminal case. FIR was lodged and the workman was honorably acquitted from the criminal court . No appeal was filed against the acquittal of the workman. No enquiry was conducted. Without giving any opportunity to explain before terminating his services the bank under Clause 522 (1) terminated his service . He also submitted that although there is a provisions and workman is not denying that the management has the powers to discharge or terminate the services ofa workman in the interest ofthe bank by giving three months notice or pay in lieu of notice as envisaged under clause 522 ( 1 ) but as the workman has been acquitted from the criminal court and there as no appeal filed and the decision of the criminal court become final , therefore , in view of the judgment 1996 ( 1 ) RSJ page 861 Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Chief Secretary and Secretary to Govt. Punjab , 1995 ( 2 ) RSJ 337 Dev Raj Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and 2005 ( 1 ) SCT Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, he submitted that in view of the above law once acquittal has become final and on merits and not on technical grounds then on the the same facts departmental proceedings cannot be initiated . If the acquittal is on the ground other than merits only in that event, it may be permissible for the departmentto proceed against the official . He submitted that therefore , termination of the workman under clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award is void abinitio and the said order may be set aside and workman may be reinstated with all benefits and back wages . He also submitted that reference may be answered in favour of the workman accordingly.

Sidhra branch where the petitioner was posted. Thus the above mentioned FDR belongs to Sidhra and could not be issued by branch office Town Hall Jammu . He submitted that matter was reported to the police . The petitioner betrayed the trust of his own superior and take away the DFR book . On the fateful date of 20-6-1997 when the petitioner'sTown father lifts the veil from his face , Branch Manager of Town Hall Branch lodges an FIR with the police. On the same date the petitioner confesses beforc the branch inanager telephonically from his then place of posting at branch office Azadpur Delhi that he had stolen the FDR book froin collection centre Sidhra and had issued a few fake FDRs in favour of his family members without receipt of money and that he remaining leave of the book are lying in his house at Paloura Jammu . Since public money were involved , the bank lodges an FIR with Nagrota Police Station U/ S 381 , 467 and 471 of Randhir Penal Code . As the episode besides being an offence also constituted anunimaginable act on the part of the workman , the same directly resulted in loss of the confidence of the management in the workman . Under these circumstances the management on the request instead of taking a stringent action by way of departmental enquiry which was likely to lead into the dismissal of the workman resulting into the loss of all further avenues of employment , management discharged the workman Under Para 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award by fulfilling the requisite formalities . The said provisions is specifically provided in the Shastri Award i.e. Bipartite settlement which has got the force of law is always available to the management which in the best interest of the alleged workman was invoked well within the perogative of the management . On the other hand the criminal court finally disposed off the chalan on 12-10-2000) by acquitting the accused. However, perusal of the judgment in the opening para itself reveals that there were allegations of theft of FDR book against him and during investigation he made a disclosure statement regarding the FDR book of J & K Bank Sidhra and kept the same in his house at Paloura and at his instances these were recovered . Mohd . Sariff PW1 and Chaman Lal PW2 proved the seizure memo . Uttam Singh Charak PW3 the chief manager of J& K Bank deposed the visit of the workman father and presentation of FDR by him . He also proved the statement made by the workman's father to the effect that from Sidhra Branch he had learnt about the theft of FDR book . However on technical grounds and in view of the established position of law about the standard of proof in a criminal trial being stringent, the prosectuion's case was not proved . But the fact remains that till this date not even an iota of evidence has been placed on record as to why all of these people including workman's own father at certain stages deposed against him .

8. The learned counsel for the management further submitted that the workman was discharged on different facts and this Hon'ble Tribunal will further appreciate that management being a custodian of public money could not take a risk of retaining such a tainted and suspicious employees in service of the bank where the highest degree of confidence is always required from the staff. In these 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the management Shri Ashok Jagga submitted in arguments that workman has not disputed the provisions of clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award wherein the services of the workman can be terminated if it is in the interest of the bank . In his written arguments as well as in oral submissions he submitted that services of the workman was terminated under the above provisions which were not disputed by the workman and only plea taken in that this provisions is unconstitutional. He submitted that matter arose from an episode in which the father of the workman had reported to the bank Town Hall Branch with aterm Deposit receipt FDR No. 200471 dated 9-6-96 for Rs . 33842 favouring Mrs. Kirna Devi sister of the workman on the date of maturiy which was purpotedly issued by Branch Office , Town Hall Jammu . No entry of the said FDR was found in FDR ledger . The said FDR was seized by the officials and matter was reported to higher authorities . During a departmental probe it was found that FDR were stolen and the alleged FDRs were that of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

913 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

filed by the police from charge framed and as per settled law, he is liable to be reinstated on acquittal when it is not on technical ground . The plea of the learned counsel for the management is that as there is a provisions of clause 522 ( 1 ) in Sastri Award which is also in favour of the workman empowers the management to discharge a rotton wood or to keep the administrative machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements . If favour the workman as there is no stigma casted on him and he can get employment elsewhere and thus discharge/termination will not come in his way .

circumstances the action of the bank invoking para 522 was not only legal but also prudent in the circumstances ofthe case to get rid of the workman with causing minimum damage to him. This action was taken in the interest of the workman so that he can get employment elsewhere . The workman has very strongly relied upon the acquittal by criminal court . The management humbly submits that the acquittal in criminal court is of no assistance to the workman because the management has taken this actionunder special provision which empowers to discharge without holding an enquiry and the same is not challanged . This case is fully covered in this case there is too much of contact of the workman with public money . The management prudently and legally speaking can never take a chance with the safety of public money . Management also referred to the judgment in the case of Vijaya Bank Vs. Syndicate Bank 2002 ( 1 ) ISJ Banking 125 in which it has been clearly observed that even after acquittal by a criminal court the employee could be proceeded against in departmental proceedings . Moreover the workman is banking upon seriously the citation in which the holding of enquiry has been held to be of too much importance but those are the cases where the dismissal or at least the termination was involved, the term dismissal and discharge have been differently used in the IInd schedule attached to the I.D. Act . Not even a single citation has been mentioned in which the observations regarding the inquiry being a must in case of discharge under clause 522. Thus citations referred are not applicable. Therefore , the action of the management is just and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief and reference may be answered in favour of the management .

