This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं०डी० 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 6 ]

No. 6]

नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 5 फरवरी 11 , 2006 , शनिवार /माघ 16- माघ 22 , 1927 NEW DELHI , FEBRUARY 5- FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 , SATURDAY/MAGHA 16- MAGHA 22, 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)

सामाजिक न्याय और अधिकारिता मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 2 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 519.-आटिज्म , प्रमस्तिष्क अंगघात, मानसिक मंदता तथा बहु -विकलांगता वाले व्यक्तियों के कल्याण के लिए राष्ट्रीय न्यास अधिनियम, 1999 की धारा 3 ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत और पेंशन, कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग , नियुक्ति संबंधी मंत्रिमंडल समिति सचिवालय के दिनांक 28 दिसम्बर, 2005 के संदेश संख्या 4/20/2005-ई.ओ ( एस. एम. II ) के अनुसरण में सुश्री पूनम नटराजन, निदेशक, विद्या सागर, नं. 1 रंणजीथ रोड, कोट्टूरपुरम , चेन्नै को दिनांक 2 जनवरी , 2006 के अपराह्न से 26,000 (नियत ) रुपए के वेतनमान में तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनके उत्तराधिकारी की नियुक्ति तक, जो भी पहले लम्बा हो, आटिज्म, प्रमस्तिष्क अंगघात, मानसिक मंदता तथा बहुविकलांगता वाले व्यक्तियों के कल्याण के लिए राष्ट्रीय न्यास में, नई दिल्ली में इसके मुख्यालय के साथ, अध्यक्ष के रूप में नियुक्त किया जाता है ।

[सं. 5-2/2004-एनआई-1

सर्वेश राय, उप सचिव 253 GI/ 2005

(1175)

MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT

New Delhi , the 2nd January, 2006 S.O. 519. -In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 (4) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 and in pursuance of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions . Department of Personnel and Training , Secretariat ofthe Appointments Committee of the Cabinet's communication No.4 /20/2005 -EO ( SM.II) dated the 28th December, 2005, Ms. Poonam Natarajan, Director, Vidyasagar, No. 1 , Ranjith Road, Kotturpuram , Chennai , is appointed as the Chairperson inthe National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities with its head offfice at New Delhi in the pay scale of Rs . 26,000 (fixed) with effect from the forenoon of the 2nd January, 2006 for a period of three years or until her successor is appointed, whichever is longer.

[No. 5-2/2004-NI - II ] SARVESH RAI, Dy. Secy.

1176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्वविभाग )

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर, 27 जनवरी , 2006

सं. 1 /27-01-2006

का. आ. 520.-आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का43 ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( VIए) , आयकर नियम 1962के सह पठित नियम 2 सीए द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्‌द्वारा " भगवान महावीर कैंसर हॉस्पिटल एण्ड रिसर्च सेंटर, जे. एल. एन. मार्ग जयपुर, राजस्थान" को निर्धारण वर्ष 2003-04 से 2005-06 ( वित्त वर्ष 2002-03 से 2004-05 ) के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए उक्त धारा के निमित्त अनुमोदित करती है , अर्थात्:-

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा उसकी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है,

2. कर निर्धारिती उपुर्यक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात, फर्नीचर अथवा किसी अन्य वस्तु आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा,

3. यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा- पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों,

4. कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा,

5. विघटन की स्थिति में अतिरिक्त राशियां और परिसम्पत्तियां समान उ‌द्देश्यों वाले धमार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी और इसका कोई भी भाग सोसायटी के किसी सदस्यको नहींदिया जाएगा ।

यह अनुमोदन सोसायटी द्वारा आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) के उपखण्ड ( VIए), के आयकर नियम 1962के सह पठित नियम 2 सीए के उपबन्धों की सहमति एवं अनुपालन करने पर निर्भर होगा ।

[क्र मु. आ. आ./अ.आ.आ. ( समन्वय) /जय./10( 23सी ) (वीआईए) 05-06 ]

एम. एन. वर्मा, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue)

OFFICE OF THE

CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX Jaipur, the 27th January, 2006

No.1/27-01-2006

S.O.520 . -In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - clause ( via) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962 , I, the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Bhagwan Mahaveer Cancer Hospital & Research Centre , " JLN Marg, Jaipur (Rajasthan) " for the purpose of the said section for the assessment years 2003-2004 to 2005-2006 (F. Yrs . 2002- 2003 to 2004-2005 ) , subject to the following conditions namely:-

(1 ) the assessee willl apply its income, or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established;

(ii) the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form of jewellery, fumiture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more ofthe forms or modes specified in sub-section (5 ) of Section 11 ;

( iii) this order will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;

( iv) the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income - tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income-tax Act, 1961;

(v) that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives and no part ofthe same will go to any of the members ofthe Institution .

[No. CC/Addl.CIT(Co- ord)/JPR/ 10( 23C)(via)/05-06] M. N. VERMA, Chief Commissioner of Income -tax

1 कार्यालय आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क आयुक्तालयजयपुर द्वितीय

जयपुर, 31 जनवरी , 2006

सं. 01 -सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी )/2006

सीमाशुल्क

का. आ. 521.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा 152 के खण्ड ( ए) के तहत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग, नई दिल्ली कीअधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( एन टी ) दिनांक प्रथम जुलाई, 1994 के अन्तर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैं जे. चतुर्वेदी, आयुक्त, केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क, जयपुर- द्वितीय एतद्वारा शतप्रतिशत निर्यात संवर्द्धन ईकाई स्थापित करने के उद्देश्य से सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 9 के अन्तर्गत राजस्थान राज्य के उदयपुर जिले के राजस्व ग्राम आयढ़ तहसील गिरवा , को भण्डारण स्टेशन ( वेयर हाउसिंग स्टेशन ) घोषित करता हूं ।

[फा. सं. पंचम् (ईओयू) 30 /जेपी- II/ 14/2005 ].

जे. चतुर्वेदी, आयुक्त [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माघ 22 , 1927

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR- II

Jaipur, the 31st January, 2006

No.01 -CWS (NT)

CUSTOMS

S.O. 521.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Notification No 33/94 -Customs (NT) dated the 1st July 1994, of the Government of India, Ministry ofFinance, Department of Revenue , New Delhi, issued under clause (a) of section 152 of Customs Act 1962 , I, J. Chaturvedi , Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur- II heroby declare revenue villageAYAD TehsilGirwa District Udaipur in the state ofRajasthan to be warehousing station under section 9 of the Customs Act 1962 for the purpose of setting up100%EOU.

[C. No. V. (EOU) 30/JP- 1/14/2005 ] J. CHATURVEDI, Commissioner केन्द्रीय उत्पाद शुल्क सीमा शुल्क एवं सेवा कर आयुक्तालय, भुवनेश्वर- II भुवनेश्वर, 13 दिसम्बर, 2005

सं. 01/2005-सीमा शुल्क ( एचडी )

का. आ. 522.-सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा- 152 का खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग, नई दिल्ली ने दिनांक 1-7-94 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) के द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए प्रत्थायोजित किया गया । मैं एतद्‌द्वारा उड़ीसा के सुंदरगड़ जिला के सानिन्दपुर बोनाइ तहसिल ग्राम में प्लाट सं. 383, खाता सं. 58 का ओराबाट आइरन ओर माइन्स को अल्प प्रयोजन के लिए 100% निर्यातोन्मुख एकक (EOU ) स्थापित करने हेतु सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा -9 के तहत भण्डारण स्टेशन पोषित करता हूँ ।

[सी. सं. VIII (40 ) 2/सीमा/भु- II/2005 ] टी. हकिप, आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE , CUSTOMSAND SERVICE TAX, BHUBANESWAR- II Bhubaneswar, the 13th December, 2005 No. 01/2005-Cus(NT)

S.O. 522,-In exercise of the powers delegatedto the undersigned vide Notification No 33/94 -Cus (N.T. ) dated 1-7-1994 by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Rovenue, New Delhi , under clause (a) ofSection 152 ofthe Customs Act, 1962, I hereby declare Oraghat Iron Ore Mines, Plot No. 383, Khata No. 58, Village- Sanindpur Bonai Tehsil , Sundergarh District in the State ofOrissa to be Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of 100% EQU .

[C.No. VIII (40) 2/CUS/BBSR - II/2005] T. HAOKIP, Commissioner भुवनेश्वर, 13 दिसम्बर , 2005

सं. 02/2005 - सीमा शुल्क ( एमटी ) का. आ. 523.-सौमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा- 152का खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली में दिनांक 1-7-94 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94-

1177

सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) के द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए प्रत्यायोजित किया गया । मैं एतद्‌द्वारा उड़ीसा के सुंदरगड़ जिला के सामिन्दपुर ग्राम में प्लाट सं. 99 , खाता सं. 58 का सानिंदपुर आइरन एवं बॉक्साइट माइम्स को अल्प प्रयोजन के लिए 100 % निर्यात्तेन्मुख एकक ( EOU ) स्थापित करने हेतु सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962की धारा -9 के तहत भण्डारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ। [सी. सं. VIII(40 )3/सीमा/ भु- II/2005 ] टी. हकिप, आयुक्त Bhubaneswar, the 13th December , 2005 No. 02/2005- Cus. (NT)

S.O. 523.- In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No 33/94 -Cus (N.T. ) dated 1-7-1994by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue , New Delhi , under clause (a) ofSection 152 of the Customs Act, 1962, I hereby declare Sanindpur Iron & Bauxite Mines , Plot No. 99, KhataNo. 58,Village-Sanindpur, Distt . Sundergarh in the State of Orissa tobe Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of 100% EOU.

[C. No. VIII (40) 3/ CUS/BBSR - II/2005 ] T. HAOKIP, Commissioner भुवनेश्वर, 13 दिसम्बर, 2005

सं. 06/2005 -सीमा शुल्क ( एन टी ) का. आ. 524.-सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा- 152का खण्ड (क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली ने दिनांक 1-7-94 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( एन टी ) के द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए प्रत्यायोजित किया गया । मैं एत‌द्वारा उड़ीसा के सुंदरगड़ जिला के नदि कसीरा ग्राम में प्लाट सं. 59 , खाता सं. 23 का नदिधि आइरन एवं मेंगनीस माइन्स को अल्प प्रयोजन के लिए 100 % निर्यातोन्मुख एकक ( EOU ) स्थापित करने हेतु सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा -9 के तहत भण्डारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ ।

[सी. सं. VIII ( 40)4/सीमा/भु- II/2005 ] टी. हकिप, आयुक्त Bhubaneswar, the 13th December , 2005 No. 06/2005-Cus. (NT)

S.O. 524. - In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No. 33/94 -Cus ( N.T. ) dated 1-7-1994 by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi , under clause (a) ofSection 152 of the Customs Act, 1962 , I herebydeclare Nadidih Iron & Manganese Mines , Plot No. 59, Khata No. 23, Village -Nadi Kasira, Distt . Sundergarh in the State of Orissato be Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 for the limited purpose ofsetting up of 100% EOU.

[C.No. VIII (40) 4/ CUS/BBSR - II/2005 ] T. HAOKIP, Commissioner भुवनेश्वर, 13 दिसम्बर, 2005

सं. 04/2005-सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) का. आ. 525.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा- 152का खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व 1178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

विभाग , नई दिल्ली ने दिनांक 1-7-94 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) के द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए प्रत्यायोजित किया गया । मैं एत‌द्वारा उड़ीसा के सुंदरगड़ जिला के कोइरा ग्राम में में प्लाट सं. 1058, खाता सं. 150 का तेहराइ आइरन एवं मेंगनीस माइन्स को अल्प प्रयोजन के लिए 100% निर्यातोन्मुख एकक (EOU ) स्थापित करने हेतु सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा -9 के तहत भण्डारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ।

[सी. सं. VIII (40 ) 5/सीमा/भु- II/2005 ] टी. हकिप , आयुक्त Bhubaneswar, the 13th December , 2005 No. 04/2005- Cus (NT)

S.O. 525.- In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No 33/94 -Cus (N.T. ) dated 1-7-1994by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi , under clause (a) ofSection 152 of the Customs Act, 1962 , I hereby declare Tehrai Iron & Manganese Mines , Plot No. 1058 , Khata No. - 150, Village- Koira, Distt . Sundergarh in the State of Orissa to be Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of 100% EOU.

[C.No. VIII (40) 5 /CUS/BBSR- II /2005] T. HAOKIP, Commissioner भुवनेश्वर, 13 दिसम्बर, 2005 सं. 03/2005-सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) का. आ. 526.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा- 152का खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व विभाग , नई दिल्ली ने दिनांक 1-7-94 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) के द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए प्रत्यायोजित किया गया । मैं एत‌द्वारा उड़ीसा के सुंदरगड़ जिला केरेंगलबेरा ग्राम में में प्लाट सं. 130 , 131 , 134 एवं 135 , खाता सं. 26 का नदिधि आइरन एवं मेंगनीस माइन्स को अल्प प्रयोजन के लिए 100 % निर्यातोन्मुख एकक ( EOU ) स्थापित करने हेतु सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा-9 के तहत भण्डारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ।

[सी. सं. VIII (40 )6/सीमा/भु- II//2005 ] टी. हकिप, आयुक्त Bhubaneswar, the 13th December , 2005 No. 03 /2005 - CUS . (NT)

S.O. 526. In exercise of the powers delegated to the undersigned vide Notification No 33/94 -Cus ( N.T. ) dated 1-7-1994 by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance , Department of Revenue, New Delhi , under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act , 1962 , I hereby declare Nadidih Iron & Manganese Mines , Plot No. 130, 131 , 134 and 135 , Khata No. 26 , Village- Rengalbera , Distt . Sundergarh in the State of Orissa to be Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of 100% EOU .

[C. No. VIII (40) 6/CUS /BBSR - II/ 2005 ] T. HAOKIP, Commissioner भुवनेश्वर, 13 दिसम्बर, 2005

सं. 05/2005- सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) का. आ. 527.- सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा- 152 का खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार, वित्त मंत्रालय, राजस्व

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] विभाग , नई दिल्ली ने दिनांक 1-7-94 की अधिसूचना संख्या 33/94- सीमा शुल्क ( एनटी ) के द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी को शक्तियों का प्रयोग करने के लिए प्रत्यायोजित किया गया। मैं एत‌द्वारा उड़ीसा के केंजहार जिला के बडबिल तहसिल का जरिबाहाल ग्राम में में प्लाट सं. 192, खाता सं. 43 का जजांग आइरन ओर एवं मेंगनीस माइन्स को अल्प प्रयोजन के लिए 100% निर्यातोन्मुख एकक ( EOU ) स्थापित करने हेतु सीमा शुल्क अधिनियम , 1962 की धारा-9 के तहत भण्डारण स्टेशन घोषित करता हूँ।

[सी. सं. VIII (40 ) 7/सीमा/भु- II//2005 ] टी. हकिप , आयुक्त Bhubaneswar , the 13th December , 2005 No. 05/2005 -Cus . (NT)

S.O. 527. In exercise of the powers delegatedto the undersigned vide Notification No 33/94 -Cus ( N.T. ) dated 1-7-1994by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue , New Delhi , under clause (a) of Section 152 of the Customs Act , 1962, I hereby declare Jajang Iron Ore & Manganese Mines , Plot No. 192 , Khata No. 43 , Jaribahal , Via-Joda, Tehsil -Barbil, Distt . Keonjhar in the State of Orissa to be Warehousing Station under Section 9 of the Customs Act , 1962 for the limited purpose of setting up of 100 % EOU .

[C.No VIII (40) 7/CUS/BBSR - II/2005 ] T. HAOKIP, Commissioner (केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 528.- आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 47 के खंड ( ix ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2005-2006 से 2008- 2009 के लिए उक्त उप - खंड के प्रयोजनार्थ " इंदिरा गांधी नेशनल सेंटर फार दि आर्ट्स, नई दिल्ली " को अधिसूचित करती है ।

1 अनुमोदन इस शर्त के अधीन है कि आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 13 ( 1 ) ( ग ) के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन नहीं होगा तथा लक्ष्यों और उद्देश्योंमें और नियमों और विनियमों में कोई परिवर्तन नहीं होगा । [अधिसूचना सं. 3/2006/(फा. सं. 225/96/2005- आयकर नि.- II ) ]

निधि सिंह, अवर सचिव (CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ) New Delhi , the 31st January, 2006

S.O. 528. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( ix) of Sub- section 47 ofthe Income - Tex Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) , the Central Government hereby notifies " Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts " , New Delhi for the purpose of the said sub -clause for the assessment years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009 .

The approval is subject to the condition that the provisions of section 13 ( 1 ) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , are not infringed and there is no change in the aims and objects and in the Rules and Regulations .

[Notification No. 3 /2006/F. No. 225/96/ 2005/ITA- 11 ] NIDHI SINGH, Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1179

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2006 स्टाम्प

का. आ. 529.- भारतीय स्टाम्प अधिनियम, 1899 ( 1899 का 2) की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा यूको बैंक, कोलकाता को मात्र तिरसठ लाख रुपए का समेकित स्टाम्प शुल्क अदा करने की अनुमति देती है , जो उक्त बैंक द्वारा जारी किए जाने वाले मात्र एक सौ पचास करोड़ रुपए के समग्र मूल्य के प्रामिसरी नोटों के स्वरूप वाले असुरक्षितविमोच्यगौण बांडो ( श्रृंखला-vi ) पर स्टाम्प शुल्क के कारण प्रभार्य है ।

[सं. 2/2006/स्टाम्प एफ सं. 33/47/2005 बि.क. ] आर जी. छाबड़ा, अवर सचिव

ORDER New Delhi , the 31st January, 2006 STAMPS

S.O. 529. In the exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899), the Central Government hereby permits UCO Bank , Kolkata to pay consolidated stamp duty of rupees sixty three lakh only chargeable on account ofthe stamp duty on Unsecured Redeemable Subordinated onds ( Series VI ) in the nature of Promissory Notes gregating to rupees one hundred fifty crore only, to be issued by the said bank .

[No. 2/2006/STAMP F. No. 33/47/2005 -ST] R.G. CHHABRA , Under Secy.

(आर्थिक कार्य विभाग ) (बैंकिंग प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 530.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) योजना, 1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप - खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा (3 ) के खण्ड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, श्री. ए.पी. होता, मुख्य महाप्रबंधक, भुगतान एवं निपटान प्रणाली विभाग, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक, केन्द्रीय कार्यालय, मुम्बई को तत्काल प्रभाव से अगला आदेश होने तक, श्रीमती दीपाली पंत जोशी के स्थान पर आन्ध्रा बैंक के बोर्ड में निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. 9/18/2000- बीओ- I ] जी.बी. सिंह , अवर सचिव (Department ofEconomicAffairs) (BANKING DIVISION)

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2006

S.O. 530. In exercise of the powers conferred byclause (c) ofsub -section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Compaines (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, read with sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1980 the Central Government , hereby nominates Shri A.P. Hota, Chief General Manager, Department of Payment and Settlement Systems , Reserve Bank of India, Central Office , Mumbai as Director on the Board ofAndhra Bank vice Smt . Deepali Pantjoshi, with immediate effect and until Further orders.

[F. No. 9/ 18/2000-BO-I ] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 531.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) योजना, 1970 के खंड 3 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970 की धारा १ कीउप- धारा 3 ( ज ) और ( 3 - क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , श्री जी. चरथ चन्द्रन, निवासी-20स्वामी सन्नाथीस्ट्रीट, वैठीस्वरन कोइल-609117 ( तमिलनाडु ) को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनका उत्तराधिकारी नामित होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, इडियन बैंक के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा.सं. 9 /38/2005- बीओ- I ] जी.बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2006

S.O. 531.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section 3 (h) and (3 -A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970, the Central Government hereby nominates Shri G. Charath Chandran resident of 20 , Swami Sannathi Street, Vaitheeswaran Koil -609117 (Tamil Nadu) aspart -time non- official Director on the Board of Indian Bank for a period ofthree years from the date of notification or until his successor is nominated, whichever is earlier.

[F.No. 9/38/2005 -BO- I ] G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 532. बैंककारी विनियमन अधिनियम, 1949 (1949का 10 ) की धारा 53 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक की सिफारिश पर, एतद्वारा , यह घोषणा करती है कि जहां तक 148 मिलियन इक्विटी शेयरों के लोक निर्गम का संबंध है , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 का उपबंध आई सी आई सी आई बैंक लिमिटेड पर लागू नहीं होगा ।

[फा.सं. 7/3/2006- बीओए ]

डी. पी. भारद्वाज, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2006

S.O. 532. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 53 of the Banking Regulation Act , 1949 ( 10 of 1949) the Central Government , on the recommendation of Reserve Bank of India , hereby declares that the provision of Section 13 of the said Act shall not apply to the ICICI Bank Ltd. so far as the public issue of 148 million equity shares is concerned.

[F. No.7/3/2006 -BOA] D.P. BHARDWAJ , Under Secy.

1180

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2006

Shri Subbaraman Krishnan (DoB : 22-09-1948 ) presently General Manager, Bank of India, as a whole time director (designated as the Executive Director ) Central Bank of India from the date of his taking charge and upto 30-09-2008 , i.e. the date of his attaining the age of super- annuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/3/2006-BO- I ]

G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 533. राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक अधिनियम, 1981 की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक के परामर्श से एत‌द्वारा श्री सूरजमुठी शिवकुमार को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधिके लिए और अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , राष्ट्रीय कृषि और ग्रामीण विकास बैंक के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 7/4/2004-बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिष

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2006

S.O. 533. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (b) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 6 read with sub- section (2 ) of Section 7 of the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Act, 1981 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Surampudi Sivakumar, asPart - time non official Director on the Board of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development ( NABARD ) for a period of three years from the date of notificaion , and until further orders , whichever is earlier .

का. आ. 535.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के उप - खंड 3 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) , खण्ड 8 के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित, बैंकाकरी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतद्‌द्वारा , श्री एस . ए. भट (जन्मतिथि : 20-10-1950 ) जो इस समय बैंक आफ इंडिया में महाप्रबंधक हैं , को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 31-10-2010 तक अर्थात् जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , यूको बैंक के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पद्दनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[F. No. 7/4/2004-BO- I] G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

[फा. सं. 9/2/2006- बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी , 2006

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2006

S.O. 535. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( a) of Sub-section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 , read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980, the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby appoints Shri S. A. Bhat (DoB: 20-10-1950 ) presently General Manager, Bank of India, as a whole time director (designated as the Executive Director ) UCO Bank from the date of his taking charge and upto 31-10-2010, i.e. the date of his attaining the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

का.आ. 534.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खण्ड 3 के उप - खण्ड ( 1 ) , खण्ड 8 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित, बैंकाकारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्रीय सरकार, भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् एतदद्वारा, श्री सुब्बारमन कृष्णन ( जन्मतिथि : 22-9-1948 ) जो इस समय बैंक आफ इंडिया में महाप्रबंधक हैं,को उनके कार्यभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से 30-9-2008 तक अर्थात् जिस तारीख को वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगे या अगले आदेश होने तक, जो भी पहले हो, सेन्ट्रल बैंक आफ इंडिया के पूर्णकालिक निदेशक ( कार्यपालक निदेशक के रूप में पदनामित ) के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[F. No. 9/2/2006-BO-I ]

G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

[फा. सं . 9/3/2006- बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2006

का. आ. 536.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबन्ध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) योजना, 1970 के खण्ड 3 के उप- खण्ड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एंव अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केंद्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा , नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम 2 में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगला आदेश होने तक S.O. 534. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub-section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970/1980 , read with sub clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 , sub -clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints 1181

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

अथवा उनके वित्त मंत्रालय में अधिकारी बने रहने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, कॉलम 1 में विनिर्दिष्ट बैंकों में, कॉलम 3 में विनिर्दिष्ट व्यक्तियों के स्थान पर, निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है:-

तालिका

इलाहाबाद बैंक

डॉ. के. पी. कृष्णन , श्री जी. भुजबल

संयुक्तसचिव (सीएम), वित्त मंत्रालय, आर्थिक कार्य विभाग , नार्थ ब्लाक , नई दिल्ली ।

सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया श्री पी.पी. मित्रा, श्री यू. के. सिन्हा आर्थिक सलाहकार, वित्त मंत्रालय , बैंकिंग प्रभाग , जीवन दीप भवन, नई दिल्ली

[फा. सं. 9/11/2004- बीओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006 S.O. 536. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970 , read with sub-clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalized Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme, 1970 the Central Government , hereby nominate the persons specified in column 2 of the table below as Directors of the Banks specified in column 1 thereof in place of the persons specified in column 3 ofthe said table , with immediate effect and until further orders or till they ceased to be an officer of the Ministry of Finance , whichever is earlier :-

TABLE

3 1

Allahabad Bank

Shri G. Bhujbal

Dr. K.P. Krishnan,

JointSecretary (CM),

Ministry of Finance , Department ofEconomic Affairs , North Block ,

New Delhi ,

Shri U. K. Sinha Central Bank of Shri P.P. Mitra,

India

Economic Adviser,

Ministry of Finance,

BankingDivision,

Jeevan Deep Building,

New Delhi

[F. No. 9/ 11 / 2004-BO- IJ

G.B. SINGH, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 537.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) योजना, 1970/1980 के खंड 3 के उप- खंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण )अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप- धारा 3 ( ज)और ( 3 - क) द्वारा प्रदत्त अधिकारों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा , श्री एम.एन. कंडास्वामी, निवासी बोकुलम, 8/253, सिरुवाणी, मेन रोड़, माधमपट्टी, कोयम्बतूर को अधिसूचना की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए अथवा उनका उत्तराधिकारी नामित होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के बोर्ड में अंशकालिक गैर-सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/46/2005- बी ओ -1 ] जी. बी. सिंह, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006 S.O. 537. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 3 (H ) and (3 - A) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub - clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri M.N. Kandaswamy, resident of Gokulam, 8/253 , Siruvani , Main Road, Madhampatty, Coimbatore as part- time non -official Director on the Board ofIndian Overseas Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification or until his successor is nominated , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/46/2005-BO- 1 ]

G. B. SINGH, Under Secy.

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 538.- अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है, ने उक्त उप- धारा-धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं० 673/18/2005- सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक 28-12-2005 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री अश्विनी कुमार अग्रवाल @ अश्विनी अग्रवाल, सुपुत्र श्री हरि ओम अग्रवाल, निवासी- ए-1/330 , पश्चिम विहार, नई दिल्ली को निरूद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़ नई दिल्लीमें अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में माल की तस्करी का दुष्प्रेरण करने से रोका जा सके ।

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है किपूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति फरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकता ।

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, दिल्लीके सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

[फा. सं. 673/18/2005- सी यू एस- VIII ] एन. एम. कृष्णन, उप- सचिव ( कोफेपोसा) 1182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

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

New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006

VIII dated 28-12-2005 under the said sub - section directing that Shri Vikas Aggarwal S/ o Shri Ashwani Aggarwal , R/o A- 1 / 330, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from smuggling goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed .

S.O. 538. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India , specially empowered under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974 ) issued order F.No. 673/ 18/2005-Cus . VIII dated 28-12-2005 under the said sub - section directing thatShri Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal @ Ashwani Aggarwal , S/o Shri Hari Om Aggarwal , R/o A - 1 /330 , Paschim Vihar , New Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail , Tihar , New Delhi with a view to preventing him from abetting the smuggling of goods in future.

3.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid personto appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.

[F. No. 673/ 19/2005-Cus . -VIII ] N. M. KRISHNAN , Dy. Secy. ( COFEPOSA )

(राजस्वविभाग )

केन्द्रीय आर्थिक अन्वेषण ब्यूरो

आदेश

3.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

[F. No. 673/ 18/2005-Cus. -VIII ] N. M. KRISHNAN, Dy. Secy. (COFEPOSA )

आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 540.-अतः संयुक्त सचिव, भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है, ने उक्त उप- धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं० 673/20/2005 - सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक 03-01-2006 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री विपुल अग्रवाल, सुपुत्र श्री अश्विनी अग्रवाल , निवासी-ए-1/330 , पश्चिम विहार, नई दिल्ली को निरुद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़, नई दिल्ली में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके।

का. आ. 539.-अतः संयुक्त सचिव , भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है, ने उक्त उप- धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं० 673/19/2005- सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक28-12-2005 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री विकास अग्रवाल, सुपुत्र श्री अश्विनी अग्रवाल, निवासी- ए-1 /330 , पश्चिम विहार, नई दिल्ली को निरुद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़, नई दिल्ली में अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकिउन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके ।

2. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार के पास यह विश्वास करने का कारण है किपूर्वोक्त व्यक्तिफरार हो गया है या स्वयं को छिपा रखा है जिससे यह आदेश निष्पादित नहीं किया जा सकता ।

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस दिल्ली आयुक्त, दिल्ली के सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

[फा. सं. 673/20/2005- सी यूएस- VIII ] एन. एम. कृष्णन, उपसचिव ( कोफेपोसा )

(Department of Revenue)

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त दिल्लीके सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

CENTRAL ECONOMICE INTELLEGENCE BUREAU

ORDER

[फा. सं . 673/19/2005-सी यूएस- VIII ] एन. एम. कृष्णन, उपसचिव ( कोफेपोसा)

New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006

ORDER

New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006

S.O. 539. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India , specially empowered under sub- section 3 of the Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52of 1974 ) issued order F.No. 673/19/2005 Cus .

S.O , 540. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, specially empowered under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 ( 52of 1974 ) issued order F.No. 673 /20/2005 -Cus . VIII dated 3-1-2006 under the said sub - section , directing that Shri Vipul Aggarwal S/ o Shri Ashwani Aggarwal , R/ o A - 1 /330 , Paschim Vihar, New Delhi be detained and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1183

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from the smuggling of goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner of Police , Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673/20/2005 -Cus -VIII ] N.M. KRISHNAN, Dy. Secy. (COFEPOSA)

आदेश नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 541.-अतः संयुक्त सचिव , भारत सरकार जिन्हें विदेशी मुद्रा संरक्षण और तस्करी निवारण अधिनियम, 1974 ( 1974 का 52)की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत विशेष रूप से शक्ति प्रदान की गई है , ने उक्त उप - धारा के अधीन आदेश फाइल सं ० 673/21/2005 - सी.यू.एस. VIII , दिनांक 03-01-2006 को जारी किया और यह निर्देश दिया कि श्री भुवन अग्रवाल , सुपुत्र श्री बृजलाल अग्रवाल, निवासी-डी-137, प्रथम तल, महेन्द्र एन्कलेव, मॉडल टाउन, फेस- III , नई दिल्ली को निरूद्ध कर लिया जाए और केन्द्रीय कारागार, तिहाड़ नई दिल्लीमें अभिरक्षा में रखा जाए ताकि उन्हें भविष्य में चीजों की तस्करी करने से रोका जा सके ।

3. अतः अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्ति का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा पूर्वोक्त व्यक्ति को यह निर्देश देती है कि वह शासकीय राजपत्र में इस आदेश के प्रकाशित होने के 7 दिन के भीतर पुलिस आयुक्त, दिल्लीके सम्मुख उपस्थित हो ।

[फा. सं. 673/21 /2005- सी यूएस- VIII ] एन. एम. कृष्णन, उप- सचिव ( कोफेपोसा)

ORDER New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006 S.O. 541. Whereas the Joint Secretary to the Government of India , specially empowered under Sub- section I of Section 3 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (52 of 1974 ) issued Order. F.No. 673/21/2005 Cus . VIII dated 03-01-2006 under the said sub - section directing that Shri Bhuvan Aggarwal S/o Shri Brij Lal Aggarwal, R/o D- 137, First floor, Mahendru Enclave, Model Town, Phase - III. New Delhi be detained and kept in custody in the Central Jail, Tihar, New Delhi with a view to preventing him from the smuggling goods in future.

2. Whereas the Central Government has reasons to believe that the aforesaid person has absconded or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed. 253G1/06-2

3.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs the aforesaid person to appear before the Commissioner ofPolice , Delhi within 7 days of the publication of this order in the Official Gazette.

[F. No. 673/ 21 /2005 -Cus -VIII ] N. M. KRISHNAN, Dy. Secy. ( COFEPOSA ) सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 542.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 5 फरवरी, 2005 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम और आंशिक आशोधन में तथा चलचित्रिकी ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 3 के साथ पठित चलचित्रिकी अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, डा. ( सुश्री) शांता पी. हलगी के स्थान पर श्रीमती अरणदती नाग और सुश्री भारती विष्णुवर्धन को तत्काल प्रभाव से और अगले आदेशों तक केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[.फा. सं. 809/12/2003- एफ ( सी ) ] विश्वजीत सहाय , निदेशक ( फिल्म ) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 17th January, 2006

S.O. 542. In continuation and in partial modification of this Ministry's Notification of even nunıber dated 5th February, 2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rule 3 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983. the Central Government is pleased to appoint Smt . Arundati Naag and Ms. Bharati Vishnuvardhan in place of Dr. ( Ms ) Shanta P. Halagi as members ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect and until further orders .

[F. No. 809/12/2003 -F (C) VISHVAJIT SAHAY, Director ( Films) संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय (दूरसंचार विभाग) (राजभाषाअनुभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 543.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 (4 ) के अनुसरण में संचार और सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय, दूरसंचार विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसमें 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

महाप्रबंधक ( दक्षिण ) महानगर टेलीफोन निगम लिमिटेड, मुम्बई-400005.

[फा. सं. ई -11016/1/2005 - रा.भा. ] हरीश चन्द्र जयाल, संयुक्त सचिव 1184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

1 2

9. 9/4( 1 )/80-111 13-10-1980 3299 29-11-1980 MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (Department of Telecommunications)

29-11-1980

10. 9/4( 1 )/80 - III 13-10-1980 3300

17-01-1981

11. 9/4 ( 1 ) /80 - III 20-12-1980 215

(Official Language Section) New Delhi , the 27th January, 2006

28-08-1981 2592

12. 2/8( 1 ) /81-1

03-10-1981

13. 2/8( 1 )/81-1 16-07-1982 3113 04-09-1982

14-09-1985

14. 2/9 ( 1 ) /83 - I(V) 29-07-1985 4280

02-01-1986 510 08-02-1986

15. 2/5( 1 )/85 - V

08-02-1986

16. 2/9 ( 1 )/83 - I (V) 02-01-1986 511

17-03-1986 1309 29-03-1986

17. 2/5( 1 )/86 - V

S.O. 543. In pursuance of rule 10 (4 ) of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the Union) , rules , 1976 ( as amended - 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following Office under the administrative control ofMinistry of Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications whereof more than 80 % of staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

18. 2/5 ( 2 ) /86 -V

3874

20-10-1986

15-11-1986

19. 2/5( 1 ) /90 - VI 01-01-1991 99

09-02-1991 General Manager (South ) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Mumbai -400005.

20. 2/5 ( 2 )/86 -V 15-11-1991 334

01-02-1991

(VI) ( वाल्यू.- III )

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

21-11-1992

21. 2/5( 1 )/91 - VI 23-10-1992 2891

अन्तरिक्ष विभाग

22. 2/5( 1 ) /95 -V 24-03-1995 1029 15-04-1995

23. 2/5 ( 1 )/91 -V 12-10-1995 2856 28-10-1995 बेंगलूर, 31 जनवरी , 2006

24. 2/5( 1 )/91 -- V 27-3-1996 1241 20-04-1996

23-12-1997 83

25. 2/5 ( 1 )/95 -V

10-01-1998

26. 2/5 ( 1 )/98 -V 30-06-2000 1763 05-08-2000 का. आ. 544.- राष्ट्रपति , संविधान के अनुच्छेद 309 के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, और आगे अन्तरिक्ष विभाग कर्मचारी ( वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण और अपील ) नियम, 1976 में संशोधन करने हेतु निम्नलिखित नियम बनाते हैं :-

27-12-2000 34

27. 2/5 ( 1 )/98 - V

13-01-2001

24-1-2001 254

28. 2/5( 1 )/98 -V

10-02-2001

18-03-2004 804

28-03-2004

29. 2/5 ( 1 )/98 -V

( 1 ) इन नियमों का संक्षिप्त नाम अन्तरिक्ष विभाग कर्मचारी ( वर्गीकरण , नियंत्रण और अपील ) संशोधन नियम , 2006 है ।

30. 4/5 ( 1 ) /2004 - V 22-06-2005

( 2) ये राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख को प्रवृत्त होंगे ।

DEPARTMENT OF SPACE Bangalore, the 31st January, 2006 2. अन्तरिक्ष विभाग कर्मचारी ( वर्गीकरण, नियंत्रण और अपील ) नियम 1976 के साथ संलग्न अनुसूची में , मुख्य नियंत्रण सुविधा (एम.सी.एफ. ) के तहत जहाँ कहीं प्रधान, कार्मिक व सामान्य प्रशासन पदनाम मौजूद है , इसके बदले प्रधान, कार्मिक व सामान्य प्रशासन/प्रधान, लेखा व आंतरिक वित्त सलाहकार प्रतिस्थापित किया जाए ।

[सं. 4/5/1/2004 - V ]

1 के. मायवन, अवर सचिव

S.O. 544. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution , the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Department of Space Employees ' ( Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules , 1976, namely: ---

( 1 ) These rules may be called the Department of Space Employees ' ( Classification, Control and Appcal ) Amendment Rules , 2006 .

टिप्पणी:- प्रधान नियम दिनांक 1-4-1976 को भारत के राजपत्र (असाधारण ) के भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) में सं.का. आ. 270(ई ) दि.: 1-4-1976 द्वारा प्रकाशित किया गया है और निम्नलिखित द्वारा संशोधन किया गया है :-

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

दिनांक

क्र. अधिसूचना सं.सं.

का. आ. सं.

1 2

1. 2/10( 32 ) /76-1 10-02-1977 780 12-03-1977

25-06-1977

2. 2/10( 32) /76-1 16-5-1977 2127

27-08-1977

3. 2/10( 27 ) /76-1

2709

01-08-1977

2. In the existing Schedule appended to the Department of Space Employees ' ( Classification , Control and Appeal ) Rules , 1976 , wherever the designation of Head , Personnel & General Administration exists under Master Control Facility ( MCF ) it shall be substituted by Head, Personnel & General Administration/Head . Accounts & IFA .

15-02-1978 585

25-02-1978

4. 2/7 ( 5 ) /77-1

[No. 4/5/ 1 /2004-VJ 1780

27-05-1978

5. 2/7( 5 ) /77-1

17-06-1978

K. MAYAVAN , Under Secy.

1178

6. 2/9 ( 12 )/74 - III

07-04-1979

16-03-1979

1684 21-06-1980

7. 9/4( 1 )/80 - III 26-05-1980

05-09-1980 2586 27-09-1980

8. 9/4 (1 )/80 - III

Note :-The Principal rules were published vide No. S.O. 270(E) dated 1-4-1976 in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary ) Part- II , Section -3 , Sub -Section ( ii) dated 1-4-1976 and have [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

been subsequently amended by

Date

Date Notification

Sl . No. No.

S.O. No.

780 12-03-1977 1. 2/10(32)/76-1 10-0 10-02-1977

25-06-1977

16-5-1977 2127

2/10(32 )/76-1

2709

01-08-1977

27-08-1977 3. 2/10(27)/ 76-1

15-02-1977 585 25-02-1978 4. 2/7 (5)/77-1 .

1780

27-05-1978

17-06-1978 5. 2/7 (5)/77-1

1178 07-04-1979 2/9( 120/74 - III 16-03-1979

26-05-1980

21-06-1980

1684

7. 9/4( I )/80 -III

2586

05-09-1980

27-09-1980 9/4( 1)/80 - Ш

13-10-1980 3299 29-11-1980 9/4( 1)/80 - III

13-10-1980

29-11-1980

3300

10. 9/4 (1 )/80- III

20-12-1980 215 17-01-1981 11. 9/4(1 )/80- III

28-08-1981 2592 03-10-1981 12. 2/8 (1 )/81-1

16-07-1982 3113 04-09-1982 13. 2/8 ( 1)/81-1

4280 14-09-1985

29-07-1985

14. 2/9 ( 1 )/83-1 (V)

02-01-1986 510 08-02-1986 15. 2/5 ( 1 )/85 -V

08-02-1986

02-01-1986 511

16. 2/9 ( 1 )/83-1 (V)

17-03-1986

29-03-1986

1309

17. 2/5 ( 1 )/86 -V

3874 15-11-1986

20-10-1986

18. 2/5 (2)/86-V

01-01-1991 99

09-02-1991 19. 2/5 ( 1 )/90-VI

01-02-1992

15-11-1991 334

20. 2/5 (2)/86-V (VI)

(Vol.III)

21-11-1992

2891

23-10-1992

21. 2/5 ( 1 )/91 -VI

24-03-1995 1029 15-04-1995 22. 2/5 ( 1 )/95 -V

2856 28-10-1995

12-10-1995

23. 2/5( 1)/91 -V

27-03-1996 1241 20-04-1996 24. 2/5 ( 1 )/91 -V

23-12-1997

10-01-1998

25. 2/5 ( 1 )/95 -V

30-06-2000 1763 05-08-2000 26. 2/5 (1 )/98 -V

27-12-2000 34

13-01-2001 27. 2/5 ( 1 )/98 -V

10-02-2001

24-1-2001 254

28. 2/5 ( 1 )/98 -V

28-3-2004

18-3-2004 804

29. 2/5(1 )/98-V

22-6-2005

30. 4/5/1 /2004- V

पोत परिवहन, सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय (पोत परिवहन विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 545.- केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 ( यथा संशोधित 1987 ) के नियम 10 के उप निगम 4 के अनुसरण में पोत- परिवहन, सड़क परिवहन और राजमार्ग- मंत्रालय , पोत परिवहन विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण केअधीन निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारियों द्वारा हिन्दीका कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लेने पर उसे एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:-

समुद्री वाणिज्यविभाग , प्रतिष्ठा भवन , 101 , महर्षि कर्वे रोड, मुम्बई -400020

[फा. सं. ई-11011/1/2000- हिन्दी]

अजय कुमार भल्ला, संयुक्त सचिव

1185 MINISTRY OF SHIPPING , ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS

(Department of Shipping) New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2006 S.O. 545. In pursuance of the sub rule ( 4 ) of the rule 10 ofthe Official Language (use for the official purpose oftheUnion) Rules , 1976 ( as amended 1987) , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under the administrative control of the Ministry of Shipping , Road Transport andHighways , Department of Shipping , more than 80% of the staff of which have acquired working knowledge of Hindi :-

MercantileMarine Department , Pratishtha Bhavan , 101 , M.K. Road, Mumbai -400020

[F.No. E- 11011 /1/2000 -Hindi ]

A. K. BHALLA , Jt . Secy.

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 546.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम (4 ) केअनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय के अधीन भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित शाखा कार्यालय , जिसके 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है:-

भारतीय मानकब्यूरो , विशाखापत्तनम शाखा कार्यालय , सी ब्लाक ( पहली मंजिल ) ,

उद्योग भवन, वी.यू.डी.ए. काम्पलैक्स,

सीरीपुरम, विशाखापत्तनम-530003

[सं. ई-11012/3/ 2005- हिंदी ]

पॉल जोसफ, आर्थिक सलाहकार MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs) New Delhi , the 31st January, 2006

S.O. 546. In pursuance of the sub - rule ( 4 ) of the Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for the Official Purpose ofthe Union ) Rules , 1976 the Central Govemment hereby notifiesthe following Branch Office of the Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution where more than 80% of the staff we acquired working knowledge of Hindi:-

Bureau of Indian Standards Vishakhapattnam Branch Office , C-Block (First Floor ) , Udyog Bhavan , VUDA Complex, Siripuram , Vishakhapattnam-530003

[F.No. E - 11012/3/2005 -Hindi ] PAUL JOSEPH, Есзлотіс Adviser 1186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 6 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 547.- 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 कैल- वन स्केल्स, 16-48 सी, प्रशान्त नगर, लिटल फ्लावर जूनियर कालेज के पीछे , उप्पल , हैदराबाद -500039 द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सी ई - प्लेटफार्म " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कैल वन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05 /939 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

1 उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 75 कि.ग्रा. औरन्यूनतम क्षमता 250 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए 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 मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 300 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

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

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1187

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 6th January, 2006

S.O. 547. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by 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 (Plateform type) with digital indication of " CE - Platform " 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 , 16-48 C, Prasant Nagar, behind Little Flower Junior College , Uppal , Hyderabad- 500039 , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05 /939 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 75 kg . and minimum capacity of 250 g . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 5 g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent 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, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 Kg . and upto 300 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 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 1188

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 548.-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 सिओक स्केल्स इंडस्ट्रीज, 34 श्रीनाथ दावार सोसाइटी, सीता नगर के सामने, पुनागाम, सूरत , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एसई जे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सिको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/ 779 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 टाप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 12 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन 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 ।

SEOK

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 किउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पंत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं । के

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 30 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1189

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 16th January, 2006

S.O. 548. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non- automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type ) with digital indication of high accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) and brand " SEIKO " and series " SEJ " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s , Seok Scale Industries , 34, Shreenath Dawar Society, Opp . Sita Nagar, Punagam , Surat, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 / 05/779;

The said Model ( see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 12 kg and minimum capacity of 50 g. The verification scale interval ( e ) is 1 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 instruments 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 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 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 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of Ix10k , 2 × 10kor 5 × 10k , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM -21 (30 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 16 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 549.- 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 सिओक स्केल्स इंडस्ट्रीज, 34, श्रीनाथ दावार सोसाइटी, सीता नगर के सामने , पुनागाम, सूरत , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " सिऔप " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सिको " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2005 /780 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 300 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 20 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 पर कार्य करता है ।

SEOK

स्टाम्पिम 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 किउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का निर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन 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. से अधिक और 10,000 तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 30 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1191 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

New Delhi , the 16th January, 2006

S.O. 549. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type ) with digital indication of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and brand name "SEIKO" and series " SEOP " ( herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Seok Scale Industries, 34, Shreenath Dawar Society, Opp. Sita Nagar, Punagam, Surat , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/05/780;

The said Model (See the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 300 kg . and minimum capacity of 1 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 20 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instruments operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM- 21 (30)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 253 G1/06-3 1192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 550.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण- पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स कीर्ति ट्रेडर्स , गणपति टावर, कनडिओ बाजार, जोधपुर , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले, " के- टी जे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " के- डी आई जी आई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05 / 581 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

KDICI

1- उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित 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 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 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 " के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मान ( एन ) अंतराल सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 210 * या 5 × 10 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं । के

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 70 ) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1193

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माय 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 550.- 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 " KTJ " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy Class - 11 ) and with brand name " K- DIGI " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) . manufactured by M/ s . Kirti Traders . Ganpati Tower, Kandio Bazar, Jodhpur , Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/587:

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 2 g. 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, 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 upe 50 kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50 mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10% , 2 × 10 ог 5× 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacerer it accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM -21 ( 70)/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY. Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

1194

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 551.-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 एवेक्सडिजीटल स्केल्स, केबिन-5 , न्यूमानेक चौक मिल के निकट, ईदगाह रोड, प्रेम दरवाजा के बाहर, अहमदाबाद द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एवेक्स डिजीटल स्केल्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एवेक्स डिजीटलं स्केल्स " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05/518 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

1- उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 22 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलमात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट, 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 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 कीरेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई" मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 73 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1195 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत काराजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22; 1927

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 551. 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 " Avex Digital Scales " series of high accuracy (Accuracy Class - II) and with brand name " Avex Digital Scales" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , Manufacturedby M/ s . Avex Digital Scales , Cabin-5 , Near New Manekchowk Mill , Idgah Road , Outside Premdarwaja , Ahmedabad and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/05/618;

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

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

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

[F. No. WM-21 ( 73)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 552.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत्त 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 एवेक्सडिजीटल स्केल्स , केबिन-5, न्यूमानेक चौक मिल के निकट, ईदगाह रोड, प्रेम दरवाजा के बाहर , अहमदाबाद द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एवेक्स डिजीटल स्केल्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एवेक्स डिजीटल स्केल्स " है ( जिसे उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05 /619 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 ) 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 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 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 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्यके समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (73 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1197 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 552. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections (7 ) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model non -automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of " Avex Digital Scales" series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " Avex Digital Scales" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ sAvex Digital Scales , Cabin -5, Near New Manekchowk Mill , Idgah Road, Outside Premdarwaja, Ahmedabad Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09/05 /619 ;

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 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100 g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent 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, sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

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

[F. No. WM- 21 (73 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1198

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 553.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाण - पत्र के साथ 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 एश्यूर सिस्टम्स, 16-5, मथुरा रोड, फरीदाबाद -121002 हरियाणा द्वारा विनिर्मित " ए एस -100 " श्रृंखला के स्वचालित भरण उपकरण के मॉडल का, जिसके बांड का नाम " एश्यूर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 05/ 624 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित गुरुत्वमापी भरण उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 50 कि.ग्रा. है। इसकी अधिकतम भरण दर 400 थले/घंटा है । मशीन का डिजाइन मुक्त प्रवाह उत्पाद जैसे चाय , चीनी, चावल, बीज , दालें और अनाज आदि भरने के लिए हैं ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की 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 भरण मशीन भी होंगे जिनकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. से 100 कि.ग्रा. की रेंज में है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 114) /2004 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1199 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माघ 22 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 553.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act,. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of automatic gravimetric filling instrument of " AS - 100 " series with brand name " ASSURE" (herein referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s Assure Systems , 16/5 , Mathura Road, Faridabad- 121002 , Haryana and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/624;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic gravimetric filling instrument . Its maximum capacity is 50 kg. It has a maximum fill rate of 400 bags per hour. The machine is designed for filling free flowing products like tea, sugar, rice, seeds , pulses , grains etc.