10. Learned counsel for the management has submitted that workman was discharged on different facts and this Hon'ble Tribunal will further appreciate that management being the custodian of public money could not take a risk of retaining such a tainted and suspicious employees in service of the bank where the highest degree of confidence is always required from the staff. This action was taken in the interest of the bank and also of the workman so that he can get employment elsewhere . He also submitted that the petitioner betrayed the trust of his own and took away FDR book and that it is an unimaginable act on the part of the workman and it directly resulted in loss of the confidence of the management in the workman . He also had submitted that the misconduct or the act as referred above was brought into the notice of the bank not by any other but his own father who came to the bank with fake FDR of the bank issued in favour of the workman's wife , sister and daughter . In the circumstances when actually the above fact which made the entire character of the workman unbelievable , untrust worthy and suspicious which was brought into the notice of the bank by the blood relations of the workman i.e. his father . Learned counsel for the management had submitted that thereby invoking of the clause 522( 1 ) of the Sastry Award, against the workman as there is no stigma casted and he can get re -employment and also keeping the interest of the bank safe and services of the workman were terminated not as a punishment but as a safeguard for the bank as well as for the workman and workman has evasively did not touch this part in his pleading or in his arguments at all . He nowhere deny this fact and did not produce any evidence inthis regard.

11. The learned advocate for the workman Shri D.R. Sharma has not replied to these contentions . He simply referred to the judgment which undisputedly makes termination on the facts of the criminal case in which the workman was acquitted not on technical grounds but on merits and claimed reinstatement with back benefits .

9. In view of the submissions in written arguments and oral by the counsel for the workman Shri D.R. Sharma advocate and for the management Shri Ashok Jagga Advocate and my perusal of the documents and law referred . I am of the considered view that it is not in dispute that workman was acquitted in police case on merits . As per workman he became entitled for reinstatement with all benefits and that further no departmental enquiry can be held nor was held by the management . Further there is no dispute that workman was discharged terminated vide order dated 24-7-97 by the Chairman J&K Bank Ltd. under clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award. It is also not disputed even by the workman as also admitted in claim statement in para 3 & 4 that management by invoking the clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award in terminating the service of the workman and that he has challanged the same on the ground that the order referred above though not admitting that there is no such provisions in existence , the same is ultra vires of the constitution as it violates the Fundamental Right of the workman as no enquiry was held against the workman . Workman has also not referred to any law on this point that clause 522 ( 1 ) is ultravires of the constitution or that while discharging/ terminating the workman , the management is bound to give an opportunity to a workman orthat proper enquiry should be held before invoking the clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastri Award or enquiry is a must . Undoubtedly the workman was acquitted in a criminal case

12. In view of above my discussion now only a short point to decide in this case is left whether the discharge or termination is proper under clause 522( 1 ) of the Sastry Award which is also a good law as it is to be followedby both the parties and if so whether his acquittal ina criminal case quashes the above law and termination/ discharge of the workman. Undoubtedly the workman was acquitted on the charges of theft of FDR as per judgement ofthe criminal court of U/ S 381 i.e. theft by an employee .

914

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 9 जनवरी , 2006

Whereas the discharge is in bank interest by invoking the power under clause 522 ( 1 ) which is reproduced below:

" 522. We now proceed to the subject of termination ofemployment. We give the following directions : "

का. आ. 375.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947.(1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सरन क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2 ( सी) ऑफ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल -12012/148/2001 - आई.आर. ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी ( 1) In clause not involving disciplinary action for misconduct and subject to clause (6) below, the employment of a permanent employee may be terminated by three months ' notice or on payment of three months' pay and allowance in lieu of notice . The services of a probationer may be terminated by one month's notice or on payment of a month's pay and allowances in licu of notice . "

New Delhi , the 9th January, 2006

S.O.375 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award 2 (c ) of 2003 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal Patna now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between employers in relation to the management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006.

[No. L - 12012/ 148/2001 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , PATNA Reference Casc No. 2 ( C) of 2003 13. Management in this case has terminated services ofthe workman vide order dated 24-7-1997 which is not disputed in the interest of the bank holding that U /S 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award the bank has powers to do so . Contention ofthe management is also that is a provision which do not cast any stigma on the workman who is entitled for re -employment and as a special provisions management can get rid of workman in which the management looses the confidence as the bank deals with public money and it is in the interest of the bank . The only challange of the workman in this reference is that the provisions clause 522 ( 1 ) of the Sastry Award is unconstitutional and ultravires but did not refer to any law that the above provisions was declared unconstitutional or ultravires . Whereas the management adovcate Shri Ashok Jagga had submitted that as this provision was never declared unconstitutional and ultravires, hence he could not quote law on this point . I also found that workman failed to show any malafide on the part of the management or the bank has no powers to do so or that order is unjustified . I also reply on H.B. Prabhu Vs. OBC ( 1992 )-11 . L.L.J. 568 Delhi D.B.

Management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Chapra and Their Workman Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah , Nandanpur, Gawandari , Chapra .

Forthe Management

For the Workman

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate : Mr. Shashank Shekhar Jha , Advocate .

Present

: Om Prakash Sinha, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Patna..

AWARD Patna , the 29th December, 2005 .

By adjudication order No L - 12012/ 148/2001 - IR (B -II) dated 11-12-2003 the Government of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi has referred , under Clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( hereinafter to be referred to as ' the Act' ), the following dispute between the Chairman. Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Chapra and their workman Shri Shatrughan Prasad Sah for adjudication to this Tribunal :

14. At the same time leaving aside this power of the bank , under clause 522( 1 ) . I have found that in service law, in Fundamental Rules , there is provisions FR 56 J. similar and analogous to this provisions wherein a rotton wood or a inefficient or other not in public interest, permanent employee can be compulsorily retired and the department has a right to do so and it does not cast any stigma anddo not debar an employce for reemployment . In view of my above discussion . I am of the considered view that workman has not except orally challanging and agitating that provisions of clause 522 ( 1 ) of Sastry Award as unconstitutional and ultravires but admitted that this provision is there and he was terminated under the above provisions. I am of the considered view that action of the management of J & K Bank Ltd. represented through its Chairman and Deputy General Manager. I & V Jammu in terminating the services of Shri Tilak Raj son of Shri Gian Chand. Asstt. Cashier w.c.f. 24-7-1997 is justified. The management has proved that action as referred above in the reference is just and legal . On the other hand workman has failed to prove that action of the management in terminating the services of the workman as above is unjustified or illegal . Resulting workman is not entitledto any relief. Reference is disposed off accordingly. Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned to record.

RAJESH KUMAR . Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Saran in terminating the services of Shri Shatrughan Prasad Sah, Sweeper- cum -Messenger is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled?"

Chandigarh:

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

915 भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

2. On receipt of the notice both the parties filed their written statements .

3. The case of management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank as it appears from its written statement is as follows:

(1) That there is no relationship of Employer and Employee between the management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and the worker Sri Shatrughan Prasad Sah and therefore there is no Industrial Dispute between the parties . That the worker Shatrughan Pd. Sah was never an employee of the Bank and no a worker of the Bank within the meaning of Section 2 (00) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act ( hereinafter referred to as ' the Act' ) . In view of this the claim of the workman is not maintainable .

workman was also given full opportunity to present his case before the Committee . That the Chairman on receipt of the enquiry report had ordered to stop taking work from the concerned workman on 29-11-1985 and deputed another daily rated workman to work in the Branch . The Chairman also ordered that if Sri Sah did not refund the money collected illegally from one of the loances and create further nuisance, a suitable F.I.R.be lodged against him. It has been further stated that after the enquiry and receipt of information that an F.I.R. was going to be lodged , the concerned workman did not report on duty from 29-11-85 . Since the workman stopped coming on duty on his own, the Bank did not formally issue any letter of removal/dismissal from service to him.

(v) That the workman for the first time after the enquiry was held sent a legal notice dated 4-6-1986 to the Chairman of the Bank through his Counsel demanding to appoint him on regular employment of the Bank.

(vi) We may state here that thercafter the Bank management has admitted the factum of filing ofTitle Suite , Execution Case in the Civil Court, Chapra and also filing of Civil Revision before the Hon'ble High Court , Patna.

(ii) It is the case of the Bank management that the workınan was employed intermittentely by the Branch Manager on contractual basis between December, 1981 to November, 1985 on payment ofRs. 2.31 paise to 8.52 paise per day . That thereafter the workman did not offer himself for work in the Bank . This amounts to voluntary abandonment of the Bank's work by the workman . That during the course of his employment in the Bank the workman was not under the Disciplinary Control of the Bank . That the workman never worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

(vii) That the workman has comitted serious misconduct since the concerned workman was daily rated casual worker therefore no chargcsheet was issued to him but in any case he was aware of his misconduct ,

(viii) That a casual employee has no legal right for reinstatement or to seek appointment a fresh. Therefore the question of any compensation or damage or notice does not arise.

(iii) It is further case of the Bank management that during the period ofhis employment in the Bank there was no sanction of vacancy in the Branch and at present also there is no sanctioned vacancy . That the workman was never appointed by the Bank on any post and , therefore , his claim is not maintainable . That the appointment is made according to the Rules of Recruitment laid down by the Bank management in the event of there being a sanctioned vacancy. That in view of the fact that the workman was never appointed by the Bank, there is no question of termination of his service by the Bank.

(ix) That in any case an Industrial dispute can not be raised after lapse of 15 years and it is barred by limitation. On this ground it has been prayed that the reference may be answered in the favour of the management of the Bank and claim of the workman be dismissed.

4. The case of the workman , as it appears , from the written statement filed on his behalf, is as follows:

(iv) It is specific case of the Bank management , as it appears from the reply filed on its behalf to the written statement filed by the workman on 29-8-2003 , that on 26-11-85 Shatrughan Pd. Sah (Worker) had assaulted manhandled and , abused, the then Branch Manager who had enquired from the workman whether he had accepted Rs. 100 as bribe from one Laxminiya Devi as reported by her son to the Branch Manager . The matter was referred to the Chairman and the Chairman appointed two men Committee to enquire into the incident and submit the report by 27-11-85 . The Committee enquired into the matter and submitted its report on 28-11-1985 confirming the incident . The

(1) That the Government. of India, Ministry of Labour has rightly referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication as it is a genuine case ofIndustrial Dispute . That before reference was made a demand dispute was placed before the management of Gramin Bank by the workman himself, but due to negative approach of the bank no settlement could be arrived at through ConciliationProceedings . It was on the failure of the Conciliation Proceedings that the Government, of India, Ministry ofLabour referred this dispute to this Tribunal for abjudication .

10461 / 06-25 916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006 /MAGHA 8 , 1927

(ii) It is further case of the workman that he was appointed by the Authority of the Bank in the year 1981 on the post of Sweeper- cum- Messenger on the pay scale of Rs . 60 per month. That in the year 1981 a Branch of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank was started by the Management of the Gramin Bank and there was clear vacancy for the post of Sweepcr- cum- Messenger. That the workman applied for the said post and after being found suitable he was appointed to the post of Sweeper - cum- Messenger by the Authorities of the Bank and the Payment was made to him in this Scale till 22-6-1982 . Thereafter from 23-6-1982 he was allowed Rs.3 per day as Wages as per instruction of the Head Office and thereafter he was allowed wages at rate of Rs.5 per day.

(iii) That all of a sudden he was removedfrom service on 28-11-1985 without any notice and without any opportunity of hearing being accorded to him. In his place another person was appointed on permanent basis . There was never any complaint of any type against the workman . It is stated that he approached the management ofthe Granun bank to allow himto join the post but it was not accepted by the Bank Managerment .

(iv) It is further stated that on his request for allowing him tojoin the post being disallowed by the Bank management he filed a title suit against the termination of his service by the Management at Civil Court Chapra . After hearing his Suit was decreed by 2nd Munsif, Chapra by Judgement and Decree dated 28-6-1994 . Thereafter the worker filed Execution case for execution of the said decree but the same was dismissed by the order of the Execution Munsif by the order dated 9-9-1996 . Thereafter the workman filed a Civil Revision before the Hon'ble High Court , Patna against the order dated 9-9-1996. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Civil Revision .