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 ( 114)/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 253 G1 /06-4 1200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 554.-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 अक्षर डिगी स्केल , जी-1/207 , रीको इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, कालादवास, आई आई डी सेन्टर, जामेर कोटरा रोड, उदयपुर-313001 राजस्थान द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " ए डी एस टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एडीएस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/ 892 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित 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 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 ।

स्टांपिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा ।

2 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 सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अमुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 5,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10* या 5 × 10 के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 236 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1201

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 554. 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 " ADS " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class- II ) and with brand name " ADS" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Akshar Digi Scale , G-1/207, RIICO Ind. Area, Kaladwas , I.I.D. Centre, Zamer Kotra Road, Udaipur-313 001 , Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 05/892;

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 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 50Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

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

[ F. No. WM-21 (236)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 555.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स अक्षर डिगी स्केल , जी-1/207 , रीको इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया, कालादवास , आई आई डी सेन्टर, जामेर कोटरा रोड, उदयपुर-313001 राजस्थान द्वारा निर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एडी एस पी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एडीएस" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/893 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 550 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2.5 कि. ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत 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 ।

स्टांपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा। और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, 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 1000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10%, 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्यहै ।

[फा. सं . डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 236 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1203 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 555. 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 " ADSP " series of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - 11 ) and with brand name " ADS" ( herein after referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Akshar Digi Scale , G-1/207, RICO Ind. Area, Kaladwas , I.I.D. Centre , Zamer Kotra Road, Udaipur -313001 , Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /05/893 ;

The said model (see the figure given below) is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 550kg and minimum capacity of 2.5kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

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

[ F. No. WM- 21 ( 236 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )] 1204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नईदिल्ली, 18 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 556.- 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 विनायक इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स, 4 , एन टी मिल कम्पाउंड, जी वी बी पार्टी प्लाट के सामने, विष्णु पैट्रोल पम्प के सामने, सी टी एम , अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " बी आई एस- टी टी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " विजन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05 /738 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) विकृत गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित अस्वचालित 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 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मैक 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 ।

स्टांपिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल 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 मान सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 279 ) /2004 ]

पी.ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1205 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 556. 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 " VIS- TT" series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - 111 ) and with brand name " VISION" (herein referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/s . Vinayak Instruments , 4, N.T. Mill Compound, Opp. Jiviba party plot, Opp . Vishnu Petrol Pump , CTM , Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /05 / 738;

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 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply;

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg to 2g. or with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10% , 2 × 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 approvca Model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM -21 (279 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 557.-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 डेल्टा इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स, कंपनी , ए -411 , लेन रोड नं. 28 वागले इस्टेट, थाने -400604 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा निर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " डी ए" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डेल्टा " है ( जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 2005 / 156 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

9 47120

5 उक्तमॉडल एक विद्युत चुम्बक बल प्रतिपूर्ति सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1200 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 10 मि.ग्रा . है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए मशीन को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबन्द भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की 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 सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50000 से अधिक तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 318 )/2004 ]

पी.ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1207

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 557. 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 " DA" series of special accuracy (Accuracy class - I ) and with brand name "DELTA " (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Delta Instrument Company, A- 411 , Lane -4 , Road No. 28 , Wagle Estate , Thane -400 604 , Maharastra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/156;

4.7.120

The said model is a electromagnetic force compensation principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with a maximum capacity 1200g and minimum capacity of Img . The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tarc 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 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 above 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg. 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 ( 318 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 253 G1 /06-5 1208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22. 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 558. 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, मैमर्स डेल्टा इन्स्ट्रूमेंट कंपनी , ए-411 , लेन रोड नं. 28 , वागले इस्टेट , थाने-400 604 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा निर्मित उच्च्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -11 ) वाले " डी बी" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोल्न उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डेल्स " है ( इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन विह अपनी/ 09 / 20 /157 मभनुदेशिन किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

94964

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अंकक सूचन सहित भार सेल सिद्धांत पर कार्य करने वाला ( टेबलटॉप प्रका का) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 350 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 मिगा. है । सत्यपान मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 10 मि. ग्रा . है । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलात्भक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को मुद्रांकित करने के अतिरिक्त कपटी को खोलने से रोकने के लिए सीलबंद भी किया जाएगा । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धान्त, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिसरी अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्मित किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही ऐक्त यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि. ग्राम से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 में 50,000 तक के रेंज में तापमान अंग ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्राम या उससे अधिकः के " ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की जयापमानतराल ( न) महित 50 कि.ग्रा. तब की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान १ × 10 के 210 के या 310 के, के हैं. जो धनाभऊ या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 318) /200

पी ए कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1209

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th January , 2006

S.O. 558. 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 " DB " scries of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) and with brand name " DELTA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Delta Instrument Company, A-411 , Lane -4 , Road No. 28, Wagle Estate , Thane - 400 604 Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /2005/ 157 ;

9 4964

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 350g and minimum capacity of 200mg . The value 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 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 50kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img . to 50mg . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100 mg or more and with ' e ' value of 110k , 2 × 10 %, or 5 × 10 * where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principles, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (318 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) )

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी, 2006

का. आ. 559.-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 (माडलों 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 डेल्टा इंस्ट्रूमेंट् कंपनी, ए-411 , लेन रोड नं. 28 , वागले इस्टेट, थाने-400604 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा निर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " डी एल" श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डेल्टा " है (जिसे इसमें उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09 /2005/ 158 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का) दोहरी रेंज वाला तोलन उपकरण हैं । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यपान मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) का मान 200 ग्रा. हैं । इसमें एक आद्येयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आद्येयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल संप्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 318 ) /2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1211 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 559.-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 " DL " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " DELTA" (herein referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Delta Instrument Company , A -411 , lane -4 , Road No. 28 , Wagle Estate , Thane- 400 604 Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 2005 / 158;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) of dual range with a maximum capacity 1000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 200g . up . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instruments operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply;

In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent from 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 upto 5000kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k , or 5 × 10* , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM -21 ( 318)/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 560 ... केन्द्रीय सरकार का, दिहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा जारी अनुमोदित प्रमाणपत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातारं 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 मैटलर टोलीडो इण्डिया प्रा. लि. अमर हिल्स, साको विहार रोड, पोवई, मुंबई -400072 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " रीटेल किंग एस डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन प्रकार अस्वचालित दोहरे रेज के ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मेटलर टोलीडो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09 / 05 / 655 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

D.une

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गैज प्रकार का लोड सेल आधारित तोंलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्राम है । सत्यपान मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) का मान 1 ग्रा. से 10 कि.ग्रा. और 10 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक 2 ग्रा. और 20 कि.ग्रा. तक 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 ।

जाएगा । स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के मुद्रांकन 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 प्रमाणपत्र 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. ग्राम से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक ' ई ' मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के" ई " मान के लिए 5,000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान ( एन ) अंतराल संहित 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 ( 38 ) /2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1213 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2006

S.O. 560. 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 ( sce the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over period of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act. the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non automatic dual range weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication belonging to high accuracy Acairacy class -11 ) of 'Retail King SW' series with brand name Mettler Toledo " ( herein referred to as the said neede ) , mat ulactured by M/s. Mettler Toledo India Private Limited , Amar Hills , Saki Vihar Road , Mumbai 400072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/05/655 ;

10-002

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) . Its maximum capacity is 20kg and minimum capacity 50g . The value of verification scal interval ( e) is 1g up to 10kg and 2g above 10kg and up to 20kg . It has a fare device with a 100 percent subtractive retinete effect . The Light Emınitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts . 50Hertz 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 ) ol 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 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 ' valuc of 100mg or more and with e value of 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 , or 5 ×10%. where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which the coid approved model has been manufactured .

[T. No. WM--21 ( 38 )/2005 ]

A. KRUŠIN MUORED Dentot Legal Metrology 1214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

नईदिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ.561 .-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा फिसीकलेश टेक्नीस्के बेंडेसेंरटालट ( पी टी बी ), जर्मनी द्वारा अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र 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 तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स मैटलर टोलिडो गम्बएच, आईएम लांगयेर 8606 ग्रीफेन्सी स्विटजरलैंड द्वारा विनिर्मित और भारत में मैटलर टोलडो इण्डिया प्रा ० लि० अमर हिल्स , एस वी रोड़ पोवई मुंबई -400072 द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के ब्रिकी किए गए विशेष यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग I ) वाले " एक्स पी एंड एक्स एस" श्रृंखला के अकंक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित , इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मेटलर टोलडो " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एर्न डी/ 13 /05/ 554 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

0.0000g

उक्त मॉडल एक यांत्रिक और मापने वाले सैल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टोप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण हैं । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1210 ग्रा. , ई= 1 ग्रा,या 210 ग्रा. , ई = 1 मि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान ≤ 410000 के लिए ई≥ 1 मि.ग्रा. इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्याकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्राभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट, 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 82 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1215

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2006

S.O. 561. 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 (PTB) , Germany 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 ofWeights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by 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 ofapproval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of special accuracy class (Accuracy class - 1 ) and of series ' XP and XS'with brand name ' Mettler & Toledo ' and manufactured by M/sMettler-Toledo GmbH, Im Langacher , 8606 Grefensee , Switzerland and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s Mettler- Toledo India Private Limited, Amar Hills , S. V. Road, Powai , Mumbai -400 072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 13/05/554 .

The said model is an electronic and measuring cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type) with maximum capacity of 12 10g . e= lg . or 210g . with e = lmg . Number of verification scale interval < 410,000 for e > Img . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50Hertz 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 .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 82 )/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 253 G1/06-6 1216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

: [PART II SEC. 3(ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 562. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा फिसीकलेश टेक्नीस्के बेंडेसेरटालट ( पी टी बी ) , जर्मनी द्वारा अनुमोदन 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 औरमाप 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 तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स मैटलर टोलिडो गम्बएच, आईएम लांगयेर, 8606 ग्रीफेंन्सी, स्विटजरलैंड द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैटलर टोलडो इण्डिया प्रा ० लि० , अमर हिल्स, एस. वी. रोड, पोवई, मुंबई-400 072 द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के ब्रिकी किए गए विशेष यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले एक्स पी एंड एक्स " एस " श्रृंखला के अकंक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित , इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मेटलर टोलडो " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिन्ह आई एन डी/09/05/554A समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी और पक्काणिती

उक्त मॉडल एक यांत्रिक और मापने वाले सैल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार का) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता < 210 ग्रा. से अधिक ई = 10 मि.ग्रा. d ≤ सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल का मान≤ 51000 के लिए ई 1 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

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

[फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 (82)/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1217

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/भाष 22 , 1927

[ भाग II- खष्ठ 3( ii) ]

NewDelhi, the23rd January, 2006

5.0. 562. 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 (PTB) , Germany 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 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 ofapproval of the Model of the non-automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of special accuracy class (Accuracy class- 1) and of series 'XP and XS'with brand name ' Mettler & Toledo ' and manufactured byM/s . Mettler Toledo GmbH, Im Langacher, 8606 Grefensee , Switzerland and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s. Mettler-Toledo India Private Limited, Amar Hills, S. V. Road, Powai , Mumbai -400 072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/05/554A;

The said Model is an electronic and measuring cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table Top type ) with maximum capacity ≤ 210g, e = 10mg . with number of verification scale interval n510,000 for e Img. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) 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 .

[F. No. WM-21 ( 82)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1218

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 23 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 563.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा फिसीकलेश टेक्नीस्के बेंडेसेंरटालट ( पी टी बी ) , जर्मनी, द्वारा अनुमोदन 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 तीसरे परन्तुक और धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स मैटलर टोलिडो गम्बएच, आईएम लांगयेर 8606 ग्रीफेन्सी स्विटजरलैण्ड द्वारा निर्मित और भारत में मैटलर टोलडो इण्डिया प्रा.लि. अमर हिल्स, एस. बी. रोड पोवई मुंबई -400072 द्वारा बिना किसी परिवर्तन और परिवर्धन के बिक्री किए गए उच्च यथार्थता वर्ग ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एक्स पी एंड एक्स एस" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित , इलैक्ट्रानिक तोलन उपकरण (टेबल टॉप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मैटलर टोलडो " है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 /05 /555 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक यांत्रिक और मापने वाले सैल आधारित अस्वचालित ( टेबल टॉप प्रकार के ) तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 210 ग्रा. , ई = 10 मि. ग्रा. या 12100 ग्रा. , ई = 1 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल का मान ≤ 510,000 के लिए ई 10 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । द्रव क्रिस्टल प्रदर्श ( एल सी 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 ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 82 )/2005 ]

पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1219 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

New Delhi , the 23rd January, 2006

S.O. 563. 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 (PTB) , Germany 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 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 ofapproval of the Model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of high accuracy class (Accuracy Class - II ) and of series ' XP & XS ' with brand name ' Mettler- Toledo ' and manufactured by M/s. Mettler-Toledo GmbH, Im Langacher , 8606 Grefensee , Switzerland and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/ s . Mettler - Toledo India Private Limited, Amar Hills , S. V. Road, Powai , Mumbai -400072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /2005/555 ;

The saidModel is an electronic and measuring cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with maximum capacity of 210g. e = 10mg. or maximum capacity 12100g . e = 1g. in respect of verification scale interval n ≤ 510,000 for e≥ 10mg . 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, 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 .

[F. No. WM-21 (82)/2005 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 564.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्रांधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स स्वास्तिक इण्डस्ट्रीज , एंडूज कम्पाउंड, जेनिता ओटो वर्क्स के पास , नवा पाडा रोड, मारोल नाका, अंधेरी ( ईस्ट ) मुंबई -400059 द्वारा विनिर्मित प्राविंग तोलन के माडल का, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " स्वास्तिक" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 2004/ 290 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल बेलनाकार ढांचा शंकुकार सिरे में वेल्ड किया है, प्रोविंग तोलन है जो टंकी में पानी डालते समय द्रवों में निस्प्रवाह को सुनिश्चित करता है । बर्तन का ढांचा नस्म इस्पात से बना है और पृष्ठ ईपोस्की कोट से लाइन किया गया है । व्यासमापन उपाय पूर्णतः वेल्ड निर्माण है, तल शंकु को लगाने के लिए टंकी के अप्रवाहिका प्रचालन में सहायता के लिए एक आउटलेट अप्रवाहिका वाल्व है । ऊपरी शंकु " शंकुकार " गर्दन सहित लगा है , चूल पर ऊपरी कवर टंकी में गंदगी के प्रवेश को रोकने के लिए लगा है । ऊपरी गर्दन गेज कांच सहित है जो द्रव के स्तर को निर्दिष्ट करता है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2000 लिटर है ।

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 प्रोविंग तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 39 )/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1221 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

New Delhi , the 30th January, 2006

S.O. 564. 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 Proving Measure (herein referred to as the model) with brand name " SWASTICK " , manufactured by M/ s Swastik Industries , Andrews Compound, near Zenita Auto Works , Navapada Road, Marol Naka , Andheri (East ) , Mumbai - 400 059 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2004/290;

The model is a Proving Measure , consists of a cylindrical body welded between conical ends , which ensure free flow of liquids while draining the tank. The body of the vessel is made of mild steel and internal surface lined with epoxy coating . Calibrating measures is of fully- welded construction ; fitted to the bottom cone is an outlet drain valve to assist in draining operation of the tank. The top cone is fitted with a neck having a conical , hinged top cover to prevent ingress of dirt in the tank. Top neck is provided with the gauge glass which indicate the level of the liquid. Its maximum capacity is 2000 litre .

[F. No. WM - 21 (39)/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 565.-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 कीं उप- धारा ( 7 ) और ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स आन वे इनस्ट्रूमेंटस , 7-76, चौथी माइल , नावलक गार्डन, नैलूर, आंध्रप्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ओ डब्ल्यू- टी बी" श्रृंखला के दोहरी रेंज अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टोप प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आन वे" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/ 292 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृति गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित दोहरी रेंज का ( टेबलटाप प्रकार का) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 12 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 20 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 6 कि. ग्रा. तक के लिए 1 ग्राम और 6 किलो ग्राम से अधिक और 12 किलोग्राम तक के लिए 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 को सील करने के अतिरिक्त मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए भी सीलबंद किया जाएगा ।

4 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 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक" ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के 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 है और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के या 5 × 10 * , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (329)/2004 ] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1223

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 30th January, 2006

S.O. 565. 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) of duel range with digital indication of "OW - TB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracy class- III ) and with brand name " ON - WEIGH" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s On - Weigh Instruments , 7-76 , 4th Mile , Navalk Gardens , Nellore , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/292;

The said model is strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) of dual range with a maximum capacity of 12kg and minimum capacity of 20g . The verification scale interval (e) is 1g up to 6 kg and 2g above 6kg and up to 12 kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect .The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. In addition to sealing the stamping plate , sealing shall also be done to prevent the opening of the machine for fraudulent practices.

And 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 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 principles , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-21 (329 )/2004 ]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 253 G1/06-7 1224

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 30 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 566.- 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 उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स आम वे इमस्ट्रूमेंटस , 7-76, चौथी माइल, नावलक गार्डन, नैलूर, आंध्रप्रदेश द्वारा विर्निमित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ओ डब्ल्यू- पी बी" श्रृंखला के दोहरी रेंज का अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित, तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के माडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आम वे " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/05/293 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सैल आधारित दोहरी रेंज का ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार का ) अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 600 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 300 कि. ग्रा. तक के लिए 100 ग्राम और 300 किलो ग्राम से अधिक और 600 किलोग्राम तक के लिए 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को 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 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " माम के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 1000 किलोग्राम शक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले है और " ई" मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * या 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 329 ) /2004] पी. ए. कृष्णामूर्ति, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1225 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

New Delhi, the 30th January, 2006.

S.O. 566 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) of duel range with digital indication of " OW- PB " series of medium accuracy (Accuracyclass- II) and with brand name "ON- WEIGH " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s On-Weigh Instruments , 7-76, 4th Mile , Navalk Gardens , Nellore , Andhra Pradesh and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/2005/293;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) of dual range with a maximum capacity of 600kg and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 100g upto 300kg and 200g . above 300kg and up to 600kg . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

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

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

[F. No. WM -21 (329 )/2004]

P. A. KRISHNAMOORTHY, Director of Legal Metrology 1226

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22, 1927

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

जयपुर, 24 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 567.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उप नियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से समाप्त कर दिया गया है:-

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द/स्थगित करने कीतिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस सं. (सीएम/एल)

455

10-08-2005

01 8375790

मै. अंकित सीमेंट कं. कोटपुतली

31-08-2005

13487

02 8505373

मै. राजस्थान इंजीनियर्स एंड कंस्ट्र. धोलपुर

2645

01-08-2005

03 8550883

मै. स्लिन वाटर प्रूफ, धोलपुर

[सं. सीएमडी-1/13:13 ]

एस. एम. भाटिया , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) (BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS)

Jaipur, the 24th January, 2006

S.O. 567. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) of regulation (5 ) of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation, 1988 , it is hereby notified that the Certification Marks Licences , details of which are mentioned in the following schedules , have expired.

SCHEDULE

Name of the Licensee

Sl . No.

Dateof Expiry

Number of the relevant Indian Standard

Licence No. (CM/L)

10-08-2005

IS: 455

1. 8375790

M/ s Ankit Cements Co. , Kotputli

31-08-2005

IS: 13487

2. 8505373

M/ sRajasthan Engineers & Cont. , Dholpur

01-08-2005

IS: 2645

3. 8550883

M/ s Sleen Water Proof, Dholpur

[No. CMD - 1 / 13 : 13 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 568.- 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

सं. क्रम

वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

आईएस 3074: 1979

30सितम्बर, 2005 1 आईएस 3074: 2005 मोटर वाहन हेतु इस्पात नलिकाएं-विशिष्ट ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[सं. एमटीडी 19/टी-7 ]

एस. के. गुप्ता, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी) 1227

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 25th January, 2006

1 S.O. 568.-In pursuanceursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1) of Rules ( 1) 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. & year of the Indian Standards Established

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

IS 3074 : 1979

30 September, 2005 IS 3074 : 2005 Steel Tubes for Automotive Purposes- Specification(Second Revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan , 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. MTD 19/T -7]

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

नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 569.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो उत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :-

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या सं. वर्ष और शीर्षक

01जनवरी, 2006

17 जनवरी , 2006 1. 7809 (भाग-1 ): 1975, विद्युत प्रयोजनों के लिए दाब संवेदी आसंजक टेप : भाग 1 सामान्य अपेक्षाएं

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

[सं.: ईटी 02/टी-30 ]

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

New Delhi , the 30th January, 2006

S.O. 569. 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 amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued :-

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. & Year of the

Amendment

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the Amendment shall have effect

01 January, 2006

17 January, 2006 1 IS 7809 (Part 1) : 1975 , Pressure sensitive adhesive tapes for electrical purposes : Part 1 General requirements 1228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] Copy of this Amendment is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhawan , 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. ET 02/T- 30 ]

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

जयपुर, 31 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 570.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

अनुसूची भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम सं.

स्वीकृत करनेकी तिथि

लाइसेंस सं./ तिथि/वर्ष/माह

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

04-08-2005

01. 8661993

मै. सुरभि सीमेंट प्रा.लि., जी 100-102, 114-115 , रीको औ. क्षेत्र, रतनगढ़

04-08-2005

8661791

02.

भामा भाग अनु वर्ष

(6) (7) (5)

8112

1989 43ग्रेड ओपीसी

398(पी 2) 1996 एसीएसआर

मै. मल्टी मेटल्स लि. ,

हेवी औ. क्षेत्र, कोटा

04-08-2005

03. 8661892

1990

694

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल

मै. गौतम इंडस्ट्रीज,

जी27, रीको औ .क्षेत्र,

नोखा

09-08-2005

04. 8662288

मै. श्री बालाजी इंड. , जी 37 , रीको औ.क्षेत्र, नोखा

11-08-2005

05. 8662591

मै. एच पी एम इंड. लि. , 209, एमआईए औ. , अलवर

11-08-2005

06. 8662995

मै. जेडी इंड. इंडिया लि. , एसपी288-298 , रीको औ. क्षेत्र, भिवाडी

16-08-2005

07. 8663189

मै. स्वास्तिक प्लाईबोर्ड लि. एसपी 106, रीको औ. क्षेत्र, बस्सी, जयपुर

23-08-2005

08. 8662845

मै. हाईटेक इंड. , एफ 441 रोड नं. 13, वि औ. क्षेत्र, जयपुर

26-08-2005

09. 8665092

मै. आर के इंड. , एच 219 डी, सरना डुंगर रीको औ. क्षेत्र, जयपुर

694

19,90 पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल

1980

9356

बुलाक्लोर 50 % ईसी

1998

1161

स्टीलट्यूब

1976

710

मेरिन प्लाईबोर्ड

2004

814

वेल्डिंगइलैक्ट्रॉड

303

1989 प्लाईवुड फार जनरल परपज

[सं. सीएमडी-1/13 : 11 ] एस. एम. भाटिया, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1229

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

Jaipur, the 31st January, 2006

S.O. 570.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification Regulation, 1988) the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby no which are given in the following schedules . notifies the grant of licence particulars of

SCHEDULE

Operative Date Name and Address of the Licensee

Sl. Licence No. No. (CM/L)

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

2005-08-04

01. 8661993

2005-08-04

02. 8661791

Article/Process covered by the licences and the relevant IS: Designation

(5)

43Grade OPC IS: 8112-1989

M/ s. Surabhi Cement Pvt . Ltd. , G-100 to 102, 114, 115, RIICO Industrial Area, Ratangarh .

ACSR

IS 398(Pt . 2) : 1996

M/s.Multimetal Ltd. ,

Heavy Industrial Area,

Kota(Raj .)

03. 8661892

2005-08-04 M/s. Gautam Industries , G-27, RIICO Industrial Area, Nokha-334803 (Raj . )

2005-08-09

04. 8662288

M/s . Shri Balaji Industries , G-31 , RIICO Industrial Area, Nokha-334803 (Raj .)

05. 8662591

2005-08-11 M/ s. HPM Industries Ltd. , 209, MIA Industrial Area, Alwar-301030 (Raj .)

06. 8662995

2005-08-11

2005-08-16

07. 8663189

08. 8662845

2005-08-23 M/s. Hi -Tech Industries , F-441 , Road No. 13 , V.K.I. Area, Jaipur-302013

2005-08-26

09. 8665092

M/ s. R.K. Industries , H-219 D, Sarna Dungar, RIICO Industrial Area, Jaipur.

PVC Insulated Cable IS: 694-1990

PVC Insulated Cable IS : 694-1990

Butachlor 50% EC IS: 9356-1980

Steel Tube IS: 1161-1998

M/s. J.D. Industries (India) Ltd. , SP-288-298 , RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi -301019 (Raj .)

Marine Plyboard IS: 710 : 1976

M/s. Swastik Plyboard Ltd. , SP- 106 , RICO Industrial Area , Bassi -303301 , Jaipur (Raj .)