(v) That the workman was not served any notice or notice pay in lieu of one month's notice or Compensation at the time of order of termination of his service . That the workman had worked for 240 days continuously in 12 calender months and had worked to the best of his capability and satisfaction of the Bank management .

(vi ) That by not giving one month's notice in writing, or not saying Compensation pay , the Bank management has violated the provisions of Sec . 25F of the Act.

(vii ) That no chargesheet or any expalanation was ever asked from the workman during the service period, no enquiry was held against him . In these circumstances it is clear that the retrenchment of the workman is illegal and against the natural justice .

[PART II SHC . 3 ( ii) ] (viii) On these grounds it has been prayed that considering all these materials the reference may by answered in favoor of the workman .

(ix) From thewritten statement of the parties it would appear that the case of Bank management is that there is no relationship of the Employer and Employee between the Bank and the workman and as such there is no Industrial Dispute between the parties . That after November, 1985 the workman did not offer himself for work in the Bank and thus he voluntarily abandoned the service of the Bank . That the workman never worked for 240 days in a calender year . That the workman was never employed in the Bank on any sanctioned post in the Branch . On these grounds it has been stated that the claim of the workman is not maintainable.

(x) On the other hand the case of the workman is that he was appointed by the Authority of the bank in the year 1981 on the post of Sweeper- cum -Messenger and from time to time his pay was enhanced to Rs.3 per day to Rs.5 per day. That he was removed from his service on 28-11-1985 without any notice or notice pay and compensation.

(xi) On the basis of this dispute between the parties the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour referred this dispute for adjudication on the following point:

"Whether the action of the management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Saran in terminating the services of Shri Shatrughan Pd. Sah , Sweeper -cum-Messneger is justified? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled to?" .

5. Before entering into merit of the cases of the parties we may like to state that on a petition filed on behalf of the manageinent to first decide the fairness of domestic enquiry an order was passed by this Tribunal on 30-7-2004 . After hearing both the parties it was held by this Tribunal , " I am accordingly of firm opinion and conclude as such that domestic enquiry held by the management into allegation of assault and abuses by the worker to the Branch Manager is neither fair nor as per principles of natural justice . Any order including punishment to the worker on the basis of above enquiry is thus held not tenable" .

6. From the above extract of the order of this Tribunal it is clear that the domestic enquiry held by the management was found to be neither fair nor as per principles of natural justice . Now the main point for consideration by this Tribunal is whether termination of the services of the workman by the Bank Management is justified. If not , to what relief the workman is entitled.

7. It may be stated here that asdomestic enquiry held by the Bank management was held to be vitiatedby the order of this Tribunal dated 30-7-2004 , an order U/ s . 11A of the I.D. Act was passed by this Tribunal on 917 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8, 1927

stated that he was entrusted to enquire into an allegation against the worker Shatrughan Pd. Sah. Sri D.K. Sinha was also one of the Enquiry Officer . That in course of enquirystatements of Branch Manager, Clerk -cum-Cashier. the proceedee and other persons was recorded and thereafter they submitted their report to the Chairman of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chapra . That the Chairman passed order after looking into their report . In Course of his evidence he produced and proved some circulars regarding appointment of Part - Time Messengers in the Bank . These have been marked as Exts . M/ 10 , M/ 11 and M/ 12. During his cross -examination he has stated that only Branch Staff had given evidence in writing. He has stated that Janardan Ram , S/ o. Laxminiya Devi had made statement before him but this Janardan Ram has not been examined before this Tribunal .

9. Dilip Kumar Sinha , M. W. 3 is one of the members ofthe Enquiry Committee constituted by the Chairman . He has stated that in course of enquiry he found that the allegation made by the Branch Manager of Nandanpur Branch was correct . That he along with the other member of Committee enquired into the matter and found the allegation true . That he and the other member Indra Narain Singh put their signatures on the enquiry report . In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not enquire as to why no F.I.R. was lodged regarding the occure . He could not say whether statement of Laxminiya Devi was recorded or not in course of enquiry. That statement of her son Janardan Ram was not recorded in course of enquiry. We may state here that this Janardan Ram has not been examined before this Tribunal . He has stated further that the name of Awadhesh Kumar Singh never appeared before him. He denied the suggetion that only in order to appoint that Awadhesh Kumar Singh and to remove this workman , this entire episode has been concocted .Raghunath Pd . Yadav, M. W. 4 is a Clerk -cum- Cashier. On 26-11-85 he was posted at Nandanpur Branch oftheBank. That on that day son of Laxminiya Devi namely Janardan Ram came to the Bank to receive the loan passbook of his mother. When he saw the passbook he enquired as to why Insurance Charge of Rs . 56/- was noted therein . That he had given this amount to the workman . On this he has stated, the Branch Manager asked the workman about this fact . This led to an exchange ofhot words between them. The workman threw Bicycle and Slippers on the Branch Manager. That he and others intervened and pacified them. That on the same day the information regarding occurence was sent to the higher Officers . That on the following day i.e. on 29-11-1985 a two men Committee came to enquire into the matter. The Committee enquired from him and others . In his corss- examination he has stated that he could not say the name of customers who were present at the time of occurence. Healso could not say whether the loanee had told that the workman had received Rs . 100/- . He has further stated that the entire occurence took place on Varandah of the Bank . He could not say what Laxminiya Devi had stated before the Enquiry Committee .

6-12-2004 , whereby the Bank management was directed to adduce evidence before this Tribunal on the point of misconduct of the workman. In pursuance of the direction of this tribunal , the Bank management has examined six M.Ws' . Mithlesh Kumar M.W.1 was posted at Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank Branch at Nandanpur from March , 1984 to June , 1986 on the post of Manager of the Branch. The workman was also posted there. That some days before 26-11-1985 a loan was granted to one Laxminiya Devi for purchase of Buffalo . That on 26-11-1985 his son came with the loan pass -book for up- to-dating it . He entered Rs.56 as Insurance Money in the passbook. Seeing this the loanee son told that the worker Shatrughan Pd. Sah had taken Rs . 100 towards Insurance Money from him . Speaking about the procedure he has stated that Insurance Money is not received in cash rather it is debited from the Account . That he asked from the worker as to why he had taken Rs . 100 from the loanee on which he became furious and threw slippers on him and also slapped him. He abused him also in very vulgar words . At that time Raghunath Pd. Yadav, clerk -cum - cashier was persent in Branch Office who intervened and mediated between them . Stating further he has stated that he reported entire occurence to the Chairman, Keshetriya Graminbank in writing . The Chairman deputed a two men Committee to enquire into the matter. On the following day committee came , enquired into the matter and submitted its report. Thereafter, the workman left working in the Bank . That due to this he did not file any F.I.R. before the police . That the workman came to the branch Office and received his arrear money through a voucher. He has proved the voucher which is marked as Ext . M/ 1 . He has further stated that in June , 1986 the workman had sent a legal notice , which is marked Ext.M/9 . He has further stated that he had submitted written report before the Enquiry Officer . The workman was working in the Bank on daily wages . He used to come to the Bank on his sweet will . His behaviour was not very good . The Bank had no control over him . That the workman had filed a case in Chapra Civil Court also . In his cross -examination he has stated that before he (M.W.1) joined at the Branch no complaint had been received against the workman. He could not say whether Laxminiya Devi was examined in course of enquiry or not . That the workman worked in the Branch from 1981 to 27-11-1985 . That when ever he did not come on duty, work was taken from some body else. He denied the suggestion that when the workman came on work on 28-11-1985 this false allegation was made against him. Deposing further he had stated that no show cause notice was served upon the worker. He was not removed by the Bank . That when he did not turn up Awadhesh Kumar Singh was appointed to work in his place. He denied the suggestion that he had made false allegation against the workman of receiving Rs . 100/- as bribe and assaulting him . He also denied the suggestion that as he had to appoint his own man in the Bank , he levelled false allegation against the workman and got Awadhesh Kumar Singh appointed in his place. That he (workman) voluntarily left the service.

10. Dinesh Kumar M. W. 5 was entrusted to contact the witnesses of the occurence and ask them to make their 8. Indra Narain Singh , M.W. 2 was the personnel Manager ofHead Office of Gramin Bank Chapra . He has

104G1/06-26 918

THE GAMETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

statements before the enquiry Committee . That one Mithan Sah was dead and one Prabhunath had gone to Nepal . He has very candidly stated that he had no knowledge about the occurance . Awadhesh Kumar Singh M.W. 6 is the Messenger who was posted at Nandanpur Branch . He has stated that his first posting in the Bank was at Nandanpur Branch . That a vacancy of a peon was reported at Nandanpur Branch of the Bank. He applied for his appointment and was selected on the post . That he was not a villager of the then Branch Manager, Mithlesh Kumar. He denied the suggestion that he was appointed on the post of the workman after removing him . That he did not know any thing about the occurance . He was appointed on 29-11-1985 .

11. Nowfrom the evidence of M. W. 2 and M. W. 3 it is clear that they are members of the enquiry committee. They enquired into the matter, examined the witnesses and found the occurance true and submitted their report to the Chairman of the Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Mithlesh Kumar M. W. 1 is the Manager who is said to have been assaulted and abused by the workman . He has tried his best to support his case . It was suggested to him that Awadhesh Kumar Singh was his man and in order to appoint him the workman Shatrughan Pd . Sah was removed from service . It may be stated here that this has been the consistent case of the workman that he was removed from service in order to appoint this Awadhesh Kumar Singh in his place . Therefore he can not be said to be an impartial witness . Raghunath Pd. Yadav M. W. 4 has supported the factum of assault on Mithlesh Kumar the Manager by the workman . He has stated that the workman threw Bicycle and slippers on Mithlesh Kumar but Mithlesh Kumar (M. W.1) has stated that the workman slapped him and also threw slippers on him . For the first time throwring Bicycle on the Manager has been introduced by this MW. 4. This arouses doubt about the occurence . It would thus appear that only M. W. 1 and M. W. 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurance but there is serious contradiction in their evidence.

12. Awadhesh Kumar Singh , M. W. 6 has stated that he was appointed in the Bank on 29-11-1985 . From the facts of the case it is clear that Shatrughan Pd . Sah the workman was removed from service from 28-11-1985 . It would thus appear that this workman was appointed in the Bank Service in Nandanpur Branch of the Bank just one day after removal of the workman from service . It is, therefore , clear that the appointment of this Awadhesh Kumar Singh was made in a hot- haste . The Bank Management has not filed appears to show that the appointment of this Awadhesh Kumar Singh was made after following the prescribed Rules of appointment . This , in qur opinion . lends support to allegation of the workman that he was removed from the service in order to appoint this Awadhesh Kumar Singh in his place.

13. The next Point that arises for consideration is whether the other allegations of taking bribe of Rs . 100/- by the workman has been proved or not by the Bank management . In such a case the evidence of the loanee Laxminiya Devi and his son Janardan Ram would have been very important . Both of them have not been examined

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] in this case by the management . there is nothing on the record to show that a bribe was accepted by the workman from the loanee. In our opinion , therefore , the allegation of receiving bribe against the workman has not been brought home .

14. From the forgoing discussion it is clear that the Bank management has failed to prove the charges of misconduct against the workman.

15. The next point that comes for consideration is whether the removal of the workman is legal and proper. It has been claimed by the workman that he was appointed by the Authority of the Gramin Bank in the year 1981 on the post of Sweeper- cum -Messenger and he worked there till 27-11-1985 . During this period he received wages at different rates as stated above . That all of a sudden he was removed from service from 28-11-1985 without any notice , without any opportunity of being heard or payment ofcompensation which is incontravention of Principles of natural justice . The Bank management has maintained that the workman was never appointed by any Authority of the Bank. He was a casual worker and was paid wages on the basis of the work rendered by him. that it is for the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days continuously in 12 calendar months .

16. In this regard I would first refer to oral evidence adduced by the Bank management . M. W.1 Mithlesh Kumar who was the Manager of the Nandanpur Branch of the Bank at the relevant time has stated that the workman was working in the Branch before he joined there . M. W.4 and M.W. 5 have also stated that the workman was working in the Branch in the Bank from before the time ofoccurance .