Welding Electrodes IS:814-2004

Plywood for General Purpose IS 303 : 1989

[No. CMD - 1/13 : 11 ] S.M. BHATIA , Dy. Director General (Marks)

जयपुर, 31 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 571- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उप नियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण' वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :-

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम लाइसेंस सं. सं. सीएल/एल-

01.8568195

मै ० संजय विला प्रा.लि. , भिवाडी 02.8568296

मै० योगेश पाईप इण्ड , जयपुर 03.8619994

मैं ० कुबेर सीमेंट प्रा.लि. , रतनगढ़ अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अन्तर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

09-08-2005 एसी प्रेशर पाईप्स 1592

09-08-2005- एसी प्रेशर पाईप्स 1592

26-08-2005 43 ग्रेड ओपीसी 8112

[सं. सीएमडी-1/13 : 13 ]

एस.एम. भाटिया , उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 1230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii )]

Jaipur, the 31st January, 2006

S.O. 571. In pursuance of sub- regulation ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulation , 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licence (s ) particulars of which is/are given below has /have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated :

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Licensee

Sl. Licence No. No. (CM/L-)

1. 8568195

M/s . Sanjay Villa Pvt . Ltd. , Bhiwadi 2. 8568296

M/s . Yogesh Pipe Industries , Jaipur

3. 8619994

M/s. Kuber Cement Pvt . Ltd. , Ratangarh.

Date of Cancellation Article/ Process with relevant Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled

09-08-2005 Ac Pressure Pipe IS : 1592

08-08-2005 Ac Pressure Pipe IS : 1592

26-08-2005 43Grade OPC IS : 8112

[No. CMD - 1 / 13 : 13 ] S. M. BHATIA , Dy. Director General (Marks )

नई दिल्ली, 2 फरवरी, 2006

का.आ. 572.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक(कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

3 दिसम्बर, 2005

आई एस 2692 : 1989

27 जनवरी, 2006

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

[सं. सीईडी/राजपत्र ] जे. सी. अरोड़ा, वैज्ञानिक " ई " व प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी )

New Delhi , the 2nd February, 2006

S.O. 572. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Sl. No.

IS 2692 : 1989

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

27 January, 2006

3 December , 2005

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

[No. CED/Gazette ] J.C. ARORA , Sc . ' E' & Head ( Civil Engg. ) 1231 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 573.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक( को ) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

1 फरवरी, 2006

संशोधन सं. 1 , दिसम्बर, 2005

आई एस 3832 : 2005 हस्तचालित चेन पुली ब्लॉक-विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

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

[सं. एमईडी/जी-2 : 1 ]

सी. के. वेदा , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2006

S.O. 573. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

SI. No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

1 . IS 3832 : 2005 Hand operated Amendment No. 1 , December, 2005

1 February, 2006 Chain pulley block-Specifica- tion (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 - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[No. MED/G - 2 : 1 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2006

) के अनुसरण में भारतीय का.आ. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख 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 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)

आई एस 3832 : 1986

1 फरवरी, 2006 1. आई एस 3832: 2005 हस्तचालित चैन पुली ब्लॉक-विशिष्टि

(तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

हस्तचालित चैन पुली ब्लॉक-विशिष्टि

(दूसरा पुनरीक्षण)

1232

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

(4)

(1)

(3)

(2)

1 दिसम्बर , 2005

2. आई एस 15104 ( भाग 5 ) : 2005/ आई एस ओ 8442-5 : 2004 खाद्य

संपर्क आने वाली सामग्री

उरी कार और देवल

फटलरी की धार

भराबर रखने

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

[ सं. एमईडी/जी-2: 1 : 1 ]

सी.के. वेदा, वैज्ञानिक 'एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2006

0574 - In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, them of indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule i cie annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl . No. No. & Ycar of the Indian Standards Established

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

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

1 February, 2006

1. IS 3832 : 2005 Hand - operated chain pulley block- Specification (Third Revision)

IS 3832 : 1986 Hand -operated chain pulley block- Specification ( Second Revision )

2. IS 15104 ( Part 5) : 2005/ISO

1 December , 2005 8442-5 2004 Materials and

articles in contact with

Concutlery and table

Part 5 boil

Specification for sharpness and edge retention test of cutlery

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

[No. MED/G- 2 : 1 : 1 ]

C. K. VEDA, Sc . ' F ' & Head ( Mechanical Engincering) 1233 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 575.- 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)

क्रम संख्या की संख्या, वर्ष और शीर्षक

नवम्बर 2005

कुछ नहीं

1. आई एस 14648 2005 सौंदर्य प्रसाधन की सूक्ष्म जीव वैज्ञानिक परीक्षा के लिए परीक्षण विधियाँ ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

दिसम्बर 2005

कुछ नहीं

2. आई एस 3250 2005 मिथाइल आयोनोन विशिष्टि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

दिसम्बर 2005

कुछ नहीं

3. आई एस 1802 : 2005 आयोनोन विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

दिसम्बर 2005

कुछ नहीं

4. आई एस 3123 : 2005 हाइड्रॉक्सीसिट्रोनीलल विशिष्टि ( तीसरा 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 तिरुवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[सं. पीसीडी जी/-7 ( गजट ) ]

डा. डी. के. चौधरी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2006

S.O. 575. 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. & Year and title of the Indian Standards Established

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

None

November, 2005 1. IS 14648 : 2005 Methods of test for microbiological examination of cosmetics and cosmetic raw materials ( first revision)

None

December, 2005 2. IS 3250 : 2005 Methyl Ionone- Specification (third revision)

None

December, 2005 3. IS 1802 : 2005 Ionone- Specification ( third revision)

December , 2005

None

4. IS 3123 : 2005 Hydroxycitronellal- Specification (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 .

[No. PCD/G- 7 (Gazette) ]

Dr. D. K. CHAUDHARI , Sc .- ' F' & Head 1234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 / MAGHA 22. 1927

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) |

नई दिल्ली, 6 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 576.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिए गए हैं :

क्रम संख्या

रद्द किए गए मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का. आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

(1)

(2)

(3) 1. विशेष प्रकाशन एस पी 58 : 1995 पेय जल सप्लाई के लिए पंप संबंधी पुस्तिका

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

(4)

विशेष प्रकाशन में मुख्यतः समय- समय पर संशोधित किए गए संबद्ध राष्ट्रीय मानकों से लिए गए सारांश शामिल किए जाते हैं । प्रकाशन में दी गई सामान्य जानकारी संबंधित तकनीकी पाठ्य पुस्तकों में उपलब्ध है । इस विशेष प्रकाशन का पुनरीक्षण , कार्य को दोहराना होगा, क्योंकि जानकारी संबद्ध राष्ट्रीय मानकों और अन्य प्रकाशनों में उपलब्धहै ।

[सं. एमईडी/जी-2: 11 सी.के. वेदा, वैज्ञानिक'एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 6th February, 2006 .

S.O. 576. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of Sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules . it is , hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hercafter. have been cancelled and stand withdrawn .

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

S.O. No. and Date published in the Gazette of India , Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii)

(1)

(2)

(3) 1 . SP 58 : 1995 Handbook on pumps for drinking water supply

SCHEDULE

Remarks

(4)

The special publication covered mainly extracts taken from the related national standards which are revised from time to time . The general information contained in the publication is available in relevant technical text books . Revision of this publication would be duplication of work as the information is available in related national standards and other publications .

[No. MED/G -2 : 1 ] C. K. VEDA . Sc .- ' F ' & Head ( Mechanical Engineering ) 1235 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 577. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित मे यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में कोयली से रतलाम तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादन के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिएः और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना में संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए :

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि मे 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 मे हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है, ईक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में भरतलाल ननामा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मकान नं ए-15, सुंदरवन कस्तुरबा नगर , सुमंगल गार्डन के पास रतलाम -457001 (मध्यप्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप मे आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूचि

तहसील -बाजना

जिला रतलाम

राज्य- मध्य प्रदेश कमांक गाँव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

सर्वे नम्बर्

मलवासी

0.2898

32,33

0.0540

0.0378

0.2844

0.1080

0.0270

0.2088

53,56

82/1

0.2340

0.0270

92/2

0.1080

0.0360

93/1

0.0792

0.0090 1236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22. 1927

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

0.1620

151/2

0.0540

155,156

159

0.0288

160

0.1908

161

0.0720

167/2

0.0468

169/1/1

0.0828

169/1/3

0.0846

170/1/2

0.0630

170/2

0.1170

170/1/1

0.0450

176/2

0.0900

176/1

0.0918

217/1

0.2016

237

0.0090

193

0.1620

222

0.0540

0.1998

256/1

0.0648

250

0.0396

252

249

0.0090

286/1

3.9312

[फा. सं . आर-25011/2/2006- ओ.आर. - 1]

एस. के. चिटकारा, अवर सचिव Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 7th February, 2006

S. O. 577.- Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is ssary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum pradacts from Koyali to Ratlam in the state of Madhya Pradesh, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

Aand whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laving the said pipeline, it 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 (I ) of section 3 of the petroleum and Mineral 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;

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1237

भारत का राज्पत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty -one days from the date on which the copies of this notification; issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public object in writing to the laying of pipeline under the land to Mr. Bharat Lal Nanama , competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, at office A- 15, Sundervan, kasturba Nagar , Near Sumangal Garden , Ratlam - 457001 ,, (Madhya Pradesh ) .

Schedule

District : - Ratlam

State: - Madhyapradesh Tehsil : - Bajna

Area In Hector

SURVEY NO

SL.NO.

Name of Village

0.2898

Malwasi

0.0540

32,33

0.0378

0.2844.

0.1080

0.0270

0.2088

53,56

0.2340

82/1

0.0270

0.1080

92/2

0.0360

93/1

0.0792

0.0090

0.1620

0.0540

151/2

0.0540

155,156

0.0288

159

0.1908

160

0.0720

161

0.0468

167/2

0.0828

169/1/1

0.0846

169/1/3

0.0630

170/1/2

0.1170

170/2

0.0450

170/1/1

0.0900

176/2

0.0918

176/1

0.2016

217/1 1238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22. 1927

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

237

0.0090

0.1620

193

222

0.0540

0.1998

256/1

0.0648

250

0.0396

252

0.0090

249

3.9312

286/1

[ F. No. R- 25011/2/ 2006 - O.R. -I ]

S. K. CHITKARA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 578.- 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. 2666 तारीख 28 जुलाई , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 30 जुलाई, 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर ) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई मांगल्या पाइपन्नाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 27 सितम्बर, 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , य निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार: निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगगों से मुक्त, भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा. । 1239 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

सर्वे नंबर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में 1

पॉचोलास

3826/4157

0.0135 2 खेरदा

3 .

0.1728

0.0144

246

0.0094 जटवाडा खुर्द

0.0127

247

4 चकेरी

368/2778

0.0072

273/2782

0.1800

802

0.0144 6 पंचीपल्या

1027/2196

0.0288

970/2404-

0.0144 7 दूंदरी

922/1778

0.0020 8 फूसोदा

143

0.0072 9 कानसीर

984

0.0576

216/1332

0.0144

[फा. सं. आर-31015/78/2004- ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 8th February, 2006

S. O. 578.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2666, dated the 28th July, 2005 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 30th July , 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya ( Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 27 September , 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 right of user therein ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified inthe 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 the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, free from all encumbrances ..

253 G1/06-9 1240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL: SAWAI MADHOPUR DISTRICT : SAWAI MADHOPUR STATE : RAJASTHAN S.No.

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE

3826/4157

0.0135

1. PANCHOLAS

0.1728

KHERDA

0.0144

246

3. JATWADA KHURD

0.0094

247

0.0127

CHAKERI

0.0072

368/2778

273/2782

0.1800

802

0.0144

PANCHIPALYA

1027/2196

0.0288

0.0144

DUNDARI

970/2404

FUSODA

922/1778

0.0020

143

0.0072

8. KANSIR

984

0.0576

216/1332

0.0144

[No. R- 31015 /78/2004- O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

T का. आ. 579. - 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. 2667 तारीख 28 जुलाई , 2005, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 30 जुलाई , 2005 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में मांगल्या (इंदौर) संस्थापन से हरियाणा राज्य में पियाला तथा दिल्ली राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र में बिजवासन तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए मुंबई- मांगल्या पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत पेट्रोलियम कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक विस्तार पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 27 सितम्बर , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

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

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

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

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

1241

अनुसूची

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: सवाई माधोपुर

तहसील : सवाई माधोपुर

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में ग्राम का नाम

क्र०

118

0.1008

लक्ष्मीपुरा

119

0.8280

120

0.3456

138

0.0720

139

0.0720

182

0.2412

184

0.1080

185

0.1080

464

0.0216

0.0360

462

186

0.0072

186/622

0.0072

220

0.0020

461

0.1440

221

0.0069

461/603

0.0864

456/619

0.1368

236

0.0288

237

0.1800

0.0936

237/587

250

0.0792

267

0.0020

266

0.0504

265

270

0.1008

271

0.0020

269

0.0315

319

0.0871

0.1965 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

1242

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र०

ग्राम का नाम

0.0360

320

लक्ष्मीपुरा (जारी......

0.0432

321

0.0576

322

[फा. सं. आर-31015/78 /2004- ओ.आर-।। ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

A S. O. 579.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2667 , dated the 28th July , 2005 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 30th July,2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying an extension pipeline for transportation of petroleum products through Mumbai - Manglya Pipeline Extension Project from Manglya ( Indore) terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh,to Piyala in the State of Haryana and Bijwasan in the NCT of Delhi by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 27 September , 2005 ;

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

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the 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 the publication of this declaration , in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1243

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

SCHEDULE

TEHSIL : SAWAI MADHOPUR DISTRICT : SAWAI MADHOPUR STATE : RAJASTHAN NAME OF VILLAGE

S.No.

SURVEY NO .

3 1

118 1. LAKSHMIPURA

119

120

138

139

182

184

185

464

462

186

186/622

220

461

221

461/603

456/619

236

237

237/587

250

267

266

265

270

271

269

319

39 AREA IN HECTARE

0.1008

0.8280

0.3456

0.0720

0.2412

0.1080

0.0216

0.0360

0.0072

0.0020

0.1440

0.0069

0.0864

0.1368

0.0288

0.1800

0.0936

0.0792

0.0020

0.0504

0.1008

0.0020

0.0315

0.0871

0.1965 1244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] S.No.

NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

AREA IN HECTARE 1

320

0.0360

LAKSHMIPURA ( Contd ... )

321

0.0432

322

0.0576

[No. R -31015/78/ 2004- O.R. - II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 580.- 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. 2753 तारीख 28 जुलाई 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 6 अगस्त, 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 मुम्वई-पुणे पाइपलाइन विस्तार परियोजना के माध्यम से हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 21 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 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 जाए ;

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

4 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

अनुसूची तालूका : सांगोला

1245

जिला : सोलापुर

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर कम सं.

4 1 पाचेगाँव बुद्रूक

508 2 कोले

2403

2404

2405

2406

2407

2408

2409

2388

2386

2383

2382

2381

2379

2378

2375

2374

2373

2372

2371

2370

2367

2163

2162

2161

2160

2159

1958

1960

1961

1752

1748

1678 3 जुनोनी

135

142

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र उप-खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

एयर

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर सं.

6 7

00 05

कुल

00 14

00 48

00 04

00 11

00 19

00 24

00 26

00 20

00 07

42 00 19

55 00 03

07 00 10

50 00 17

21 00 14

27 00 12

34 00 07

29 00 07

25 00 05

43 00 01

92 00 21

10 00 06

31 00 04

91 00 06

13 00 07

07 00 81

62 00 00

60 00 11.

50, 00 11

11 00 07

20 00 06

54 CO

कुल

04 53

67 00 00

30 3

00 01

00 00 08

00 00 03

10 00 12

कुल

40 1246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22, 1927

तालूका : सांगोला

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

जिला : सोलापुर

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

कम सं.

4 हातीद

673

670

503

454

212

107 5 मिसालवाडी

313

314

197

316

317

319

321

324

195

194

193

192

137

145

143 6 उधनवाडी

618

619

620

621

622

625

629

628

627

630

626

595

594

593

592

591

एयर

हेक्टर

वर्ग मीटर उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

8 2

00 07

00 00

00 09

00 27

00 05

72 कुल

01 11

00 27

53 00 03

00 06

63 00 07

28 00 02

96 00 02

72 00 00

43 00 06

51 00 03

49 00 01

79 00 05

05 00 05

12 00 00

60 00 00

30 01 01

कुल

10 00 24

52 00 26

38 00

00 07

19 00 08

13 00 21

90 00 08

58 00 11

22 00 10

19 00 21

74 00

00 08

88 00 06

69 00 07

12 00 09

00 00 06

52 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1247

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

तालूका : सांगोला

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला : सोलापुर

गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

कम सं.

590 6

उधनवाडी (निरंतर)

597

806 7 राजुरी

738

733

756

734

737

732

331

332

335

337

338

248

246

488 8 निजामपुर

9 अकोला

467

459

456 10 कडलास

448

459

597

582

583

584

585

581

569

567

568

557

588

589

577

556

661 253 G1 / 06-10

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

उप -खण्ड सं.

00 02

कुल

00 06

00 23

00 12

00 05

00 15

00 00

00 06

00 01

00 05

01 00

20 कुल

00 14

09 कुल

00 08

00 10

00 04

00 23

39 कुल

00 03

00 02

00 06

00 01

00 05

00 09

00 02

00 23

39 00 02

16 00 05

07 00 34

00 01

30 00 00

32 1248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

तालूका : सांगोला

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: सोलापुर

गाव का नाम

उप-खण्ड

क्षेत्रफल

गट नंबर

सर्वे नंबर

कम सं.

662 10 कडलास (निरंतर)

664

913

1181

1179

1186

1187

1237 11 मेडशिंगी

305 12वाडेगाँव

602

601

603

600

591

583

587

586

579

577

565

561

559

558

557

578

568

567

555

554

494

495

497

498

499

एयर वर्ग मीटर हेक्टर

सं.

6 7

00 10

00 08

00 15

00 02

00 05

00 08

00 15

01 77

कुल

00 08

61 कुल

00 15

10 00

00 00

00 25

82 00 03

00 00 18

00 07

02 00 20

14 00 15

29 00 08

00 00 03

50 00 04

00 00

17 00 01

26 00

00 06

75 00

00 07

75 00 01

50 00 03

50 00 02

75 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

1249 तालूका : सांगोला

राज्य : महाराष्ट्र

जिला: सोलापुर

क्षेत्रफल गाव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

गट नंबर

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग मीटर कम सं.

उप-खण्ड सं.

6 7

500

12 वाडेगाँव (निरंतर)

489

00 16

कुल

[फा. सं. आर-31015/19/2004-ओ.आर-II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

S. O. 580.- Whereas by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2753 ,dated the 28th July , 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 6th August, 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 Corporalion Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 21st 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 the right of user therein ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule , appended to this notification , 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 the publication of this declaration , in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , free from all encumbrances .

1250

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

SCHEDULE

Taluka : SANGOLA

District : SOLAPUR

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Sub-Division No.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mt 2

508

1 PACHEGAON BUDRUK

00 05 48

Total

00 05 48 2 KOLE

2403

14 46

2404

00 48 43

2405

00 04 64

2406

00 11 28

2407

00 19 62

2408

00 24 24

2409

00 26 79

2388

00 20 32

2386

.00 07 42

2383

00 19 55

2382

00 03 45

2381

00 05 07

2379

10 50

2378

00 17 21

2375

00 14 27

2374

00 12 34

2373

00 07 29

2372

00 07 25

2371

00 05 43

2370

00 01 92

2367

21 10

2163

00 06 31

2162

00 04 91

2161

00 06 13

2160

00 07 07

2159

00 81 62

1958

00 00 60

1960

00 11 50

1961

00 11 11

1752

00 07 20

1748

00 06 54

1678

00 08 10

04 53 67

Total

3 JUNONI

00 00 30

01 00

135

00 08 00

142

00 03 10

Total

12 40 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1251

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

Taluka : SANGOLA

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SOLAPUR

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

4 1

673 4 HATID

670

503

454

212

107

313 5 MISALWADI

314

197

316

317

319

321

324

195

194

193

192

137

145

143

618 6 UDHANWADI

619

620

621

622

625

629

628

627

630

626

595

594

593

592

591

Area

Sub-Division

No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

8 2

00 61 05

00 09 74

00 27 39

00 05 72

01 11 64 Total

00 27 43

00 27 53

00 03 26

00 06 63

00 07 28

.00 02 96

00 02 72

00 00 43

06 51

00 03 49

00 01 79

00 05 05

00 05 12

00 00 30

01 01 10 Total

00 24 52

00 26 38

00 04 70

00 07

00 08 13

00 21 90

00 08 58

00 11 22

00 10 19

00 21 74

00 14 44

00 08 88

00 06 69

00 07 12

00 09 00

00 06 52 1252

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Taluka : SANGOLA

District : SOLAPUR

State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sub- Division No.

Sr. No.

Hectare Are Sq.mt Nameof the Village

8 2

590

02 67 6 UDHANWADI ( Contd .)

00 55 20

597

02 55 07

Total

806

00 06 24 7 RAJURI

738

00 23 20

733

00 16 05

756

00 12 14

734

00 01 93

737

05 48

732

15 03

331

01 13

332

00 00 44

335

00 06 69

337

00 01 09

338

00 01 97

00 03 44

248

246

05 37

Total

01 00 20

488

14 09. 8 NIJAMPUR

Total

14 09

467

00 08 71 9 AKOLA

00 10 55

459

456

00 04 13

00 23 39

Total

448

03 31 10 KADLAS

459

00 03 81

597

02 08

582

00 06 80

00 01 88

583

584

00 00 80

585

00 05 78

581

09 98

00 00 25

569

567

00 02 81

568

00 23 39

557

00 02 16

588

00 05 88

589

577

34 07

556

00 01 30

661

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1253

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

Taluka : SANGOLA

District : SOLAPUR

GatNo.

Survey No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

662 10 KADLAS ( Contd.)

664

913

1181

1179

1186

1187

1237 11 MEDSINGI

305

602 12 WADEGAON

601

603

600

591

583

587

586

579

577

565

561

559

558

557

578

568

567

555

554

494

495

497

498

499 State : MAHARASHTRA

Area

Sub-Division No.

Are Sq.mt

Hectare

7 8

00 10 08

00 08 91

00 15 89

00 02 24

00 05 71

00 05 22

00 08 27

00 15 89 Total

01 77 43

00 08 61 Total

00 08 61

00 15 48

00 07 10

00 00 60

00 25 82

00 18 00

00 07 02

00 20 14

00 15 29

00 08 00

00 03 00

00 06 50

00 04 00

00 05 00

00 05 15

00 03 17

00 01 26

00 06 20

00 06 75

07 75

00 01 50

00 02 75 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

1254

State : MAHARASHTRA

District : SOLAPUR

Taluka : SANGOLA

Area

Sub - Division

GatNo.

Survey No.

No. Hectare Are Sq.mt Sr. No.

Nameofthe Village

7 8

00 06 50

500

12 WADEGAON (Contd. )

00 16 75

489

02 08 83

Total

[No. R- 31015/19/2004- O.R. -II ] HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 581.- 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. 2499 तारीख 04 जुलाई , 2005 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 16 जुलाई , 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 ०8 सितम्बर , 2005 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, केन्द्रीय सरकार को रिपोर्ट दे दी 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 -11 दिनांक 25/11/2004 द्वारा लगाई गई शर्तों के अध्यधीन , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त , हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

अनुसूची तहसील : आमेर

1255 राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

3 1. खोराबीसल

515/721

514

514/720

513

51.1

554

555

483

482

561

476

454

438 क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

.00

01.

399/906

399

351

18 0

347(जे.डी.ए.रास्ता)

3.6

100

103(जे.डी.ए.रास्ता)

230

-237

235

238

242

243

252

246

247

208

207

205

199

273

271

267

204 2. शुभरामपुरा

180

209 3 .. बेनाड़मयदौलतपुरा

166 253 G1 /06-11

0.0

08 1256

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

तहसील : आमेर

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

जिला: जयपुर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

165 3. बेनाड़मयदौलतपुरा (जारी...)

163

109

104

57 4. नांगलसिरस

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर एयर

806/876 (जे.डी.ए. )

5. नींदड़

205

207

206

141

116

287

283

340

341

354

355

358 0

567 (जे.डी.ए. रास्ता)

408

573

570 6. राजावास

429

440 0

476(स. चारागाह)

474(स.चारागाह)

771

771/877

770/833

765/830

733

753

749/868

748

41 नांगलपुरोहित

1.8

15 0

12(जे.डी.ए.चारागाह )

116 (जे.डी.ए. चारागाह)

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1257

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

तहसील : आमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

3 क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

198/1298

7. नांगलपुरोहित (जारी ...)

111 (जे.डी.ए. चारागाह)

8. छवरकावास

272

270 9. चेतावाला

141

143 0

106(स.रास्ता)

200

185

188

213 10. बदनपुरा

204

205

254

247

250

243

318 11. खोराश्यामदास

209/1841 (ग्रा.पं. चारागाह)

207

206

44 0

262(स .रास्ता)

309

975

990

991 12.देगडास

219 13. चोप

438/2475 0

438(स.चारागाह)

475 (स. चारागाह)

465

466 0

08.

461(स.रास्ता)

582 0

86 1258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] तहसील : आमेर

राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं .

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

583

13. चोप (जारी ... )

584

670/2313

586

587

O C

588

589

681

187

186

899

894

895

959

950(स.चारागाह)

14. ईशरावाला

677

667

666

663

639

582(स. भूमि)

503

505

509

464

461

00 15. बिलोंची

532

533

538

547

545

548

549

544

502

390/1755 (स.भूमि)

259

45 16. श्रीगोविन्दपुरा

260

00 1259

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

तहसील : आमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

क्षेत्रफल

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

6 2

260/494

16. श्रीगोविन्दपुरा (जारी...)