17. Shatrughan Pd. Sah . W.W.1 is the workman himself. He has stated that he was working in Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank , Nandanpur Branch , Chapra from 16-12-1981 and worked there till 27-11-1985 . That he was removed from Bank service from 281-1985 . He has further stated that on 16-11-1985 he leamt that Awadhesh Kumar Singh could be appointed in his place after removing him . He has also denied all the allegations of accepting bribe and assaulting and abusing the Branch Manager. He has stated that he worked through out in the Bank from his date of appointment i.e. from 16-12-1981 to 27-11-1985 . The case of the Bank management is that he was given the work of Sweeper/messenger on part time casual bais. His engagement was on principle of as and when required. The wages were paid to him on weekly basis . The engagement came to end on the conclusion of the day. That this shows that the workman worked on day to day basis and he could not have claimed permanent employment in the Bank .

18. From order sheet dated 18-9-2003 it appears that a list of witnesses and documents alongwith reply was filed on behalf of workman represented by Sri Ashok kumar Sinha , Advocate . These were placed on the record . In course ofargument the Learned counsel for the workman submitted that by mistake the Exts . were not marked on behalf of the workman . That these may be looked into by this Tribunal . We are of the opinion that though not marked as Exts . on behalf of the workman , these Exts . can be looked [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28, 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

into and referred to by this Tribunal , because they have not been filed recently or after conclusion of the argument by the parties , rather they were placed on record much carlier. We find photo copies of four attendance sheets of the worker have been filed on his behalf. These attendance sheets are from December, 83 to February, 85. These papers go to show that the workman worked in the Bank during the relevant period. It was submitted on behalf of the workman that the copy of attendance sheets which were available to him have been filed before this Tribunal. The other attendance sheets are in possession of the Bank management and inspite of his best efforts he could get copics thereof. These sheets go to show that the workman has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year.

19. Scc . 25F of the 1.D. Act provides that no workman employed in any Industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until ;

(a) The workman has given one month's notice in writing indicating the reason for the retrenchment and the period for notice . has expired , or the workman has been paid inliue of such notice , wages for the period of the notice.

( b) The workman has been paid , at the time of retrenchment , Compensation, which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay or any part thereof in excess of six months and

( c) Notice in prescribed manner is served on the apropriate Govt. or such Authority as may be specified by the appropriate Govt . by notification in Official Gazette .

20. It is worth while to mention here that none of these conditions have been fulfilled by the Bank management . M.W.1 has stated in para 11 of the evidence that no show cause notice was served on the workman. Besides that no paper has been filed on behalf of the Bank management to show that these conditions were fulfilled by it . Considering all these facts it becomes crystal clear that conditions precedent to retrenchment of the workman were never complied by the Bank . All these facts indisputably lead to the conclusion that the retrenchinent ofthe workman is not legal and justified.

21. It was submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the Bank management that this reference was made after lapse of six years and hence this reference is not maintainable . In support of his contention he relied on a Ruling Reported in C. W.J.C. No. 2464 of 1984 - Baleshwar Tiwary & Others Vs. Union of India and another . It has been held in this ruling. " It is no doubt that no period of limitation has been provided in the ' ndust Disputes Acı either for referring the dispute by t ppropriate Government in exercise of power U/ s . 10 c I.D Act. 147 or for filing an application by the aggrieved workman for making reference , but in view of the law lad down by the Apex Court that the workers who do not raise dispute and take steps for conciliation or for reference of disputes for three years , then the Tribunal would be justified in refusing the relief of reinstatement to avoid dislocation of the Industries " .

919 22. The Learnd Counsel for the workman , on the other hand submitted that the workman filed a Title Suit , inthe Court of Munsif , Chapra against the verbal order of termination on passed by the Branch Manager , seeking declaration that he should be deemed to be in the. employment of the Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and be allowed to join the post of Sweeper- cum-Messenger . That this Title Suit was decreed in his Favour , on 28-2-1994. That thereafter the workman filed an Execution Case, which was dismissed by the Ilnd Munsif, Chapra . Against this order the workman filed Civil Revision before the Hon'ble High Court, Patna which was numbered as 2187 of 1996. That the Hon'ble High Court held that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act . The Civil Revision , however , was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter the workman raised an Industrial Dispute U / s. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and the Government of India. Ministry of Labour referred the Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . Extending his argument he submitted that from all these facts it is quite clear that the workman did not sit idle after being dismissed by the Bank Management . Hepursued the inatter right from the Civil Court upto the Hon'ble High Court. It may be that it was done under a wrong legal advice to file a case in the Civil Court , but for that this workman , who does not understand the intricacis of the law , can hardly be blamed and condemned . From consideration of all these facts it is clear that though the reference was made after lapsed of six years from the time of removal of the workman from service , it is clear that during this period he was purusing legal action though at awrong forum.

23. In the light of foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the action of the management of Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank Saran in terminating the services of Sri Shatrughan Pd. Sah . Sweeper- cum - Messenger is notjustified. From consideration of all these facts , we ar of the opinion that he deserves to be reinstated in the service of the Bank from 28-11-1985 . He is also entitled be regularised in subordinate cadre of Bank service from thatdate. He is also entitled to get all the benefits admissible to his rank and post , from the date of his reinstatement .

24. In view of the aforesaid findings the Bank management is directed to reinstate the workman w.c.f. 28-11-1985 in Bank service and regularise his service in the subordinate staff cadre of the Bank service with entire benefits admissible to his rant and post within a period o . onemonth from the date of publication of the Award .

25. Award accordingly .

Dictated & corrected by me .

OM PRAKASH SINHA , Presiding c श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2006

+8 का.आ. 376- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 का 34) की धारा-1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का योग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01. फरवरी , 2006 को उस ता 920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 28 , 2006/MAGHA 8 , 1927

के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध पंजाब के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्: -

हदबस्त तहसील

क्र . राजस्व ग्राम

जिला सं. का नाम संख्या

211

जालन्धर

1. शेखों

जालन्धर 210

जालन्धर

जालन्धर मुबारकपुर

2.

जालन्धर

जालन्धर 3. चक हुसैना 214

[ संख्या एस -38013/01/2006 - एस.एस.- I ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 19th January , 2006

S.O. 376-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st February , 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter V and VI (Except sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following arcas in the State of Punjab namely :-

Sl . Nante of the

Tehsil and

District

Had Bast No.