260/493

411(स.भूमि)

419(स.भूमि)

404/498

385/50,3

387 (स.भूमि)

371/560 (स. रास्ता)

370/559 (स . चारागाह)

362

365

17. घटवाडा

866

865

873

790/1184

787/1201

68 ख.सं .787/ 1201 और 787 के बीच

787

786

785

784

729

725

704

711

667

533

564

998/1222

560/998

560

546

3004

18. मानपुरामाचेडी

3005

3000

2995

2979

2978

2977

2976

30 1260

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

तहसील : आमेर

राज्य: राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं .

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

2975

80 18. मानपुरामाचेडी (जारी ...)

2974

3100

3101

3102

3103

3086

3105

3106

3106/3965

3109

3107 (स.नाला)

3117

3124

3125

3126

3129

3130

3131

3132

3616

3619

3585

3587

3577

3574

3575

3576

3555

3561

3558

3545

3520

3464

3463

1982

18 19. पुठकाबास

3473(स.रास्ता)

उर्फ

36 चावा का बास

44 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22 , 1927

तहसील : आगेर

1261

जिला: जयपुर

क्रम सं.

गाँव का नाम

खसरा सं.

3 पुठकाबास

19.

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 4

45(स.भूमि)

उर्फ

47 चावा का बास (जारी ...)

13(स.भूमि)

4(स.चारागाह)

605 20. बीलपुरा

596

538

539

438 0

438/976(स.भूमि)

437

436/898

426

541

540

542

545

572

574

571

564

563

161

266

7 21. सुन्दरपुरा

366

358

368

373

372

377

381

384

383

387

388 22. लाभ्यामेवाल

24.

123/454(स.भूमि)

48 0

40 1262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

तहसील : आमेर

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)] राज्य : राजस्थान

जिला: जयपुर

क्रम सं.

खसरा सं.

गाँव का नाम

3 1

35 22. लाम्यामेवाल (जारी... )

804 23. देव का हरमाडा

807

300

301 (स.चारागाह)

297

325

120

118

353/1280 (स. खड्डा)

22/1335 24. लखेर

291/1295

294/1296/3

294

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

36 0

24 0

16 0

44 0

92 0

24 0

48 0

36 0

65 0

83 0

20 0

18 0

[फा. सं. आर-31015/70/2004-ओ.आर- II ]

हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

S. O. 581. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas number S.O..2499 dated the 04th July, 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 16th July, 2005 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of petroleum products 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 available to the public on the Ogth September , 2005;

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

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

1263

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

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 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 Limited , free from all encumbrances , subject to the conditions imposed vide this Ministry's consent letter no . R- 31015/7/03 OR- II dated 25-11-2004.

SCHEDULE

State : RAJASTHAN

District : JAIPUR

Tehsil : AMER

Khasara No. Sr. No.

Name of the Village

3 1

515/721 1. KHORABISAL

514

514/720

513

511

554

555

483

482

561

476

454

438

399/906

399

351 Area

Are Sq.mtr .

Hectare

347( J.D.A Cart Track )

103( J.D.A Cart Track )

230

237

235

238

242

243

252

246 253 GI/06-12

0 1264

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22, 1927

Tehsil : AMER

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

District : JAIPUR

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

247 J. KHORABISAL (Contd...)

208

207

205

199

273

271

267 2. SHUBHRAMPURA

204

180

209 3. BENARMAYDAULATPURA

166

165

163

109

104

57 4. NANGALSIRAS

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

00 65

806/876( J.D.A)

205 5. NINDAR

207

206

141

116

287

283

340

341

354

355

358 09

567( J.D.A Cart Track)

408

573

570

429 6. RAJAWAS

440

476(G /L Pasture)

474(G/L Pasture)

771

771/877

770/833

765/830

26 1265 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माथ 22, 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

State : RAJASTHAN

District : JAIPUR

Tehsil : AMER

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

KhasaraNo.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

733

00 38 6. RAJAWAS Contd...

753.

749/868

748

7. NANGALPUROHIT

00 42

00 20

12( J.D.A Pasture)

0 00 54

116( J.D.A Pasture)

198/1298

111 ( J.D.A Pasture)

272

00 36 8. CHHAWARKAWAS

270

141

00 26 9. CHETAWALA

143

00 96

106(G / L Cart Track)

200

185

188

213

10. BADANPURA

18.

204

205

254

247

250

243

318

11. KHORASHYAMDAS

209/1841 (G /P Pasture)

207

206

262(G / L Cart Track)

309

975

990

991

219

12. DEGDAS

54 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

State : RAJASTHAN Tehsil : AMER

District : JAIPUR

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

Khasara No.

Sr. No.

Name of the Village

01 48

438/2475

13. CHONP

438(G /L Pasture )

475(G /L Pasture)

465

466

461 (G / L Cart Track)

582

583

584

670/2313

586

587

588

589

681

187

186

899

894

895

959

950(G /L Pasture)

14. ISHARAWALA

677

667

666

663

639

582(G /L)

503

505

509

464

461

15. BILONCHI

532

533

538

547

545

548 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1267

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22 , 1927

Tehsil : AMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : JAIPUR

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

549 15. BILONCHI (Contd ...)

544-

502 Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

390/1755(G /L)

16. SHREEGOVINDPURA

259

260 0

00 00 60

260/494

260/493

411(G/L)

419(G/L)

404/498

385/503

387(G/L)

371/560 (G / L Cart Track)

370/559(G/L Pasture )

362

365 17. GHATWADA

866

865

873 0

790/1184

787/1201

In Bet Svy No. 787/1201 & 787

787

786

785

784

729

725

704

711

667

533

564 0

00 20

998/1222

560/998

560

546

3004 18. MANPURAMACHEDI

3005

3000

2995

2979 00

06 84

04 1268

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

Tehsil : AMER

State : RAJASTHAN

District : JAIPUR

Area

Hectare Are

Sr. No.

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr. Name of the Village

03 06 18. MANPURAMACHEDI

உ

2978

2977

(Contd...)

08 30

2976

00 80

2975

2974

3100

3101

09 00

3102

3103

3086

3105

3106

3106/3965

14 28

3109

02 48

3107 (G /L Nala )

3117

12 60

3124

02 90

3125

3126

05 56

3129

3130

04 92

3131

00 48

3132

3616

3619

3585

3587

03 60

3577

3574

03 60

3575

3576

3555

3561

3558

3545

3520

3464

3463

1982

00 18 19. PUTHKABAS

3473 (G /L Cart Track)

URF

CHAWA KA BAS

79 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006 /माष 22 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1269 State : RAJASTHAN

District : JAIPUR

Tehsil : AMER

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

19. PUTHKABAS

45(G/L)

47 URF

13(G/L) CHAWA KA BAS ( Contd ...)

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

4(G/L Pasture)

605 20. BILPURA

596

538

539

438

438/976( G/L)

437 0

436/898

426

541

540

542

545

572

574

571

564

563

161

266

7 21. SUNDARPURA

366

358

368

373

372

377

381

384

383

387

388 22. LAMYAMEWAL

00 08

123/454(G/ L)

48 0

40 1270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Tehsil : AMER

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

District : JAIPUR

Sr. No.

Khasara No. Name of the Village

3 1

35 22. LAMYAMEWAL ( Contd ... )

18 23. DEV KA HARMADA

804

807

300

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 4

301 (G / L Pasture)

297

325

120

118 0

353/1280 ( G /L Khadda )

22/1335 24. LAKHER

291/1295

294/1296/3

294

[No. R-31015/70/2004- O.R. - IIJ HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 582.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मुन्द्रा (गुजरात) से दिल्ली तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

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

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

1271

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री शिवदत्त गौड़ , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , मुन्द्रा- दिल्ली पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद पाइपलाइन, हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , डी-7 लालबहादुर नगर ( पूर्व ) , क्लार्क्स आमेर होटल के सामने, जवाहरलाल नेहरु मार्ग , मालवीय नगर, जयपुर-302017 (राजस्थान) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: राजस्थान तहसील: आमेर

जिला: जयपुर

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर

खसरा सं.

हेक्टेयर

गाँव का नाम

क्रम सं.

3473

मानपुरामाचेडी

1241

पुठकाबास उर्फ चावा का बास

17/1373

3. देव का हरमाडा

352/1282

[फा. सं. आर-31015/70/2004- ओ.आर- II ] हरीश कुमार, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

S. O. 582.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Mundra ( Gujarat ) to Delhi , a pipeline should be laid by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of 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 of1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of usertherein;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Shivdutt Gaur, Competent Authority, Mundra - Delhi Petroleum Product Pipeline , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited, D-7, Lal Bahadur Nagar ( East ) , Opp. Clarks Amer Hotel , Jawaharlal Nehru Marg , Malviya Nagar, Jaipur 302017 ( Rajasthan ) ,

253 G1/06-13 1272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : AMER

District : JAIPUR

State : RAJASTHAN

Area

Are

Hectare

Sr. No.

Khasara No.

Sq.mtr .

Name of the Village

6 1

3473

90 1. MANPURAMACHEDI

1241

2. PUTHKABAS URF CHAWA KA BAS

04 68

17/1373

3. DEV KA HARMADA

352/1282

[No. R-31015/70/2004- O.R. - II ]

HARISH KUMAR , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ . 583.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मेसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एण्ड इन्फास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड की संवर्धक कम्पनी मेसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड गोवा के उत्तरी/दाक्षिणी अपतट के खोज ब्लॉकों से आन्ध्रप्रदेश की संरचनओं से आन्ध्रप्रदेश राज्य के पूर्वी गोदावरि और पश्चिमी गोदावरि जिले में विभिन्न उपभेक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गौस के परिवहन के लिए मेसर्स गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड व्दारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिये ;

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

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूामि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) व्दारा 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 हितबध्द है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री. पी . बुच्चारेडडी , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गैस ट्रांसपोर्टेशन एण्ड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कम्पनी लिमिटेड, पाइपलाइन परियोजना, 20-6-5, श्री सूर्या कांप्लेक्स, सिनेमा रोड, काकिनाडा, ईस्ट गोदावरि जिला, आन्ध्रप्रदेश रााज्य - 533 001 को लिंखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

1-1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1273

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

मंडलः आतेयपुरम

अनुसूचि

रााज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिल्हा : इस्ट गोदावरि

गंव कानाम सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं 1

103

1) वसंतवाड

61/4

2) वुष्विलि

61/5

61/6

61/7

81/8

61/9

62/1

62/2

62/3

62/4वि

63/1वि

63/2

63/130/1

63/13/2

64/1

61/3*

मंडल४ पेरवलि

जिल्हा : बेस्ट गोदावरि

36/9

1) कानूर जमिंदारि

38/8

36/7

36/3

36/2

37/5वि

37/5 ए

37/4

37/1

37/3

20/4

20/5

19/6

19/1वि

18/2वि

16/1बि

आर ओ यू अर्जित करने केलिए क्षेतफल

हेय्टार

एर

सिएर

रााज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

25 1274

2 1) कानूरु जमिंदारि निरंतर 43/ 3बि

43/3ए

43/2

43/4ए

43/1

46/3

46/2

46/1

32/2*

32/7*

33/2*

33/3*

33/4 *

150/1

2) नाडुपल्ले

149/5 *

152/5

152/4

152/3

153/3ए

153/3बि

153/1

153/2

7/4

7/3

7/2

7/1

6/4

6/3

6/2

6/1

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/3

3/2

3/1

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

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

40 1275

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2/9

2) नाडुपल्ले निरंतर

4/2

4/1

जिल्हा : बेस्ट गोदावरि मंडलः निडदवोलु

133/4

1) मुनिपल्लि

132/7

132/6

132/5

जिल्हा : वेस्ट गोदावरि मंडलः ताडेपल्लि गूडेम

240/2वि

1) आरुगोलनु

240/1वि

240/1 ए

240/2ए

239/5वि

239/5ए

239/1 इ

239/1 ए

239/2

238/1वि

238/1 ए

237/1

246

256/4

260/4सि

260/4ए

258/1

259/2डि

257/2वि

257/ 2ए

259/2वि

259/2ए

257/1

275/3

275/1

276/3

276/2

रााज्य: आन्द्र प्रदेश

रााज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

85 1276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22, 1927

276/1 1) आरुगोलनु निरंतर

293/15

293/1डি

293/1सि

293/1वि

293/3ए

293/2ए

291/3

291/1

290/1सि

290/1প্তি

288/1

288/2

288/3

323/1वि

327/1 ए

328/2ए

328/4ए

329/4

329/3

330/9

330/6ए

330/3

330/2

330/1

946/1 2) जगन्नाद पुरम

947

938

937/2

937/1

944/3

944/2

943/2

943/1

944/1

909

910

908/5

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

35 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

908/3

2) जगन्नाद पुरम निरंतर

907/3

907/2

907/1

896

906

897

698

836/1

835/2

834/4

834/2वि

834/5

834/6

831/2वि

830/2

830/1सि

830/1वि

830/ 1 ए

817/3

817/2

817/1

818

820/3

819/3

819/2

819/1

798/1

797/1वि

797/2

794

789/5

769/6

790/1

791/ 2वि

791/ 2ए

784/4सि

764/4डि

1277

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22 , 1927

10 .

0 1278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

2 2) जगन्नाद पुरम निरंतर 784/2वि

791/1 ए

792

740

739

738/1

738/ 2ए

738/ 2बि

737/2

737/1

735

734/4

734/2

734/3ए

734/1

729/5

729/4

730/1

728

727/3

727/2

716

719/4

719/3

719/2

718/4

718/3

718/1 ए

718/1बि

718/2

686

680/4डि

680/5তি

680/5सि

660/4सि

680/5बि

680/4बिं

680/4ए

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

55 0

80 0

00 0

90 0

45 0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 2) जगन्माद पुरम निरंतर 660/5ए

648/4

648/6

848/7

647/8

847/7

647/9सि

847/9बि

847/9ए

644/18

644/19

844/20

644/22

644/31

644/26

644/30

644/25

564

562

560/4

558

557

543/ 2ए

543/ 2वि

543/3

543/4वि

543/4सि

542

541/2

541/1

509/3वि

509/3ए

509/1एफ

509/1डि

509/1 इ

508

507/3

507/1

253GI/06-14

1279

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

75.

15 1280

2 1

505/4

2) जगन्नाद पुरम निरंतर

505/2वि

505/2ए

505/3

505/1

488/3

490/2

490/1

489/1

180

3)कोन्डुप्रोलु

181

182/6

182/4

182/3

182/2

182/1

189

190

197/3

196/7

196/6

196/5

196/4

196/3

194/1

194/2

195/3

195/2

224/2

225

234/2

233/1

236/3

236/2

236/1

236/4

238/1

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

17-

09 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

239

3) कोन्डुप्रोलुनिरंतर

241/2

244

280/1

279/1

245

253/2

253/1

252/3सि

252/4

252/5

252/1

259/4वि

259/4ए

258/3ए

258/1

258/2बि

258/2ए

259/3

260/3बि

260/2सि

260/2बि

262

265/3

265/4

265/2

265/5

265/6

107/5 4) कुम्वनपल्लि

107/4

110/2

166/2

165/1

164/1

163/2

163/1

162

154/1

1281

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माष 22, 1927

80 1282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

154/2 4) कुन्धनपल्लि निरंतर

155

188

186

190

29/2

192

68/1

5) नन्दमूड

49/2

48/3

48/4

32/3

32/2

36/1

27/1

8/2

19/1

8/1

12/2

9/3

12/1

9/ 2वि

9/2ए

11/1 ए

10/1

10/3

10/2

318

6) ताडेपल्ले

318

317/2

317/1

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

08 [ भाग II-II- खण्ड:खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

6) ताडेपल्ले निरंतर 317/4

317/4बि

321

322/4

322/5

322/3

322/7

322/6

323

666/2ए

324/1

667/1

667/2

667/3

665/3

665/2

665/1

664/2

664/3

664/1

664/6

344

345

662

346

644

639

640

641

642/2

642/1

643/1

634

617

633/2

625/2

625/3

621/1

1283

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006 /माष 22 , 1927

0 .

55 1284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22, 1927

2 1

624

6) ताडेपल्लेनिरंतर

622

623

606

600/2वि

600/3बि

600/ 2ए

600/3ए

596

597

594

568/1

568/2

592/2

592/1

569/4

570/2

570/1

572/2ए

572/1 ए

572/1वि

571

557/3

575

576/1

576/3

576/4ए

536/1बि

536/2

655/1

856/2

856/1

664

663/1

663/2

665/ 2सि

662/1

865/25

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

03,

15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1285

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

865/2তি

6) ताडेपल्ले निरंतर

865/2वि

888

874/3

874/2वि

874/1

874/ 2ए

877/3

872/3

872/2

872/1बि

872/1 ए

871/1 ए

878/1

जिल्हा : वेस्ट गोदावरि मंडलः उंदाजवरम

110

1)काल्दरि

111/2सि

111/2डि

458

440

112/7

112/ 1वि

112/5

112/4

112/2

113/5वि

113/50

113/4

113/3

113/2

114

99/2ए

99/2बि

99/1एफ

99/1जि

99/1सि

96/3

99/1वि

रााज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

90 1286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

2 1

99/10

1) काल्दरि निरंतर

92/ 6सि

92/9ए

92/9वि

92/10ए

92/ 8डि

92/8सि

92/8बि

92/6ए

92/7ए

92/7बि

93/3ए

93/1

65/2डि

65/3बि

65/4ए

65/3ए

65/5ए

65/2सि

65/1 इ

65/1डि

65/1दि

53/7

53/8

53/3

53/2

54/7

54/6

52/1

54/4दि

54/4ए

47/7

47/8

47/6

47/5

47/2

47/3

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii )]

0 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

47/4

1) काल्दरि निरंतर

46/1बि

46/1 ए

26/2

26/3बि

26/3 ए

26/4

3/6

4/3

4/2

3/2सि

4/1सि

4/5ए

4/4ए2

4/1वि

4/1ए

2) वेलिवेन्नु

80/1

80/2

79/4

79/3

79/1वि

78/13

76/11

76/12

75/4सि

75/4वि

75/4ए

75/3

75/2

75/1सि

131

132/6

132/5 253 G1 / 06-15

1287

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

00 1288

132/1 2) वेलिवेन्नु निरंतर

136/8

136/7

136/6

136/5

136/3

136/2

136/1

135/3

137/10

135/1

137/3

135/2

138

143/2

144

145/2

145/1

146

148/1

148/2

148/5

148/4

150/11

150/10

150/9

150/13

152

153/6

153/5

153/4

153/3

153/1

154/3

154/4

154/1

157/4बि

157/4ए

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22, 1927

05 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1289

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

5 157/3

2) वेलिवेन्नु निरंतर

20 157/2

85 158

75 164/1

70 * का.आ. 1651 , दिनांकः 11-06-2003 व्दारा पी.एम.पी. ऐक्ट, 1962 की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत सूचित किये गये सर्वे नंबर । इस प्रतिपादन नया विस्तीर्ण केलिए ।

[फा. सं. एल-14014/3/2006- जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मंडल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

S. O. 583. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from the exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and Structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited , the promoter company of M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of East Godavari and West Godavari Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh, a Pipeline should be laid by M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company 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 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 Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri . P.Butcha Reddy , Competent Authority, Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited Pipeline Project , 20-6-5 , Sri Surya Complex , Cinema Road, Kakinada 533 001 , East Godavari Dist, Andhra Pradesh State .

Schedule

State : Andhra Pradesh

District: East Godavarl

Atreya puram

Mandal :

Area to be acquired for ROU Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

C-Are

Are

Hectare

103

1) Vasantavada

61/4

2) Vuchchili

61/5

61/6

61/7

61/8

61/9

62/1 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

1290

62/2

2) Vuchchili ( com ... )

62/3

62/4B

63/1B

63/2

63/13A/1

63/13A/2

64/1

61/3*

District: West Godavari

Mandal: Peravali

36/9

1) Kanuru (Zamindari )

36/8

36/7

36/3

36/2

37/5B

37/5A

37/4

37/1

37/3

20/4

20/5

19/6

19/1B

18/2B

18/1B

1) Kanuru ( Zamindari ) Contd ... 43/3B

43/3A

43/2

43/4A

43/1

46/3

46/2

46/1

32/2*

32/7*

33/2*

33/3*

33/4*

150/1

2) Nadupalle

149/5*

152/5

152/4

152/3

153/3A

153/3B

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ]

90 0

35 0

00 0

05 0

90 0

20 10

80 0

20 State : Andhra Pradesh

55 08

50 0

30 0

70.

00 0

20 0

50 0

00 0

10 0

55 0

20 0

10 0

45 20

20 0

40 0

85 0

60 0

45 0

25 0

15 0

95 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1291

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

153/1 2) Nadupalle Contd ...

153/2

7/4

7/3

7/2

7/1

6/4

6/3

6/2

6/1

3/6

3/5

3/4

3/3

3/2

3/1

2/9

4/2

4/1

Mandal : NIDADAVOLU

30 0

05 0

65 0

10 0

55 0

90 0

40 0

00 0

40 0

60 11

40 0

50 0

90 0

25 0

00 11

95 0

40 0

10 0

25 0

65 State : Andhra Pradesh

District : West Godavarl

133/4

1) Munipalli

132/7

132/6

132/5 00

55 00

05 00

90 00

District : West Godavari

Mandal : Tadepalligudem

240/2B 1)Arugolanu

240/1B

240/1A

240/2A

239/5B

239/5A

239/1E

239/1A

239/2

238/1B

238/1A

237/1

246

256/4

260/4C

260/4A

256/1

259/2D

257/2B State : Andhra Pradesh

60 0

70 0

25 0

10 00

90 0

55 0

40 0

55 0

50 0

80 0

65 1292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

257/2A 1) Arugolanu Contd...

259/2B

259/2A

257/1

275/3

275/1

276/3

276/2

276/1

293/1E

293/1D

293/1 C

293/18

293/3A

293/2A

291/3

291/1

290/1C

290/1D

288/1

288/2

288/3

323/18

327/1A

328/2A

328/4A

329/4

329/3

330/9

330/6A

330/3

330/2

330/1

948/1 2) Jagannadha puram

947

936

937/2

937/1

944/3

944/2

943/2

943/1

944/1

909

910

908/5

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii )] 3

5 0

10 0

60 0

70 0

70 15

35 0

10 0

85 0

60 0

15 0

70 0

55 0

85 00

10 0

55 21

95 0

10 0

60 0

10 0

50 0

30 0

80 0

15 0

85 05

20 13

00 0

55 44

65 0

40 0

15 0

85 11

55 0

50 0

60 10

75 0

05 0

70 11

80 13

35 0

40 0

55 01

65 0

70 07

75 23

35 0 [भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii) ]

908/3

2).Jagannadha puram Contd ...

907/3

907/2

907/1

896

906

897

898

836/1

835/2

834/4

834/2B

834/5

834/6

831/2B

830/2

830/1C

830/1B

830/1A

817/3

817/2

817/1

818

820/3

819/3

819/2

819/1

798/1

797/1B

797/2

794

789/5

789/6

790/1

791/2B

791/2A

784/4C

784/4D

1293

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

5 0

80 0

70 0

85 0

60 0

55 0

85 0

15 0

35 0

10 0

20 0

10 0

50 0

80 0

05 0

90 01

50 0

75 0

65 0

50 0

85 0

65 0

20 0

25 09

25 0

85 11

85 10

30 0

80 0

50 03

80 0

10 04

85 0

15 0

25 0

90 0

60 0

90 0

55 1294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

784/2B 2) Jagannadha puram Contd ...

791/1A

792

740

739

738/1

738/2A

738/2B

737/2

737/1

735

734/4

734/2

734/3A

734/1

729/5

729/4

730/1

728

727/3

727/2

716

719/4

719/3

719/2

718/4

718/3

718/1A

718/1B

718/2

686

680/4D

680/5D

680/5C

680/4C

680/5B

680/4B

680/4A

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

30 0

40 12

65 0

05 02

25 41

45 0

65 12

60 12

60 0

30 0

55 0

50 0

20 10

45 0

20 0

30 0

95 18

60 14

85 0

40 01

00 0

95 0

25 0

50 16

35 0

35 00

75 0

95 0

60 0

55 0

80 0

00 0

90 0

45 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1295

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

2 2) Jagannadha puram Contd ... 680/5A

648/4

648/6

648/7

647/8

647/7

647/9C

647/9B

647/9A

644/18

644/19

844/20

644/22

644/31

644/26

644/30

644/25

564

562

560/4

558

557

543/2A

543/2B

543/3.

543/4B

543/4C

542

541/2

541/1

509/3B

509/3A

509/1F

509/1D

509/1E

508

507/3

507/1

253 GI /06-16

15 1296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11. 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

2 1

505/4

2) Jagannadha puram Contd...

505/2B

505/2A

505/3

505/1

488/3

490/2

490/1

489/1

180

3) Kondruprolu

181

182/6

182/4

182/3

182/2

182/1

189

190

197/3

196/7

196/6

196/5

196/4

196/3

194/1

194/2

195/3

195/2

224/2

225

234/2

233/1

236/3

236/2

236/1

236/4

238/1

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

45 0

10 05

40 10

05 0

05 31

85 26

90 0

60 19

15 0

25 0

20 0

35 08

75 0

15 0

95 0

30 0

80 17

10 0

70 0

55 0

80 0

65 0

50 0

95 0

05 14

55 17

40 0

25 0

30 0

10 0

85 0

40 0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

239

3) Kondruprolu Contd ...

241/2

244

280/1

279/1

245

253/2

253/1

252/3C

252/4

252/5

252/1

259/4B

259/4A

258/3A

258/1

258/2B

258/2A

259/3

260/3B

260/20

260/2B

262

265/3

265/4

265/2

265/5

265/6

107/5 4) Kunchanapalli

107/4

110/2

165/2

165/1

164/1

163/2

163/1

162

154/1

1297

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

95 0

70 0

50 09

40 0

45 0

55 03

15 33

25 25

55 0

90 0

25 09

15 17

70 0

10 0

95 0

80 1298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

2 1

154/2

4) Kunchanapalli Contd ...

155

188

186

190

29/2

192

68/1

5) Nandamuru

49/2

48/3

48/4

32/3

32/2

36/1

27/1

8/2

19/1

8/1

12/2

9/3

12/1

9/2B

9/2A

11/1A

10/1

10/3

10/2

318

6) Tadepalle

316

317/2

317/1

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

5 4

45 0

70 01

30 71

85 0

65 55

45 21

60 0

00 00

50 46

30 07

75 00

00 00

90 53

10 00

45 00

65 04

75 00

45 00

05 00

50 00

70 00

85 00

70 05

60 03

35 00

90 00

85 05

65 00

75 00

35 0

50 0

95 02

70 0

06 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1299

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

317/4A 6) Tadepalle Contd...

317/4B

321

322/4

322/5

322/3

322/7

322/6

323

668/2A

324/1

667/1

667/2

667/3

665/3

665/2

665/1

664/2

664/3

664/1

664/8

344

345

662

346

644

639

640

641

642/2

642/1

643/1

634

617

633/2

625/2

625/3

621/1

38 1300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

2 1

624

6) Tadepalle Contd...

622

623

606

600/2B

600/3B

600/2A

600/3A

598

597

594

568/1

568/2

592/2

592/1

569/4

570/2

570/1

572/2A

572/1A

572/1B

571

557/3

575

576/1

576/3

576/4A

538/1B

538/2

855/1

856/2

856/1

864

863/1

863/2

865/2C

862/1

865/2E

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

5 3

10 0

45 00

50 0

10 0

20 0

40 0

25 28

25 0

95 0

70 23

90 01

95 0

45 0

30 20

00 0

55 06

15 16

40 0

85 06

15 05

65 13

65 0

40 07

55 19

60 30

35 0

50 0

10 0

00 02

25 0

05 0

90 0

45 0

15 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

865/2D 6) Tadepalle Contd...

865/2B

866

874/3

874/2B

874/1

874/2A

877/3

872/3

872/2

872/1B

872/1A

871 /1A

878/1

Mandai : Undraja varam

110

1) Kaldhari

111/2C

111/2D

458

440

112/7

112/1B

112/5

112/4

112/2

113/5B

113/5A

113/4

113/3

113/2

114

99/ 2A

99/2B

99/1F

99/1G

99/1C

98/3

99/1B

1301

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

05 0

85 04

05 29

25 15

15 19

75 03

35 0

District : West Godavari State : Andhra Pradesh

80 0

30 02

10 0

10 03

20 0

30 07

60 0

05 12

90 0

30 09

10 0

45 0

90 16

85 00

10 13

05 0

85 06

75 0

80 0

90 0

26 1302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

2 1

99/1A

1) Kaldhari Contd ...

92/6C

92/9A

92/9B

92/10A

92/8D

92/8C

92/8B

92/8A

92/7A

92/7B

93/3A

93/1

65/2D

65/3B

65/4A

65/3A

65/5A

65/2C

65/1E

65/1D

65/1B

53/7

53/8

53/3

53/2

54/7

54/6

52/1

54/4B

54/4A

4717

47/8

47/6

47/5

47/2

47/3

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

75 00

10 0

30 0

10 0

75 0

75 06

60 00

55 0

60 0

30 0

15 0

45 0

40 07

30 0

35 14

20 0

35 0

75 0

15 0

95 0

15 0

80 12

45 0

60 0

55 0

85 0

10 0

40 0 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

47/4

1) Kaldhari Contd...

46/1B

46/1A

26/2

26/3B

26/3A

26/4

3/6

4/3

4/2

3/2C

4/1C

4/5A

4/4A2

4/1B

4/1A

2) Velivennu

80/1

80/2

79/4

79/3

79/1B

78/13

76/11

76/12

75/4C

75/4B

75/4A

75/3

75/2

75/1C

131

132/6

132/5 253 GI /06-17

1303

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

80 05

75 0

10 0

45 0

15 13

65 0

25 00

65 0

90 0

15 0

70 0

65 0

75 34

35 00

20 00

85 00

00 02

35 00

75 00

85 15

75 00

70 06

25 00

05 00

45 00

75 10 1304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

2 1

132/1

2) Velivennu Contd ...

136/8

136/7

136/6

136/5

136/3

136/2

136/1

135/3

137/10

135/1

137/3

135/2

138

143/2

144

145/2

145/1

146

148/1

148/2

148/5

148/4

150/11

150/10

150/9

150/13

152

153/6

153/5

153/4

153/3

153/1

154/3

154/4

154/1

157/4B

157/4A

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

75 02

30 00

95 00

35 00

50 14

15 07

25 00

65 00

35 40

65 00

85 00

30 00

15 00

50 17

75 00

15 03

75 04

00 00

25 00

30 00

35 13

25 10

05 00

20 00

65 00

30 42

45 00

20 00

10 00

00 00

55 00

85 00

95 00

05 1305 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

5 1

157/3

20 2) Velivennu Contd...

157/2

158

164/1

70 * Survey Nos. notified vide S.O. 1851 dated 11/06/2003 u/s 3(1 ) of P&MP Act 1962. Present propasal is for additional areas .

[F. No : L- 14014/3/2006-G.P. ) S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2006

का. आ. 584.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की मेसर्स गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्बर कंपनी लिमिटेड की संप्रवर्तक कंपनी मेसर्स रिलाएंस इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड, के गोवा में उत्तरी/ दक्षिणी अपतट में खोज ब्लाकों और आन्ध्रप्रदेश में संरचनाओं से महाराष्ट्र राज्य में , लातुर और उस्मानाबाद जिले कें विभिन्न उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मेसर्स गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध 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, उसमे 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 जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध मे श्री . डी. एस . धोत्रे , सक्षम प्रधिकारी , गैस ट्रान्स्पोर्टेशन एंड इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर कंपनी लिमिटेड, प्लाट नं . 14/ व, नीरा पाम सोसायटी, विजापूर रोड, सोलापूर-413004, महाराष्ट्र राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुका:निलंगा जिल्हा: लातुर

सर्वे/ हिस्सा नंबर

आर ओयू अर्जित करने केलिए क्षेत्रफल गांव का नाम

हेक्टर

सि-एर

एर

37*

1) हतरगा (हलसी)

जिल्हा: उस्मानाबाद

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुका: उमरगा

82/3**

1) चाकुर

161/1/1**

161/1/7*

82/7*

37**

2) नारंगवाडी

15/3**

7/8**

223/1**

223/2** 1306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

210/2**

50 2) नारंगवाड़ी ( निरंतर )

16/3*

13/2*

7/1*

7/7*

7/9*

10/4*

10/5*

223/3*

213/5*

211/5*

209/2*

204/4*

203/1*

29/2**

3) पेठ सांगवी

29/1**

गाडी रस्ता सर्व्हे नं . 19 में**

228/2**

225/3**

15/ब/2*

15/अ/2*

16/3*

16/1*

229/1*

247/10*

247/8*

80 मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुका: लोहारा

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिल्हा: लातुर

79/10**

50 1) राजेगांव

79/5**

79/3*

79/4*

79/8*

89/2/2*

33/2/2**

60 2) सास्तुर

11/3**

11/2**

33/2/1*

41/6**

3) कानेगांव

41/7*

63/1/1*

4)अरनी

4/2*

राज्य महाराष्ट्र

जिल्हा: लातुर

मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुका: औसा

65**

1) मंगरूळ

68/अ*

68/व*

60/अ**

2) सारणी

239/2*

3) आशीव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1307

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

जिल्हा: उस्मानाबाद मंडल/ तहसील/ तालुका: उस्मानाबाद

62** 1) गावसुद

654* 2) उस्मानाबाद (ग्रामीण)

* नई अधिसूचना.

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

40 00

** का. आ . 2582 , दिनांक : 13/10/2004 व्दारा पी.एम.पी. अॅक्ट, 1962 की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अन्तर्गत सूचित किये गये सर्वे नंबर.

[फा. सं. एल-14014/4/2006-जी.पी. ]

एस. बी. मंडल, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2006

S. O. 584. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of the natural gas from exploration blocks in the Northern/ Southern Offshore of Goa and structures in Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited, the promoter company of M/ s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited to the various consumers of District Latur and Osmanabad in the State of Maharashtra, a pipeline should be laid by M/s Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited;

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

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub- section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of right of the user therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri . D.S. Dhotre , Competent Authority, Gas Transportation and Infrastructure Company Limited Pipeline Project, Plot No. 14/B, Neera Palm Society , Vijapur Road , Solapur - 413004 , Maharashtra State .

Schedule

Citsrict: Latur

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluka: Nilanga

Village

Survey/ Sub-division No.

37* 1) Hatarga ( Halsi )

State : Maharashtra

Area tabe

Rou

acquired for

Hectare

C-Are

Are

Ditsrict: Osmanabad

Mandal /Tehsil/Taluka : Umarga

82/3** 1) Chakur

161/1/1**

161/1/7*

82/7*

37** 2) Narangwadi

15/3**

7/8**

223/1**

223/ 2**

210/2**

16/3*

13/2*

7/1* State: Maharashtra

10 00

00 00

90 00

30 00

00 00

70 00

80 00

20 00

40 00

00 1308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

7/7* 2) Narangwadi Cortal...)

7/9*

10/4*

10/5*

223/3*

213/5*

211/5*

209/2*

204/4*

203/1*

29/2** 3) Peth.Sangvi

29/1 **

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

70 00

80 00

40 00

50 00

00 00

20 00

60 00

40 00

CartTrack in Survey No. 19**

228/2**

225/3**

15/B/2*

15/A/2*

16/3*

16/1*

229/1*

247/10*

247/8* Mandal /Tehsil /Taluka: Lohara

40 00

60 00

15 00

80 00

District: Osmanabad

79/10** 1) Rajegaon

79/5**

79/3*

79/4*

79/8*

89/2/2*

33/2/ 2** 2) Sastur

11/3**

11/2**

33/2/1*

41/6** 3) Kanegaon

41/7*

63/1/1* 4)Arni

4/2*

District: Latur Mandal/Tahsil/Taluka : Ausa

65** 1)Mangrul

68/A*

68/B*

60/A** 2) Sarni

239/2* 3)Ashiv

State: Maharashtra

00 00

60 00

10 00

60 00

00 00

State: Maharashtra

40 00

20 00

40 00

State: Maharashtra

District: Osmanabad

Mandal /Tehsil/Taluka : Osmanabad

62** 1) Gaosud

654* 2) Osmanabad( Rural )

Fresh Notification

80 00

40 00

**Survey Nos . Notified vide S.O. 2582 dated 13/10/2004 u / s 3( 1 ) of PMP , Act 1962. Additional areas .

[ F. No. L- 14014/4/2006-G.P. ] S. B. MANDAL , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

श्रम मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 585.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-43012/13/2000- आई. आर ( विविध ) ]

1309

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

service of Shri Khyali Lal S/o Sh . Bheru Lal Harijan, Ex -Helper w.e.f. 18-4-99 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief workman concerned isentitled? "

उक्त आशय का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 3-9-2001 को नियमित औद्योगिक विवाद संख्या 15/2001 दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये । जिस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जवाब पेश किया गया ।

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF LABOUR

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 S.O. 585.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 15/2001) of the Industrial Tribunal , Udaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management ofM/s. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and their workmen, received bythe Central Government on 12-1-2006 .

[No. L-43012/ 13 /2000- IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

अनुबन्ध

न्यायालय औद्योगिकं विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय,

उदयपुर ( राज. )

पीठासीन अधिकारी- उषा अग्रवाल आर एच जे एस प्रकरण क्रमांक 15/2001 औद्योगिक विवाद श्री ख्याली लाल पुत्र श्री बी . एल. हरिजन द्वारा अरूण व्यास उपाध्यक्ष माही मजदूर संगठन- उदयपुर

-प्रार्थी

विरूद्ध

श्री डिप्टी जनरल मैनेजर, हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लि. जिंक स्मैल्टर दैबारी , उदयपुर

-विपक्षी

उपस्थित:

प्रार्थी की ओर से श्री अरूण व्यास विपक्षी की ओर से श्री बी एल गुप्ता

पंचाट

दिनांक 9-12-2005

केन्द्र सरकार के श्रम विभाग की अधिसूचना क्रमांक एल-43012/ 13/2000/आईआर( एम ) नई दिल्ली मिनिस्टरी ऑफ लेबर/ श्रम मंत्रालय दिनांक 27-7-2000 के द्वारा निम्नलिखित प्रसंग इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रेषित किया गया-

"Whether the action of the management of Hidustan Zinc Ltd. , Zinc Smelter Debari Distt. Udaipur in imposing penality as termination from प्रार्थी कीओर से प्रस्तुत क्लेम के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी के अधीन संचालित प्लान्ट में मजदूर के रूप में दिनांक 9-7-75 को नियुक्त किया गया था । प्रार्थी का परिविसाकाल पूरा होने पर दिनांक 7-2-99 को हैल्पर पद पर क्रमोन्नत किया गयां तथा प्रार्थी ने उक्त पद पर संतोषप्रद सेवाएं दी थी । प्रार्थी के निरन्तर बीमार रहने से विपक्षी ने उसे दिनांक 23-7-80 को सेवा पृथक कर दिया परन्तु प्रार्थी द्वारा पुनः नौकरी में लिये जाने का निवेदन करने पर दिनांक 16-2-81 को उसे टेम्परेरी नियुक्ति दी गई परन्तु दिनांक 30-6-82 को पुनः सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया। प्रार्थी द्वारा इस सेवा पृथककरण से श्रम न्यायालय, उदयपुर में श्रम विवाद क्रमांक 28/85 एल सी जरिये अधिसूचना दर्ज करवाया । इस प्रकरण के निर्णय दिनांक 8-5-91 से प्रार्थी श्रमिक को सेवा निरन्तरता के मजदूर केटैगरी प्रथम पद पर नियुक्त कर निर्णय दिया जिससे प्रार्थी पुनः सेवा में उपस्थित हुआ एवं सन्तोषप्रद कार्य किया । प्रार्थी के पुनः गम्भीर रूप से बीमार हो जाने से दिनांक 8-9-97 को आरोप पत्र देकर मनमानी जांच कर प्रार्थी की पत्नी श्रीमती कमला के प्रार्थना पत्र को नजर अन्दाज कर आदेश दिनांक 8-4-99 से विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक करने के दण्ड से दण्डित कर दिया । इस पर प्रार्थी ने पुनः यह प्रकरण केन्द्र सरकार की अधिसूचना के आधार पर इस अधिकरण में दर्ज करवाया है । प्रार्थी ने इस जांच कार्यवाही को मनमानी एवं प्राकृतिक न्याय के सिद्धान्तों के विपरीत माना, प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत रोग प्रमाण पत्र अवकाश प्रार्थना पत्र आदि रेकार्ड पर नहीं लेना व प्रार्थी श्रमिक की पत्नी श्रीमती कमला की अपील पर सुनवाई न करने का आरोप विपक्षी पर लगाया एवं प्रार्थी ने सेवा में निरन्तरता सहित समस्त लाभ सहित सेवा में बहाल करने की क्लेम में प्रार्थना की है । विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में यह अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक उनके संस्थान में दिनांक 9-7-75 को प्रथम बार मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ था । विपक्षी को दिनांक7-2-99 को हैल्पर के पद पर पदोन्नति दी गई थी। विपक्षी ने यह भी कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी ड्यूटी से अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित रहने का आदी था । वर्ष 1979 में ड्यूटी से 213 दिन अनधिकृत अनुस्थित रहा था । विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को 23-7-80 को सेवा से पृथक किया था तथा प्रार्थी के पुनः निवेदन करने पर उसे दिनांक 16-2-81 को अस्थाई मजदूर की श्रेणी I में पुनः नियुक्ति दी गई तथा प्रार्थी के अनधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने के कारण दिनांक को नहीं दी गई । प्रार्थी वास्तव में बिमार था जिसकी लिखित सूचना देने के उपरान्त भी विपक्षी ने उसे " विलफुल एबसेन्ट फ्रोम ड्यूटी विदाउट कॉज एण्ड नोटिस " मानकर दण्डादेश दिया है , प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम में कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी का उक्त आदेश दिनांक 8-4-99 अवैध एवं शून्य है । प्रार्थी ने सेवा की निरन्तरता के साथ सभी लाभों सहित सेवा में रखे जाने की प्रार्थना की है । 1310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

सक्षम अधिकारी को प्रस्तुत कर दी थी । जांच प्रतिवेदन में प्रार्थी के ऊपर लगाये गये आरोपों को पूर्णतया साबित पाया । इसके पश्चात् सक्षम अधिकारी ने अपने ज्ञापन में दिनांक 24-2-99 को प्रार्थी को 72 घन्टे में यह स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करने को कहा कि कदाचार की सघनता एवं पूर्व सेवाअभिलेख भली भांति अवलोकन करने के पश्चात्, क्यों नहीं प्रार्थी को कम्पनी से सेवा मुक्त कर दिया जावे । प्रार्थी ने अपने पत्र दिनांक 1-3-99 द्वारा ज्ञापन का स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत किया जिसे सक्षम अधिकारी ने संतोषजनक नहीं माना तथा अपने आदेश क्रमांक जि स्मे/कार्मिक/99/59 दिनांक 8-4-99 द्वारा प्रार्थी की सेवाए समाप्त कर दीगईंजो विपक्षी के अनुसार उचित एवं वैध है । विपक्षी का कथन है कि प्रार्थी ने समय- समय पर जांच कार्यवाही में उपस्थित नहीं होकर अलग- अलग बहाने दिये । प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 5-5-97 द्वारा अपनी माता को अस्वस्थ बताया था । इसके बाद अपने पत्र दिनांक 10-7-97 द्वारा अपनी पुत्री को अस्वस्थ होना बताया था पत्र दिनांक 1-7-98 द्वारा उस एक खतरनाक भूतप्रेत लग जाने से विभिन्न देवरो भोपो, ओझा एवं तांत्रिकगणों से ईलाज करवाना बताया था । विपक्षी ने अपनी जांच कार्यवाही को पूर्णतया प्राकृतिक न्याय के सुनिर्धारित सिद्धान्तों के अनुसार बताया है एवं प्रार्थी की सेवामुक्ति आदेश को उचित ठहराया है । विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को किसी राहत का अधिकारी नहीं माना है ।

हमें हस्तगत प्रकरण में यह अभिनिर्णीत करना है कि क्या संस्थान द्वारा प्रार्थी आरोपित को सेवा पृथक के दण्ड से दण्डित कि जाना आरोपित द्वारा किये गये दुराचरण के समतुल्य है या नहीं ? यदि समतुल्य नहीं है तो प्रार्थी क्या राहत प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी है ।

प्रार्थी को दिनांक 5/8-9-97 को रजिस्टर्ड डाक से आरोप पत्र क्रमांक जि.स्मे. कार्मिक/97/ 1167 डयूटी से अनुपस्थित रहने के लिये इकाई के प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेशों को धारा 19 ( 24 ) एवं ( 30 ) के तहत कदाचार है , जारी किया जो विस्तृत रूप से निम्नानुसार है:-

आप दिनांक 13-3-97 से अपनी ड्यूटी से अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थितहै । आपको कार्यालय के रजिस्टर्ड ए डी पत्र क्रमांक ज़ेड एस/कार्मिक/सं.का/97/ 588 दिनांक 8-9-77 द्वारा पत्र प्राप्ति के 48 घंटे में ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित होने हेतु सुचित किया गया था , परन्तु इसके बावजूद आप ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित नहीं हुए ।

आपका उपर्युक्त कृत्य इकाई के प्रमाणित स्थाई आदेशों को संख्या 19/27 ( 24 ) एवं 19 ( 30 ) के अन्तर्गत एक कदाचार है । आपके विरूद्ध अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थित के कदाचार को जांच का निर्णय लिया गया है एवं श्री डी.के नन्दी वरिष्ठ प्रबन्धक ( सुरक्षा ) को जांच हेतु अधिकारी नियुक्तकिया जाता है ।

आपको सलाह दी जाती है कि आप दिनांक 25-9-97 को जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष जांच में भाग लेने हेतु मय साक्ष्य एवं दस्तावेजों सहित उपस्थित होंवे । अन्यथा जांच अधिकारी द्वारा नियमानुसार जांच कार्यवाही सम्पन्न को जावेगी ।

विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में यह अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी श्रमिक उनके संस्थान में दिनांक 9-7-75 को प्रथम बार मजदूर के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ था । प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 17-7-75 को कार्यभार सम्भाला था । प्रार्थी श्रमिक को दिनांक 7-2-99 को हैल्पर के पद पर पदोन्नति दी गई थी । विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को ड्यूटी से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने का आदी माना व 213 दिन अनधिकृत अनुपस्थित माना । विपक्षी ने अपने जवाब में यह माना है कि प्रार्थी को दिनांक 23-7-80 को सेवा से पृथक कर दिया था । प्रार्थी के पुनः निवेदन करने पर दिनांक 16-2-81 को पुनः नियुक्ति दी गई थी । प्रार्थी को ड्यूटी से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने से दिनांक 30-6-82 को पुनः सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया था । विपक्षी ने प्रार्थी को अनधिकृत अनुपस्थिति के लिये समय - समय पर दिये गये दण्ड का विवरण दिया वह इस प्रकार है- वर्ष 1992 में 25 दिन, वर्ष 1993 में 54 दिन , वर्ष 1994 में 200 दिन, वर्ष 1995 में 137 दिन, व वर्ष 1996 में 218 दिन अनुपस्थित रहने के लिये 1992 में कोई दण्ड नहीं दिया , वर्ष 1993 में प्रार्थी को सेन्सर किया गया व वर्ष 1994 में प्रार्थी कोदिन के निलम्बन का दण्ड दिया गया व वर्ष 1995 में अनधिकृत अनुपस्थितिके लिये प्रार्थी को असंचयी प्रभाव से एक वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि रोकने का दण्ड दिया गया व वर्ष 1996 में 218 दिन के अनधिकृत अनुपस्थिति के लिये प्रार्थी को संचयी प्रभाव से एक वार्षिक वेतन वृद्धि रोकी जाने का दण्ड दिया गया था । विपक्षी ने जवाब में कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी वर्ष 1997 में दिनांक 13-3-97 से ड्यूटी से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने से पत्र क्रमांकन जेड एस/कार्मिक/स का/ 97/588 दिनांक 18-7-97 रजिस्टर्ड ए डी से भेजा गया था , इसमें लिखा गया था कि प्रार्थी अगर बिमार है तो अपनी बिमारी के चिकित्सा प्रमाण पत्र सहित प्रभारी चिकित्सालय देबारी में स्वास्थ्य परिक्षण हेतु पत्र प्राप्ति के 48 घन्टे के भीतर उपस्थित रहे । इस पर भी प्रार्थी उपस्थित नहीं हुआ और न ही पत्र का जवाब दिया तत्पश्चात् प्रार्थी को सक्षम अधिकारी द्वारा रजिस्टर्ड डाक से आरोप पत्र क्रमांक जि. स्मे. कार्मिक/97/1167 दिनांक 5 /8-9-97 ड्यूटी से अनधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने के लिये जारी किया गया था । इसी पत्र के तहत श्री डी. के. नन्दी वरिष्ठ प्रबन्धक सुरक्षा को जांच अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया तथा प्रार्थी को मय साक्ष्य व दस्तावेजों के साथ जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष दिनांक 25-9-97 को उपस्थितहोने का आदेश दिया गया था । इस आरोप पत्र को स्थानीय दैनिक " प्रातः काल " में दिनांक 19-9-97 को भी प्रकाशित करवाया था । प्रार्थी दिनांक 25-9-97 को जांच कार्यवाही के लिये जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष उपस्थित हुआ था तथा उसने जांच अधिकारी से निवेदन किया कि उसका स्वास्थ्यठीक नहीं होने से जांच कार्यवाही दिनांक 13-10-97 को रखा जावे । जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी के इस निवेदन को स्वीकार जाँच कार्यवाही दिनांक 13-10-97 के लिये नियत को थी । किन्तु प्रार्थी दिनांक 13-10-97 को जांच कार्यवाही में उपस्थित नहीं हुआ था । इसके पश्चात् जाँच अधिकारी ने अपने पत्र क्रमांक जि. स्मे. वप्र/ ( सु) जांच/98/221 दिनांक 10-5-98 से सूचित किया । जांच अधिकारी ने प्रार्थी को समय देते हुए पत्र क्रमांक ( जि स्मे/वप्र/( सु) जाच/02/98/669 दिनांक 25-5-98 से प्रार्थी को दिनांक 30-6-98 को जांच कार्यवाही में उपस्थितरहने का आदेश दिया था । प्रार्थी दिनांक 30-6-98 को कार्यवाही में उपस्थितनहीं हुआ था । प्रार्थी को अनुपस्थिति से जांच कार्यवाही एकतरफा सम्पन्न कर दी गई । जाँच अधिकारी ने अपनी रिपोर्ट ( प्रतिवेदन )