No. Revenue Village

211

1. Sheikhon

Jalandhar

210

Jalandhar 2. Mubarakpur

214

3. Chak Hussaina

Jalandhar

[No. S - 38013/01 /2006 - S . S. I ]

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] hereby appoints the 1st February, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter V and VI ( Except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely:-

"All areas falling within the Revenue mandals of Pedagantyada, Gajuwaka and Paravada , Save and except areas and Revenue Villages where ESI Act have been brought into effect by previous notifications issued from time to time in Visakhapatnam District of Andhra Pradesh. " [No. S- 38013/ 02/2006 - S.S.I ]

K.C. JAIN, Director

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 378.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्कखान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 61 ) की धारा 10 के अनुसरण में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन वर्ष 2004-2005 के लिए वित्त पोषित क्रियाकलापों का लेखा विवरण और उनकी रिपोर्ट प्रकाशित करती है , जो क्रमशः अनुसूची I औरअनुसूची II के अनुसार निम्न प्रकार से है-

अनुसूची-1

वर्ष 2004-2005 के लिए लौह अयस्क खान , मैंगनीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि का लेखा विवरण आय:

तारीख 1 अप्रैल 2004 , को आरंभिक अतिशेष 126.11 करोड़ वर्ष 2004-2005 के दौरान अन्तरित उपकर

11.56 करोड़

137.67 करोड़ कुल आय

व्यय:

मुख्यशीर्ष-2230

K.C. JAIN , Director नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 377.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 फरवरी , 2006 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 (धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78, 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्: -

" समय - समय पर जारी पूर्वपूर्व अधिसूचनाओं द्वारा आन्ध्र प्रदेश के विशाखापट्नम जिले में जिन क्षेत्रों एवं राजस्व गाँवों को क.रा.बी. अधिनियम के दायरे में लाया जा चुका है उनके अलावा पेडागन्तयादा, गाजूवाका और परावाड़ा राजस्व मंडलों के अन्तर्गत आने वाले सभी क्षेत्र।"

[संख्या एस-38013/02 /2006 - एस.एस. - 1 ]

के.सी. जैन, निदेशक New Delhi , the 19th January, 2006 S.O. 377. In exercise of the powers confcrred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government 01.106 लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि

01.106.01- प्रशासन

लेखा शीर्ष

एकक

रकम ( रुपए हजार में ) वेतन

01.00.01

9346 01.00.02

94 मजदूरी

01.00.03

14 अतिकालिक भत्ते

01.00.11

440 घरेलूयात्रा व्यय

01.00.13

1819 कार्यालय व्यय

507 01.00.14

किराया, दर और कर

प्रकाशन

13 01.00.16

गौण कार्य

35 01.00.27

30 01.00.28

वृत्तिकसेवाएं

01.00.50

89 अन्य प्रभार

योग

1,2387 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

01.106 लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि

01.106.02- स्वास्थ्य

लेखाशीर्ष

एकक

रकम ( रुपए हजार में)

42488 02.00.01

वेतन

219 02.00.02

मजदूरी

5 02.00.03

अतिकालिक भत्ता

530 02.00.11

घरेलूयात्राव्यय

02.00.13

2563 कार्यालय व्यय

599 02.00.14

किराया, दर और कर

5 02.00.16

प्रकाशन

02.00.21

3387 सामग्री और पूर्ति

02.00.26

2 विज्ञापन और प्रचार

17 02.00.27

गौण कार्य

02.00.28

वृत्तिकसेवाएं

02.00.31

5903 सहायता अनुदान

02.00.50

1659 अन्य प्रभार

02.00.51

1277 मोटर यान

120 02.00.52

यंत्र और उपस्कर

58734 योग

01.106 लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि

01.106.04-शिक्षा

लेखाशीर्ष

एकक

रकम (रुपए हजार में) वेतन

5042 04.00.01

3 04.00.02

मजदूरी

63 04.00.11

घरेलूयात्रा व्यय

124 04.00.13

कार्यालय व्यय

16 04.00.14

किराया, दर और कर

04.00.21

47 सामग्रीऔर पूर्ति

8 0.400.31

सहायता अनुदान

14254 04.00.34

छात्रवृति और वृत्तिका

2181 04.00.50

अन्यव्ययु

21738 कुल

921 01.106 लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि

01.106.05-मनोरंजन

लेखाशीर्ष

एकक

रकम ( रुपए हजार में ) वेतन

05.00.01

796

25 05.00.11

घरेलूयात्रा व्यय

05.00.14

किराया, दर और कर

05.00.21

49 सामग्री और पूर्ति

05.00.27

गौण कार्य

05.00.31

684 सहायता अनुदान

05.00.50

अन्य प्रभार

450 05.00.13

20 कार्यालय व्यय

100 05.00.51

मोटरयान

2124 कुल

01.106 लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि

01.106.03-आवास

लेखा शीर्ष

एकक

रकम (रुपए हजार में) 03.01.01

वेतन

624 03.01.11

46 घरेलूयात्रा व्यय

1330 03.02.31

कम लागत के आवास

अपना मकान स्वयं

03.03.31

1479

3479 बनाएं योजना कुल (आवास)

98462 कुलयोग

137.67 करोड़ कुल आय

9.85 करोड़ कुल व्यय

127.82 करोड़ तारीख 01-4-2005 को आधारित लौह अयस्कखान , मैग्नीज अयस्कखान और क्रोम अयस्कखान श्रम कल्याण निधि के अधीन आरक्षित निधि

अनुसूची II

वर्ष 2004-2005 के लिए लौह अयस्क खान , मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान श्रम कल्याण निधि के अधीन वित्तपोषित क्रियाकलाप

इकाई क्रम.

क्रियाकलाप

सं.

कानाम

3 1 2

क.स्वास्थ्य

21 1. स्थिर- सह-चालित/स्थिर एलोपेथिक और स्थिर आयुर्वेदिक औषधालय

2. लौह अयस्कखान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्कखान कर्मकारों के लिए अस्पताल 05 922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 28 , 2006/ MAGHA 8 , 1927

1 2

3

278348 3. औषधालों/अस्पतालों में उपचार किए गए रोगियों की संख्या

4.

21 कैंसर से पीड़ित लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्कखान कर्मकारों का उपचार

5.