आरोपित प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध लगाये गये आरोप का प्रकाशन विपक्षी द्वारा प्रातःकाल समाचार पत्र में दिनांक 19-9-97 को कराया गया । प्रार्थी श्रमिक नियत दिनांक 25-9-97 को जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष उपस्थित हुआ । प्रार्थी के उपस्थित होकर बीमार होने के अनुरोध पर जांच कार्यवाही दिनांक13-10-97 को रखी गई । परन्तु आरोपित श्रमिक 1311 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

केअनुपस्थितहोने पर 12-5-98 को रखी गई जिसकी जांच कार्यवाही अधिकारी द्वारा रजिस्टर्ड डाक से सूचना आरोपित श्रमिक को भेजी गई जिसका जवाब आरोपित द्वारा 10-5-98 के प्रपत्र द्वारा दिया गया, अतः जांच 30-6-98 को रखी गयी । 30-6-98 को प्रार्थी के उपस्थित नहीं होने पर विपक्षी के द्वारा आपत्ति करने पर जांच अधिकारी ने आरोपित प्रार्थी के विरुद्ध एक पक्षीय कार्यवाही कर प्रबंधन की ओर से प्रबंधन प्रतिनिधिके बयान लेकर जांच कार्यवाही सम्पन्न की है । न्यायालय ने आदेश दिनांक 29-9-05 को जांच अधिकारी द्वारा की गई जांच को उचित एवं वैध पाया है ।

जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष संस्थान प्रतिनिधि श्री पी. के. चतुर्वेदी ने बयान दिया है कि ख्यालीलाल हरिजन दिनांक 13-3-97 से अपनी ड्यूटी से अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित चल रहे हैं । इनको पत्र क्रमांक जि. स्मे. कार्मिक स.का. /97/588 दिनांक 18-7-97 द्वारा रजिस्टर्ड ए.डी. पत्र जारी कर सूचित किया गया है कि पत्र प्राप्ति के 48 घंटे में ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित होवें और यदि वे बीमार हैं तो बीमारी संबंधी प्रमाण पत्र सहित प्रभारी चिकित्सालय देबारी में , स्वास्थ्य वे परीक्षण हेतु उपस्थित होवें , परन्तु श्री ख्यालीलाल ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित नहीं हुए । इनको जारी पत्र की प्रति प्रदर्श -1 प्राप्ति रसीद प्रदर्श एम -2 प्रस्तुत है । श्री ख्यालीलाल के ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित होने पर इनको एक आरोप पत्र क्रमांक 1167 दिनांक 5/8-9-97 का प्रकाशन प्रातः काल दैनिक समाचार पत्र दिनांक 19-9-97 में किया गया जिसकी प्रतिलिपि प्रदर्श- एम 3 प्रस्तुत है ।

श्री ख्यालीलाल कम्पनी नियमानुसार उनको देय अधिकृत अवकाशों का उपभोग करके ही अधिकृत रूप से अवकाश पर रह सकते थे , परन्तु ख्यालीलाल ने वर्ष 1997 के दौरान ऐसा नहीं किया । इनके द्वारा देय एस.एल. अवकाश का उपभोग किया परन्तु सी.एल. एवं ओ.पी.एच. अवकाशों का उपभोग भी नहीं किया एवं दिनांक 13-3-97 सेलगातार ड्यूटी से अनुपस्थित हो गए जो उनकीअनाधिकृत अनुपस्थिति है एवं इकाई के प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेश की संख्या 19 ( 24 ) एवं 19 (30) के अन्तर्गत कदाचार है । साक्षी के अनुसार 1997 से प्रार्थी की पी.एल. बकाया नहीं थी, सी. एल. अवकाश 8 बकाया है व सी.एल. 10 दिन की मिलती हैं व 10 का उपभोग कर लिया गया व ओ.पी.एच. अवकाश वर्ष में दो मिलते हैं । दोनों अवकाशों का उपभोग प्रार्थी आरोपित ने नहींकिया है । वर्ष 1998 में पी. एल . कोई बकाया नहीं है । एस.एल. 10 मिलती है व 10 का उपभोग नहीं किया गया है एस. एल. 8 मिलती हैं व 8 का उपभोग कर लिया गया है । इसी प्रकार प्रार्थी के द्वारा दो ओ.पी.एच. अवकाश वर्ष 98 में उपभोग करना नहीं दर्शाया गया है । प्रार्थी ने वर्ष 1996 एवं 1997 के दौरान 240 दिन की भौतिक उपस्थिति पूर्ण नहीं की । अतः वर्ष 1997 त्रं 1998 में पी.एल. अवकाश सुविधा देय नहीं हुई । कम्पनी द्वारा कामगारों को एक वर्ष में 28 पी. एल. एवं 10 एस. एल. अवकाश देय है तथा कामगार 22 पी.एल. एवं 120 एस. एल. संकलन का अवकाश खाते में अवकाश शेष रखे ताकि आवश्यकतानुसार अवकाशों का उपभोग किया जा सके तथा कामगार ड्यूटी से अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित नहीं रहे । परन्तु आरोपित कर्मचारी अर्जित अवकाश अर्जित भी नहीं कर पाये, क्योंकि इनकी अनुपस्थिति के 240 दिन भौतिक उपस्थिति पूर्ण नहीं हुई । इससे यह स्पष्ट है कि श्री ख्यालीलाल ड्यूटी से अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थित रहने के आदी हैं एवं इनके विरुद्ध लगाये अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थिति के आरोप पूर्णतया प्रमाणित होते हैं ।

प्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत्त क्लेम प्रार्थना- पत्र विपक्षी संस्थान प्रतिनिधि के बयान से यह तथ्य निर्विवादित रहता है कि प्रार्थी ख्यालीलाल दिनांक 13-3-1997 से अपनी ड्यूटी से अनुपस्थिति है । क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र में भी आरोपित प्रार्थी ने कथन किया है कि प्रार्थी दिनांक 13-3-1997 से लगातार बीमार चला आ रहा था जिस बाबत प्रार्थी समय- समय पर अवकाश प्रार्थना पत्र मय रोग प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करता रहा । पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी के द्वारा जो प्रार्थना पत्र प्रस्तुत किये गये हैं उनका हमारे द्वारा अवलोकन किया गया । विपक्षी संस्थान द्वारा प्रार्थी को दिये सेवा पृथक आदेश दिनांक 8-4-99 में भी इन पत्रों का उल्लेख किया गया है । इसलिये हमने संस्थान की मूल व्यक्तिगत पंजिका व पत्राचार पत्रावली का भी संस्थान से मंगा कर उसका भी अवलोकन किया । पत्राचार पत्रावली के. अवलोकन से यह प्रकट होता है कि आरोपित ख्यालीलाल ने एक पत्र दिनांक 17-3-97 को लिखा जो यू.पी.सी. से -21-3-97 को भेजा है जिसमें श्रमिक ने यह निवेदन कियां है कि " मेरी माताजी का एक्सीडेंट दिनांक 13-3-97 को हो गया है इस कारण मैं नौकरी पर उपस्थित नहीं हो सकूंगा । अतः सूचना रिपोर्ट सेवा में पेश कर रहा हूं । " इस पत्र में श्रमिक ने यह नहीं लिखा है कि वह किस प्रकार का अवकाश चाहता है . और कितने दिन का अवकाश चाहता है । प्रार्थी की पत्राचार पत्रावली में प्रार्थी के द्वारा विपक्षी को प्रेषित पंजीकृत पत्र प्रेषित कर उप महाप्रबंधक जिंक स्मेलटर देबारी से निवेदन किया है कि दिनांक 13-3-97 को मेरी मां के दुर्घटनाग्रस्त हो जाने के कारण मैं सेवा कार्य पर उपस्थित्त नहीं हो सका । मैनें दिनांक 13-3-97 से दिनांक 18-3-97 तक सी.एल. अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र भी आपकी सेवा में भेजा था, मैंने पुनः दिनांक 21-3-97 को भं। आपकी सेवा में पत्र भेज कर निवेदन किया था अभी तक मेरी माँ का इलाज चल रहा है सो मैं सेवा पर उपस्थित नहीं हो सकूंगा । अतः श्रीमान् से निवेदन है कि मेरे विरुद्ध कोई कार्यवाही नहीं की जाकर मुझे दिनांक 13 मार्च से 13 अप्रैल, 97 तक का अवकाश प्रदान करावें । इस पत्र पर कोई दिनांक अंकित नहीं है , किन्तु विपक्षी को यह पत्र दिनांक 4-4-97 को प्राप्त होना पृष्ठांकित है व प्राप्ति स्वीकृति रसीद पर 3-4-94 अंकित है । तत्पश्चात् प्रार्थी ने एक पंजीयन पत्र दिनांक 5-5-97 को वरिष्ठ प्रबन्धक ( कार्मिक एवं प्रशासन ) को छु‌ट्टी बढ़ाने हेतु प्रेषित कर निवेदन किया है कि " पूर्व में मैं कार्यालय को दिनांक 21-3-97 को यू.पी.सी. द्वारा सूचना भेजी थी कि मेरी माताजी दर्घटनाग्रस्त होने की वजह से मेरी छुट्टी बढ़ाई जावे , लेकिन अभी तक मेरी माताजी की हालत में सुधार नहीं हो पाया है और मेरे परिवार में मेरे बाल बच्चों की तबियत भी ठीक नहीं है , उनकी दौड़ धूप में लगा हुआ हूं। मेरी विभाग अधिकारी सा. से निवेदन है कि मुझे दिनांक 13-5-97 तक अवकाश बढ़ाया जावे जिससे मैं मेरी माताजी व बाल बच्चों को देख सकूं तथा श्रमिक ख्यालीलाल ने निवेदन किया है कि वह दिनांक 14-5-97 को ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित हो जायेगा । " त्तपश्चात् प्रार्थी ने विपक्षी संस्थान के वरिष्ठ प्रबन्धक को दिनांक 10-7-97 को रजिस्टर्ड डाक से पत्र भेज कर सूचित किया कि " मैंने पूर्व में भी छुट्टी सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थनापत्र दिया था कि में दिनांक 14-5-97 को अपनी ड्यूटी पर उपस्थितहो जाऊंगा लेकिन मेरी लड़की का मेज गले का आपरेशन होने के कारण उसे सरस्वती होस्पीटल एम.आर.आई. में भर्ती कराया गया है सो उसकी देखभाल में लगा रहा और वापस दुबारा ऑपरेशन करने को कहा है । इस वजह से मैं बहुत परेशान हूं और विभाग के पत्र 253 GI /06-18 1312

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

21-3-97 की है । इस प्रकार वास्तव में यह पत्र 21-3-97 को डाक में डाला गया तथा यह पत्र संस्थान में 25-3-97 को प्राप्त हुआ है । इस पत्र के संदर्भ में यदि हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेश जो 20 अक्तूबर, 1972 से प्रभावी है जिनमें आकस्मिक अवकाश के सम्बन्ध में जो आदेश II ( ख ) ( I ) में अंकित है वह इस प्रकार है कि-" प्रत्येक कर्मकार पूरे कलेण्डर वर्ष में यथानुपातिक आधार पर 7 दिन की आकस्मिक छुट्टी का हकदार होगा । " (2 ) में यह अंकित है कि " आकस्मिक छुट्टी केवल आपातिक और अप्रत्याशित परिस्थितियों मेंही ली जा सकती है " साथ ही ख II (6 ) को इस प्रकार परिभाषित किया है-

"जहां तक संभव हो पूर्व अनुमति लेकर ही आकस्मिक अवकाश छुट्टी ली जानी चाहिये । यदि पूर्व अनुमति प्राप्त नहीं की गई हो तो आकस्मिक छुट्टी के लिये हर बार बाद में लिखित आवेदन पत्र दिया जाना चाहिये । एक ही साथ अधिकतम 6 दिन की आकस्मिक छुट्टी ली जा सकती है, परन्तु जैसा पहले बताया गया है कि बिना सूचना के दो दिन से अधिक की आकस्मिक छुट्टी नहीं ली जा सकती है । दो दिन से अधिक आकस्मिक छुट्टी औपचारिक आवेदन पत्र तथा पूर्व स्वीकृति के बिना नहीं दी जायेगी । इसका आशय यह है कि बिना सूचना जिस कर्मकार ने दो दिन की आकस्मिक छुट्टी ली हो उसे पहले ड्यूटी पर आना चाहिये और फिर आगे की छु‌ट्टी के लिये आवेदन देकर छुट्टी लेनी चाहिए । "

द्वारा 14-5-97 को कार्यालय में उपस्थिति के लिये वार्तालाप हेतु बुलाया है सो मैं नहीं पहुंच सका, उसका ब्यौरा मैं दे चुका हूं एवं वापस 2-6-97 को कार्यालय में उपस्थिति बाबत बुलाया गया सो मैं 2-6-97 को विभाग में हाजिर हुआ था, विभाग के अधिकारी अवकाश पर थे तो मैं कार्यालय में उपस्थिति की वेरीफाई करा कर हस्ताक्षर लाया था एवं उसके बाद में मेरी भी तबीयत खराब हो गई थी सो बीमारी से मैं मुक्त हो गया हूं सो आपसे प्रार्थना है कि मैं दिनांक 16-7-97 को सोमवार तक कार्यालय में उपस्थित होकर मैं अपनी दैनिक ड्यूटी करूंगा । त्तपश्चात्विपक्षी संस्थान ने दिनांक 18-7-97 को आरोपित प्रार्थी को रजिस्टर्ड ए.डी. पत्र प्रेषित कर सूचित किया कि आप दिनांक 13-3-97 से बिना किसी तरह की सूचना दिये अपनी ड्यूटी से अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित है । अतः आपको इस पत्र द्वारा सूचित किया जाता है कि आप पत्र की प्राप्ति के 48 घंटे की अवधि में ड्यूटी पर उपस्थितहो जावें यदि आप ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित नहीं होंगे तो इस विषय में आपके विरुद्ध स्थाई आदेशों के अन्तर्गत कार्यवाही की जावेगी तथा विशेष रूप से इस पत्र में यह उल्लेखित किया गया है कि अगर आप बीमार हैं तो बीमारी से संबंधित चिकित्सा प्रमाणपत्र सहित प्रभारी चिकित्सालय देबारी में स्वास्थ्य परीक्षण हेतु उपस्थित रहें । इस पत्र को जांच पत्रावली में प्रदर्श एम-1 से संस्थान प्रतिनिधि ने अपने बयानों में प्रदर्शित कराया है । फिर भी प्रार्थी न तो ड्यूटी पर उपस्थित हुआ न ही चिकित्सा प्रमाणपत्र सहित प्रभारी, चिकित्सालय देबारी में उपस्थित हुआ तब प्रार्थी को 8-9-97 को विपक्षी संस्थान द्वारा आरोप पत्र दिया गया है । प्रकरण पत्रावली पर प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि द्वारा 13-3-97 के पूर्व प्रार्थी के बीमारी बाबत कुछ अवधि के प्रमाणपत्र प्रस्तुत किये हैं जिसमें उसके 13-12-96 को ड्यूटी जोईन करने के लिये फिट होने के निर्देश दिये गये है । प्रार्थी की ओर से आयुर्वेद विभाग राजस्थान का रोग प्रमाण पत्र श्रमिक ख्यालीलाल का प्रस्तुत किया है जिसमें उसे 30-3-97 से ग्रंथ व सीवरन व्याधि रोग से पीडित होने से 287 दिन स्वास्थ्य लाभ हेतु विश्राम की आवश्यकता होना कथन किया है , जबकि प्रार्थी के पत्राचार दिनांक 17-3-97 जो दिनांक 21-3-97 को यू.पी.सी. से प्रेषित किया व 2-6-97 तक की अवधि में स्वयं का बीमार होना जाहिर नहीं किया है कर स्वयं की माता का 13-3-97 को दुर्घटनाग्रस्त होने व तत्पश्चात् पुत्री के गले का ऑपरेशन होने के कारण अवकाश पर रहना कथन किया है, जिससे यह रोग प्रमाणपत्र की प्रति संदिग्ध प्रतीत होती है व विश्वसनीय नहींहै । चूंकि प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 10-7-97 के पत्र द्वारा सूचित कियाहै कि वह 2-6-97 के पश्चात् बीमार हो गया था, किन्तु अब वह स्वस्थहै व 16-7-97 को सेवा में उपस्थित हो जावेगा । अतः ये प्रमाणपत्र प्रार्थी के बाद की सोच है व झूठा भी है । अतः प्रार्थी का प्रार्थना पत्र में कथन है कि वह 13-3-97 से लगातार बीमार होने की वजह से सेवा स्थल पर उपस्थित नहीं हो सका था, गलत साबित होता है ।

د जहां तक प्रार्थी के अनाधिकृत अनुपस्थिति का प्रश्न है, इस सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी द्वारा सर्वप्रथम पत्र में अपनी माताजी का एक्सीडेन्ट दिनांक 13-3-97 को हो जाने के कारण नौकरी पर उपस्थित नहीं होने बाबत लिखा है वो पत्र दिनांक 17-3-97 को लिखा गया है तथा उसके साथ जो लिफाफा लगा है उस पर डाकघर की मोहर 21-3-97 की स्पष्ट अंकित है तथा यू.पी.सी. की रसीद पेश की गई है वह भी

इस प्रकार उक्त स्थाई आदेश का अवलोकन करें तो न तो प्रार्थी ने पूर्व अनुमति लीहै , न ही पहले बताया है । लेकिन उक्त आदेश में यह भी है कि यदि वह बिना सूचना के दो दिन से अधिक की आकस्मिक छुट्टी नहीं ली जा सकती है तथा दो दिन से अधिक आकस्मिक छुट्टी औपचारिक आवेदन पत्र तथा पूर्व स्वीकृति के बिना नहीं दी जावेगी । इस प्रकार यदि प्रार्थी की माताजी का दिनांक 13-3-97 को एक्सीडेन्ट भी हो गया था तो प्रार्थी दिनांक 13 व 14 मार्च 97 को अवकाश में रह कर दिनांक 5 मार्च, 97 को उसे आवश्यक रूप से उपस्थित होना था, लेकिन प्रार्थीदिनांक 15-3-97 को उपस्थित नहीं हुआ और यहां तक कि उसने जो प्रार्थना पत्र ही लिखा वह भी 17-3-97 को यानि 4 दिन पश्चात् तो लिखा है व यू.पी.सी. से दिनांक 21-3-97 को भेजा यानि 8 दिन पश्चात् उसने प्रार्थना पत्र भेजा है जो संस्थान को 25-3-97 को प्राप्त हुआ है यानि संस्थान को उक्त सूचना करीब 12 दिन बाद प्राप्त हुई है जो कि हर सूरत में उक्त स्थाई आदेशों के बिल्कुल विपरीत है । यदि यह भी माने किउसने यह पत्र 17-3-97 को भी लिखा है तो भी 4 दिन बाद लिखा जबकि यह भी आदेश के विपरीत है , ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि उसने यह पत्र 21-3-97 को लिखा है और 17-3-97 कि दिनांक उस पर अंकित कर दी है जबकि उसके द्वारा जो यू.पी.सी. कराई गई है उस पर दिनांक 21-3-97 स्पष्ट है । दूसरी ओर यदि वह बिना पूर्व अनुमति के या बिना पूर्व अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये अवकाश पर भी रहा और उसे आगे अवकाश भीचाहिये था तो उसे 15-3-97 को उपस्थित होकर आगे के अवकाश के लिये आवेदन करना चाहिये था, ऐसा भी आरोपित ने नहीं किया है । इसके अलावा उसने जो यह पत्र दिनांक 17-3-97 को लिखा है उसमें किसी प्रकार के अवकाश का हवाला नहीं दिया है बल्कि यह लिखा है कि मैं नौकरी पर उपस्थित नहीं हो सकूंगा अतः सूचना रिपोर्ट सेवा में पेश कर रहा हूं। इस प्रकार यह अवकाश आवेदन पत्र भी नहीं है । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

इसके पश्चात् प्रार्थी द्वारा एक रजिस्टर्ड पत्र उप महाप्रबन्ध जिंक स्मेलटर देबारी को प्रेषित किया है , हालांकि इस पत्र पर कोई दिनांक अंकित नहीं है , लेकिन संस्थान को यह पत्र 4-4-97 को प्राप्त हुआ है जिसमें प्रार्थी ने यह लिखा है कि " मैंने दिनांक 13-3-97 से 18-3-97 तक सी.एल. अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र भी आपकी सेवा में भेजा था, मैंने पुनः दिनांक 21-3-97 को भी आपकी सेवा में पत्र भेज कर निवेदन किया था अभी तक मेरी मां का इलाज चल रहा है, तो मैं सेवा कार्य पर उपस्थितनहींहो सकूंगा। "

दिनांक 21-3-97 का कोई पत्र पेश नहीं हुआ है । दूसरा प्रार्थी ने यह अंकित किया है कि मैंने दिनांक 13-3-97 से 18-3-97 तक सी.एल. अवकाश का प्रार्थना पत्र आपकी सेवा में प्रेषित किया था, लेकिन जो प्रथम पत्र जो 17-3-97 का लिखा हुआ है उसमें किसी प्रकार के अवकाश का हवाला नहीं है और न ही 13-2-97 से 18-3-97 तक सी. एल. बाबत विवरण है । यदि एक क्षण के लिये यह भी मान लें कि उसने 13-3-97 से 18-3-97 तक सी. एल. के लिये आवेदन किया था तो बिना पूर्व अवकाश स्वीकृत कराये वह 6 दिन का आकस्मिक अवकाश कैसे ले सकता था जबकि उक्त नियम के अनुसार यदि वह बिना सूचना के अवकाश पर रहता है तो दो दिन के बाद उसे पहले तो ड्यूटी पर आना चाहिये था उसके बाद ही वह अवकाश बढ़ा सकता था। इस प्रकार उसने हर रूप में उक्त स्थाई आदेशों के विरूद्ध ही कार्य किया है ।

साथ ही यह पत्र जो विभाग जो 4-4-97 को प्राप्त हुआ है उसमें ख्याली लाल ने दिनांक 13 मार्च से 13 अप्रैल, 97 तक का अवकाश प्रदान कराने बाबत लिखा है । इसमें भी वह अंकित नहीं किया है कि वह किस प्रकार का अवकाश चाहता है । यदि ये विशेषाधिकारी छुट्टी माने तो इसके सम्बन्ध में स्थाई आदेश के आदेश 11 ( क ) - ( I ) ( II ) ( II ) में यह अंकित है कि तीन दिन की छुट्टी के लिये 3 कार्य दिवस का नोटिस. तथा स्वीकृति आवश्यक है , 6 दिन की छुट्टी के लिये कम से कम एक सप्ताह का नोटिस और उसकी पूर्व स्वीकृति जरूरी है, 6 दिन से अधिक की छुट्टी के वास्ते कम से कम 15 दिन का नोटिस और उसकी पूर्व मंजूरी अपेक्षित है । लेकिन जब प्रार्थी ने 13 मार्च से 13 अप्रैल 97 तक काअवकाश चाहा है तो प्रथम तो उसने इस बाबत पूर्व मंजूरी प्राप्त नहीं कीहै तथा दूसरा न ही उसने उक्त प्रकार से निर्धारित अवधि 15 दिन का नोटिस हीदिया है , यह तो उल्टा 13 मार्च से शुरू होने वाले अवकाश के लिये करीब 18-20 दिन बाद अवकाश हेतु आवेदन कर रखा है । इस प्रकार यह अवकाश हेतु आवेदन न तो स्पष्ट है, न ही स्थाई आदेशों के अनुकूल है इससे भी माना जायेगा कि आरोपित अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित चल रहा है । इसी क्रम में इसके अवकाश खाते के शेष ( बेलेन्स) को देखें तो इस सम्बन्ध में पी. के. चतुर्वेदी ने जांच के दौरान अपने बयानों में यह बताया है कि श्री ख्यालीलाल ने वर्ष 1996 एवं 1997 के दौरान 240 दिन की भौतिक उपस्थिति पूर्ण नहीं की, अतः उनको वर्ष 1997-98 में सी. एल. अवकाश सुविधा देय नहीं हुई । साथ हीजो दिनांक 8-4-99 को कम्पनी द्वारा आदेश जारी किया है जिसमें आरोपित की वर्ष 1993 में 54 दिन, 1994 मे 200 दिन , 1995 में 137 दिन, व 1996 में 218 दिन की अनुपस्थिति बताई है । क्षण भर के लिये बहस हेतु यह भी माना जावे कि प्रार्थी इन अवकाशों को प्राप्त करने का

1313

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

अधिकारी है तो भी प्रार्थी आरोपित ख्यालीलाल को नियमानुसार अवकाश के लिये प्रार्थना पत्र लगा कर ही अवकाश प्राप्त कर सकता है, जिसका प्रार्थी ने पालन नहीं किया है । सी. एल. अवकाश संचित नहीं होते हैं । बिना वेतन के अवकाश के लिये दो दिन से अधिक बिना वेतन की छुट्टी लेने के लिये विशेषधिकार/अर्जित छुट्टी के समान पूर्व स्वीकृति आवश्यक है, जो कि प्रार्थी ने नहीं ली है । अतः प्रार्थी दिनांक 13-3-97 से 8-4-99 तक अनाधिकृत रूप से अनुपस्थित रहा है तथा इससे पूर्व भी अनुपस्थित रहा है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेशों की धारा 19 ( 24 ) व ( 30 ) का दुराचरण सिद्ध होता है अतः जांच अधिकारी द्वारा दिया गया निष्कर्ष उचित एवं वैधहै ।

जांच अधिकारी ने दिनांक 25-5-98 को जांच प्रतिवेदन की उप महाप्रबन्धक जिंक स्मेलर देबारी ( संस्थान ) को प्रेषित किया है, तत्पश्चात् दिनांक 24-2-99 को प्रार्थी को ज्ञापन विपक्षी संस्थान द्वारा भेजा गया जिसका जबाब दिनांक 1-3-99 को प्रार्थी की पत्नी श्रीमती कमला की ओर से प्रस्तुत किया गया है । उप महाप्रबन्धक द्वारा जांच प्रतिवेदन, ज्ञापन के जबाब व पत्राचार पत्रावली व अन्य दस्तावेजों के अवलोकन के पश्चात् तथा जांच प्रतिवेदन से संतुष्ट होकर प्रार्थी के पूर्व आचरण पर विचार करने के पश्चात् प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक किये जाने का आदेश दिनांक 8-4-99 को लिया गया, यह आदेश प्रार्थी के द्वारा किये गये दुराचरण के समतुल्य है । जिसमें हम किसी प्रकार के हस्तक्षेप को औचित्य नहीं पाते हैं ।

हस्तगत प्रकरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा जो इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रसंग प्रेषित किया गया है उसमें प्रार्थी को सेवा पृथक दिनांक 18-4-99 दर्शा रखी है जो कि अविवादित रूप से दर्शा रखी है जबकि प्रार्थी को अविवादित रूप से. दिनांक 8-4-99 को सेवा पृथक किया गया है तथा दिनांक 8-4-99 को सेवा पृथक किया जाना उचित एवं वैध पाया गया है । अतः प्रार्थी कोई राहत व राशि पाने काअधिकारी नहीं है ।

अतः भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा प्रेषित प्रसंग को उत्तरित करते हुए पंचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है-

The action of the Management of Hindustan Zink Ltd. Zink Smeltar Debari Distt . Udaipur in imposing penalty as termination from service of Shri Khyalilal S/o Sh . Bherulal Harijan Ex Helper w.e.f. 8-4-99 (Not on 18-4-99 ) is legal and justified. Hence Worker is not entitled to any relief.