1 महिला कर्मकारों के लिए प्रसूति प्रसुविधा

01.00.01

1 6.

01,00,02

खान के कर्मकारों के बंध्यीकरण हेतु आर्थिक प्रतिकर का संदाय

01.00.03

ख. आवास

01.00.11

261

01.00.13

7. अपना मकान स्वयं बनाएं स्कीम, समूह आवास स्कीम , टाइप -1 और II आवास स्कीम के अधीन मंजूर किए गए मकानों की संख्या

ग. शिक्षा

01.00.27

12108 8.

01.00.28

लौह अयस्कखान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्कखान के कर्मकारों के विद्यालय जाने वाले बालकों को छात्रवृत्ति और अन्य वित्तिय सहायता प्रदान करना

7454 9 . गणवेश/पाठ्यपुस्तकों की पूर्ति

3 10. पुस्तकालयों के लिए अनुदान

घ. मनोरंजन

22

02.00.01

11. लौह अयस्क खान, मैग्नीज अयस्क खान और क्रोम अयस्क खान कर्मकारों के लिए क्रीड़ा, खेल, सामाजिक और सांस्कृतिक क्रियाकलापों का आयोजन

[ फा. सं. एस-23025/1 /2005- डब्ल्यू. II ] मनोहर लाल, महानिदेशक ( श्रम कल्याण ) /संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 S.O. 378. In pursuance of Section 10 of the Iron OreMines . Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1976 ( 61 of 1976 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the statement of accounts and the report of the activities financed under the said Act , for the year 2004-2005 as per Schedule - l and Schedule - II , respectively, as under:-

SCHEDULE

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF IRON ORE MINES , MANGANESE ORE MINES AND CHROME ORE MINES LABOUR WELFARE FUND FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005

INCOME :

126.11Crore Opening Balance as on 01-4-2004 Cess Transferred during the

11,56 Crore year, 2004-2005

TOTAL INCOME

137.67 Crore

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

EXPENDITURE:

MajorHead - 2230

01.106 . Iron Ore Mine , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund

01.106.01.-Administration

Units

Headof Account

Amount (Rsin thousand)

9346 Salaries

Wages 94 Over Time Allowances 14

440 Domestic Travelling Expenses

1819 OfficeExpenses

507

01.00.14

Rents Rates and Taxes

01.00.16

Publication

13

35 Minor Work

Professional Services 30

89

01.00.50

Other Charges

12387 Total

01.106 . Iron Ore Mines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund

01.106.02 -Health

Units

Head of Account

Account (Rs . in thousand)

42448 Salaries

02.00.02

219 Wages

5

02.00.03

Over Time Allowances

02.00.11

530 Domestic Travelling Expenses

02.00.13

2563 Office Expenses

02.00.14

599 Rents , Rates and Taxes

02.00.16

5 Publication

02.00.21

3387 Material and Supply

2

02.00,26

Advertisement and Publicity

02.00.27

17 Minor Work

02.00.28

Professional Services

02.00.31

5903 Grants- in aid

02.00.50

1659 Other Charges

1277

02.00.51

Moter Vehicle

02.00.52

120 Mach . and Equipment

Total

58734

01.106 . Iron Ore Mines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

01.106.04- Education

Units

Head of Account

Account (Rs . in thousand) 04.00.01

5042 Salaries

04.00.02

3 Wages

04.00.11

63 Domestic Travelling Expenses

04.00.13

124 Office Expenses

04.00.14

16 Rents , Rates and Taxes

47 04.00.21 Material and Supply

04.00.31

8 Grants- in-aid

04.00.34

14254 Scholarship and Stipend

04.00.50

2181 OtherCharges

Total

21738 01.106 . Iron Ore Mines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund

01.106.05 Recreation

Units

Head of Account

Amount (Rs . in thousand) I

2

3

05.00.01

Salaries

796

25 05.00.11

Domestic Travelling Expenses

05.00.14

Rents Rates and Taxes

05.00.21

49 Material and Supply

05.00.27

Minor Work

684 05.00.31

Grants - in-aid

05.00.50

450 Other Charges

05.00.13

20 OfficeExpenses

05.00.51

100 Motor Vehicle

2124 Total

01.106. Iron Ore Mines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Labour Welfare Fund

01.106.03 - Housing

Units

Head of Account

Amount (Rs . in thousand) 1

2

3 03.01.01

Salaries

624 03.01.11

46 Domestic Travelling Expenses

03.02.31

1330 Low Cost Housing

03.03.31

1479 Build Your Own House Scheme

3479 Total(Housing)

GRAND TOTAL

98462

923

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 28 , 2006/माघ 8 , 1927

Total Income

137.67Crore

9.85 Crore TotalExpenditure

reserve fune under iron ore

Mines, Manganese Ore mines and Chrome ore mines labour welfare fund as on 01-4-2005

127.82 Crore

SCHEDULE- II

ACTIVITIES FINANCED UNDER THE IRON ORE MINES, MANGANESE ORE MINES AND CHROME ORE MINES LABOUR WELFARE FUND DURING THE YEAR 2004- 2005

Units S. No.

Name of the Activity

A. HEALTH:

21 1. Static-cum -Mobile/ Static Allopathic and Static Ayurvedic Dispensaries

05 2. Hospitals for the Iron Ore Mines, Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Workers

2,78,348 3. Number of patients treated in dis- pensaries/ hospitals

21 OreMines Workers suffering from Cancer. 4. Treatment of Iron Ore Mines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome

5. Maternity Benefit Scheme for Female Workers . 1

1 6. Payment of Monetary Compensation for sterilization Mines Workers .

B. HOUSING :

261 8. Number of houses sanctioned under Build Your Own House Scheme , Group Housing Scheme , Type - I and II Housing Scheme

C. EDUCATION :

12,108 7. Award of Scholarship and other financial assistance to the school going children of IronOreMines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Workers

7454 8. Supply ofuniform/text books

3 9. Grant for Libraries

D. RECREATION :

22 10. Organising sports , games , social and cultural activities for Iron Ore Mines , Manganese Ore Mines and Chrome Ore Mines Workers .

[F. No. S -23025/ 1 /2005 - W - II ] MANOHAR LAL, Director General ( Labour Welfare)/

Jt. Secy.

Printedby the Manager , Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.