इसकी सूचना भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय को प्रेषित की जावे । पंचाट आज दिनांक09-12-2005 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

उपा अग्रवाल, पीठासीन अधिकारी नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 586 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. इण्डियन रेयर अर्थस् लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22. 1927

अधिकरण, इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/3/2005- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 586. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 3/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court. Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s . Indian Rare Earths Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-01-2006 .

[No. L -42011 /3 /2005 - IR (M) ] B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

The workman is Shri Sivakumar Shenoy. He is represented by Union. According to the workman , he is a tradesman of Indian Rare Earths Ltd. , Udyogamandal and he joined service in 1987. In 2001. alleging that he had availed transport subsidy from 24-1-2000 onwards illegally . amemo was issued to him by the management . Though he gave a reply denying the allegations lie was charge- sheeted by the management . An enquiry was conducted. The finding was that he was not guilty. But the disciplinary authority differed with the view of enquiry officer and imposed punishment . Though an appeal was filed it was rejected by the Appellate Authoriry. The finding of the disciplinary authority is not based on materials and the punishment imposed is illegal and unfair. He had informed management by declaration that he was residing at Kumbalangy, his native place , from 24-1-2000 and thereafter by another declaration that he had shifted his residence to Kalamassery from 1-12-2000 onwards . So , he has not violated any standing orders .

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: Sh . P. L. Norbert, B. A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Friday the 30th day of December , 2005 /09th

Pousham 1927 )

I.D. 3/2005

Shri Sivakumar Shenoy

Workman

Represented by General Secretary IRE Staff & Workers Union Indian Rare Earths Limited Udyogamandal Kerala

By Advocate Shri K.S. Madhusoodanan.

4. The management contends that there is no industrial dispute and quantum of punishment cannot be questioned by a reference u/ s - 10 of 1.D. Act. The reference is not maintainable . The worker on the basis of a false declaration obtained transport subsidy for the period from 24-1-2000 to 1-12-2000 at the rate of Rs.468 p.m. This is in violation ofcertified standing orders of the company . Hence disciplinary action was initiated and an enquiry was ordered . The enquiry report was not acceptable to the Management since the finding was perverse and not based on evidence on record . Therefore , after getting explanation from the worker a punishment of recovery of the amount illegally obtained and reduction of one increment with cumulative effect was ordered . The report of Police Commissioner and certificate of Ration Shop dealer prove that the worker was in fact residing at Kalamassery. There is no unfair labour practice . It is a proved misconduct . The action of management disagreeing with the findings of Enquiry Officer is legal and correct .

The Head, RE Division M/s. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Rare Earths Division Udyogamandal Karala

...Management

By advocate Shri John K. Mathai .

5. Points of consideration are:- (1) Is the reference maintainable ? (2) Is the punishment proper?

AWARD

6. Point No. 1 :

This is a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) and (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to this court for adjudication .

2. The reference is :-

According to the management , the reference is unsustainable as it is regarding punishment only, and not regarding finding of guilt . It is contended that except u/s - 11A of the Act ( discharge or dismissal ) the punishment cannot be challenged by reference .

"Whether the action of the management in reduction of one increment with cumulative effect and also recovering transport subsidy from his salary is correct or not ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled? "

S-2 (k ) of I.D. Act defines ' industrial dispute . The worker had raised a dispute with regard to the punishment and that dispute was espoused by Union and that question was referred by the Government to this Court . Hence , it becomes an industrial dispute . The decisions in North- West Karnatak Road Transport Corporation . Hoogly Vs. 3. On notice both sides entered appearance and filed claim statement , counter statement and a rejoinder. Their pleadings -are as follows:

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

K.S. Raghunathappa 2003 LLR 830 (Kant) , Gwalior Potteries &Others Vs. Bhagwan Das & Others 2002 LLR 25.5 (Μ.Ρ. ) and IndianFarmers ' Fertilizer Corporation Limited Vs. P.O. Labour Court, Union Territory of Chandigarh 1999 LLR 51 (P&H) support the contention that the quantum of punishment can be interfered by the Court . Therefor find that the reference is proper and is sustainable .

7. Point No. 2 :

The workman Shri Sivakumar Shenoy was employed in Indian Rare Earths Ltd. Udyogamandal , Ernakulam District as tradesman in 1987. Though he belonged to Kumbalangy Panchayat he shifted to Kalamasserry with his wife and children for the sake of convenience for work . But, during 2000 for 10 months he received transport subsidy for journey from company to Kumbalangy (his native place) on the basis of his declaration submitted to company that he was staying at Kumbalangy from 24-1-2000. Later, on 29-11-2000 he gave another declaration that he had shifted his residence back to Kalamasserry. Butcompany receiving information that he had continued to reside actually at Kalamasserry and not at Kumbalangy during the disputed period of 10 months , issued a memo dated 11-6-2001 (Ext . M4)to show cause why disciplinary action shall not be taken against him for misconduct and violation of certified standing orders . The workman gave Ext. M5 reply. It was not satisfactory to the management . Hence he was charge -sheeted (Ext. M6 ) and an enquiry was ordered. The finding of the Enquiry Officer was that the worker was not guilty. This finding was not acceptable to the management . Hence Ext.M7 Memo was issued to workman asking him to explain why the management cannot differ from the findings of Enquiry Officer . Ext . M8 reply was submitted by the worker. The management imposed punishment of recovery of transport subsidy received by worker for a period of 10 months and reduction of one increment without cumulative efftect (Ext . M9 ) . The worker preferred Ext . M10 appeal . It was dismissed by the Appellate Authority ( Ext . M11 ) . Hence the punishment is challenged by the worker.

8. The enquiry report is not an exhibit in this case. Butadmittedly the finding was in favour of workman . The Management differed from the finding and decided to impose punishment on the basis of report of Police Commissioner and that of a ration shop owner. Both are not exhibits in this case . It was brought out in oral evidence that Police gave a report about worker including the claimant, on the basis of a request letter of company for information about character antecedents of workers . It is stated by MW1 that the company had specifically requested the police to report about the residence of the claimant. However, that request letter is also not produced. None of the relevant documents are before court to express any opinion regarding the view of the management in the matter. But it may be noted that even with all the documents

1315

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

this court may not be able to go into the merits of findings of management regarding guilt of the claimant because the dispute referred is with regard to punishment only. But for the sake of completeness I must mention that the worker hasproduced Exts . W1 to 4 to substantiate his contention that he did reside at Kumbalangy during the disputed period. They are the certificates of Village Officer of Kumbalangy and Trikkakkara . Again , I cannot go into the merits of those documents for want of reference regarding that aspect. Yet I must say that there is complete imbalance of evidence when weighed . However, the finding with regard to guilt has to remain intact, as my endeavour is limited to the question of correctness of punishment only.

10. The punishment imposed is recovery oftransport subsidy illegally received and reduction of one increment without cumulative effect. Though the claimant has been working in the company from 1987 onwards, he had claimed only 10 months's transport subsidy for journey from Kumbalangy to company from 24-1-2000 to 30-11-2000 . During this period the company did not suspect him . It is after he gave a declaration on 20-11-2000 ( Ext . M3 ) that he had shifted his residence back to Kalamasserry that the company started initiating action. During cross -examination ofWW1 it came out that he is the only son of his parents and his sisters are residing with their husbands . His father was residing alone during 2000 at Kumbalangy and so the claimant was compelled to stay at Kumbalangy. In 2001 his fatherwas brought to Kalamasserry to reside with him and his family. MW1 says that the Vigilance Department of the company had given information that the claimant was actually rresiding at Kalamasserry during the dispute period. Thatreport or file is also not before Court. It is to be noted that during a period of 18 years the worker has claimed transport subsidy for stay at Kumbalangy ( his native place) only for a period of 10 months . Unless there is sufficient reason one would not do so . If he had intended to cheat the company he could have claimed transport allowance from the very beginning . Considering the totality of circumstances and lack ofproper materials on record it was notproper for the management to impose harsh punishment. It was enough to recover the amount received by the worker as transport subsidy during 10 months in 2000. The punishment of reduction of one increment was clearly unwarranted. Point is answered accordingly.

11. In the result, an award is passed allowing the claim of the worker in part . The imposition of punishment by the management is modified to the effect that recovery of transport subsidy for the period from 24-1-2000 to 1-12-2000 already effected is upheld, but reduction of one increment without cumulative effect is set aside. The parties will suffer their respective cost . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th day ofDecember, 2005.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

ANNEXURE

APPENDIX

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL :

Witness for the workman :

GUWAHATI : ASSAM

W I - Sivakumar Shenoy - 22-12-2005 .

Reference No. 41 ( C) OF 2000

Witness for the management:

PRESENT :

MW 1 - M. V. Tomy- 26-12-2005 .

Exhibits for the workman :

Shri B. Bora, Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati.

W1 - Photocopy of Certificate issued from Kumbalangy GramaPanchayatdtd. 8-3-2003 .

In the matter of an Industrial Distpute

BETWEEN:

W2-Photocopy of Residential Certificate issued by VillageOfficer, Thrikkakara dtd. 8-8-2003 .

TheManagement of

The Regional Director,

W3- Photocopy of Certificate issued by Village Officer, Kumbalangy dtd . 25-7-2003.

O.N.G.C.

Nazira,

W4-Photocopy of Residential Certificate issued from Kumbalangy Grama Panchayat dtd. 24-12-1996 .

Sibsagar.

Exhibits for the management :

Vs.

M1- Transport subsidy rate order dtd. 27-12-1999 .

Theirworkman Smt . Banti Baruah.

M2- Declaration given by the workman .

APPEARENCE :

M3 - Declaration given by the workman dtd. 29-11-2000.

: For the Management .

M4. - Memo given to the workman dtd. 11-6-2001.

Shri P. Choudhury, Advocate Miss S. Senapati ,

M5 - Reply given by the workman dtd . 14-7-2005 .

Advocate

M6 - Charge- Sheet given to the workman dtd . 3-8-2001 .

:Forthe workman M7 - Memo given to the workman dtd. 18-2-2004.

Shri N.C. Choudhury, Advocate.

M8 - Reply given by the workman dtd. 27-2-2004.

Date ofAward : 1-12-2005

M9 - The order of punishment dtd . 25-3-2004 .

AWARD

M10 - Appeal memorandum of workman .

M11- Order ofAppellate Authority dtd . 27-7-2004 .

M12- Copy ofVoter's List of Ward No. IV of Kalamasserry Municipality.

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

The Goverment of India . Ministry of Labour , New Delhi by a notification No. L - 30011 /69 /99 / IR ( M ) dtd. 15-3-2000 referred an Industrial Dispute between the Management of Regional Director, O.N.G.C. and their work man Smt . Banti Baruah on the following issue:

"Whether the claim for regularisation of Smt. Banti Baruah is justified or not on the ground that Smt . Banti Baruah served on the post of typist during 1985 to 1990 and then worked under contractor during 1990 to 1995 ? Ifyes , to what relief Smt . Banti Baruah is entitled?"

का.आ.587.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. ओ . एन. जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण गोहाटी के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 4 ( C ) / 2000 ) ] को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/69/1999- आई आर ( विविध ) ]

बी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

On receipt of referencc , a reference casc was registered and notices were issued both parties calling upon them to file their written statements / addl . written statements and documents if any . In response to the notices both partics appeared in this court and filed their written statements . Both parties also adduced evidences both oral and documentary in support of their respective cases .

S.O. 587. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [ Ref. No. 4 (c )/ 2000] of the Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Regional Director , O.N.G.C. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 13-01-2006.

[No. L- 30011/69/1999 -IR (M)]

The case of the workman is that she is a qualified typist who had passed her matriculation . She was appointed as typist by the O.N.G.C.from December , 1985 on contract basis . She claims that she was directly employed by the O.N.G.C. and she was paid directly under the Head :A- 16.4 of the Book of Delegated Power . She was paid @ Rs . 2.00 per page of typing . She continued working till 1995 and she worked more than 240 days per B.M. DAVID , Under Secy.

1317

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

year. Her case is that she used to submit her bills and the O.N.G.C. paid her directly. The management issued Identity Card No. 2051 on 28-4-86 and issued a permanent card being No. 74 in the year 1992. Moreover, the management at that time was contemplating regularisation of her service and for which there were correspondances between the Additional Director TPT, ONGC , Sibsagar with the Head Quarters also . In those correspondance by the Addl. Director and the Deputy Director the exact number of days for which the workman worked were specifically mentioned and request was made for regularisation of her service however, purposefully terming the same as contract job to deprive her from her legitimate privilege .

establish that the person was appointed on casual or contract basis but the whole facts and circumstances is required to be considered to find out nature of the relationship between the management and the petitioner. It is further submitted that even if a person works for 240 days continuously , he cannot be appointed as regular employee in contravention of the rules of the organisation . Even if the claim of the petitioner is true he or she is required to come through recruitment process subject to possessing prescribed qualification , age, experience etc. There is no procedure to get him/ her absorbed permanently and the Supreme Court in many cases has held that such type of back door process in the matter of recruitment in public sector is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that issuance of Identity Card to a person does not establish that he is an employee of the organisation because the area has been declared as protected place . Therefore , permit, is given to the different person to enter into the premises . As the rules of the organisation do not provide for appointment of any such person who are working under contractor, so question of action of the management for regularisation does not arise at all .

The workman worked on contingent basis and as such on the basis of Standing Orders for contingent workers of the ONGC, the workman is entitled to be regularised as regular employee under the ONGC inasmuch as she had put in more than 240 days of work per year during the period referred to above. The fact that the workman was on the roll of the ONGC and was paid as contingent worker under the Head of Account of A- 16.4 shall be revealed from the File No. SIBS/TPT /PLG/ S ( II ) / 87-88 of the management as sell as the sanction orders issued from time to time .

The workmanhas prayed for an award in her favour.

On the otherhand the case of the management in brief is as follows :

That the workman Smt . Banti Baruah claims that she is a qualified Typist etc. is a matter of record.

That, with reference of para - 6 of the statement , it is submitted that the High Court in C. R. No. 3366/95 as referred herein, did not direct to regularise the service of the petitioner but directed to examine their case and accordingly case of the petitioner was examined . But after such examination she was informed that she cannot be absorbed dehoring the rules and regulation but she canapply in future when vacancy will occur and her case would be considered along with others .

That , with reference to statement made in para - 8 the concerned workman was not the employee of ONGC atany time , therefore she cannot be reinstated . In fact she was engaged by the contractor to execute contract with ONGC.

favour. The management has prayed for an award in its It is denied that the workman was appointed by the management because any appointment is made as per ONGC recruitment and promotion rules which has force of law. Appointment is made under specified procedure and finally by offering a letter of appointment indicating the terms and conditions of such appointment therein . Therefore , the statement made therein about work load ofONGC etc. is not relevant here . It is also denied that to avoid appointment of regular Typist due to high expenditure , ONGC engaged Typist on temporary basis . In no case ONGC employed workman or casual / contingent basis for typing job .

Let me now consider as to whether the workman was a direct employee of the ONGC or whether she was a contract labour ? As per the Schedule of reference the workman worked on the post of typist during 1985-90 directly under the ONGC and from 1990 to 1995 worked under contractor . The workman's claim is that she never worked under any contractor. In para 3 of her written statement the workman stated that she was directly employed by the management and she was directly paid. "However, in subsequent correspondance it sought to camouflage the arrangement by giving the name of contractual labour which in fact was a sham" .

The management denies that the workman was ever engaged as a contingent employee and she was an employee of the management at any point of time . The That, with reference to statement made in para - 3 , it is stated that management did not engage any workman directly who does the job as alleged. It is also denied that the management arranged Typist by giving the name of contractual labour which in fact was a sham. In this regard it is submitted that management is not liable for all jobs done by the people at lower grade without having proper power. Management is not liable for all types of acts of its employees which are not legally permissible or it is beyond the purview of power of the concerned personnel . The payment of bills does not 1318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

management stated in its written statement ( in para 8) that she was engaged by the contractor to execute contract with the ONGC . But strangely enough not a suggestion was given to her in her cross - examination to this effect .

Be that as it may, let me examine the claim of the workman in the light of the materials before me .

The workman deposed that she was working in the ONGC as typist from Dec. 85 till 1995. She further stated that she was paid @ Rs . 2.00 per page of typing against bills submitted by her.

Let me examine the veracity of these statements of the workman ,

Ext. 1 is a sanction orderdt . 20-5-87 by the Joint Director ( TPT ) PLG , which clearly shows that any amount of Rs . 1674.00 was sanctioned for engagement of one Typist on contractual basis for a period of 90 days w.e.f. 22-01-1987 @ Rs. 18.60 per day. The sanction order clearly spelled out that the sanctioned amount be paid to Ms. Banti Baruah , the workman.

Ext. 2 is another sanction order by which the General Manager ( Tech . ) ONGC , Sibsagar sanctioned Rs . 2250.00 towards expenditure on typing work of the Transport Planning Cell.

Ext. 3 is another sanction order for Rs . 2259.00 for the same job as shown in Ext . 2. Both the sanction orders made it clear that the Typist be paid @ Rs.2.00 for per page of typing.

Ext. 4 is another sanction order for Rs . 2400.00 for the same job .

Ext. 5 is another sanction order for Rs . 3000.00 for the samejob.

These sanction orders relate to different periods from 20-5-87 to 16-7-90 .

Exts . 6,7 and 8 are the Bills submitted by the workmanfor different periods .

Ext.9 is the Indetity Card of the workman issued by the management .

Ext. 11) is another Indentity Card of the workman issued by the ONGC.

Ext. 11 is a Laboratory Examination Report of the workman which was done in the hospital of the management .

Ext. 12 is a letter written by the Addl . Director ( TPT) ONGC , Sibsagar on 25-1-90 to the Joint Director ( IR) in response to his letter No. IR/ NZR/ 418 /89-90 dt . 10-1-90 on the Subject of regularisation of job of contract personnel . By this letter number of days worked by the workman in TPT, section from 20-10-86 to 30-12-89 has

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] been shown . Further, it mentions that the workman was continuing her job froin 1-1-90 .

Ext. 13 is another letter written by Deputy Director (P& A) TPT to the Sr. D.D. ( IR) by which the particulars in respect of the workman during the year 1986 were furnished. From this letter it transpires that the workman worked in the TPT cell of the ONGC as contractual labour for 185 days .

Front these documents proved by the workman it is crystal clear that the workman was engaged directly by the management from 20-1-86 to 30-12-89 and to some further date . These documents are sufficient to prove that for engagement of the workman as typist on contract basis , the Management from time to time sanctioned specific amount for payment to the workman against her bills . The management can not deny the authenticity of these documents . The Management . however , averred in its written statement that the management is not bound by the actions of its subordinate officers who act without authority in granting Identity Cards to contractual workers . restricted area pass ctc . But it is not enough to say that the Subordinate Officers issued the passes or Identity Card without authority. It must prove the lack of authority to issue the passes or Identity Cards by . such officers and unless and until this is proved, the management is bound by the actions of its officers because anything done by an officer in his official capacity must be presumed to be done legally .

Let me now examine another aspect of the matter itis claimed by the management and as per the terms of the reference that " the workman worked uader contractor during 1990 to 1995 " . But how far the management is able to prove this assertion is to be examined.

As per Ext . 12 the workman continued to work as a contractual Typist from 1-1-90 . Hence , the period shown in the terms of the reference is somewhat fictitious . The workman did not certainly work under any contractor from 1-1-90 as can be seen from Ext. 12 . If this is that fact it is for the management to prove as to from when the workman was engaged through contractor . In a bid to prove that the workman was engaged through a contractor during 1990 and thereafter the Management examined one Sri Tuniram Phookan as MW - 2 who deposed that the workman worked under him as contractual labour. Ext . J is the payment voucher Register and Exts . J ( 1 ) and J ( 2 ) arc the signatures of the workman . It is seen that the Ext. J ( 1 ) relates to the month of July . 92 and it is an acquitance Roll for payment of wages for the purchase section of the ONGC . Nazira. The workman never worked in purchase section according to her statement . Let me now examine the work order issued by the ONGC to the contractor for the relevant period . Ext . M-11 is thedocument in question which was issued by 1319 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माघ 22 , 1927

afterthoughtjust to deprive the workman of her legal claim for regularisation .

the Dy. Director ( MM) DBG NP stores , ONGC , Sibsagar to contractor Sri Tuniram Phookan for the period of 1-7-92 to 15-8-92. In the Ext. M - 11 the heading under 'Name of work' the following works were shown , namely lifting, shifting, cleaning and preservation of materials inside stores premises at the installations at NP Stores , Central Stores , LKW Stores and Rly. Station Yard, Sibsagar.

Let me now look into another aspect of the reference i.e. the question of maintainability of the reference . It was hemmared time and again by the learned counsel for the management that the reference in question is not an Industrial Dispute as defined in Section 2 (K ) of the I.D. Act 1947. The definition clearly rules out any individual dispute between the workman and his employer i.e: no dispute raised by any individual employee against his employer is" an industrial dispute as per the definition of Section 2 ( K) of the Act and unless such a dispute is covered by the definition of Section 2A of the Act, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the dispute as such a dispute can not be treated as an Industrial Dispute True . But objection of this sort should/ could have been raised before this Tribunal decided to go into the merit of the reference . Why this objection was raised at this belated stage? If such an objection had been raised earlier the time, energy of the parties and the moncy so far spent in fighting out this reference could have been saved . It is true that an individual dispute of a workman is not an industrial dispute unless such a dispute is espoused by the union of the workmen of the Industry or a considerable number of the workmen espouse the case of the workman . Individual disputes which come within the perview of Section 2 -A of the I. D. Act, 1947 are the only disputes which canbe legitimately raised. If the dispute of a single workman does not come within the perview of the Section 2 - A of the Act, it is not an Industrial dispute and the Industrial Tribunals have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference .

Let me now revert to the Section 2 - A of the 1.D. Act . According to this section where any employer discharges. dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of anindividual workman and any dispute or difference between the workman and his employer connected with or arising out of such discharge, dismissal , retrenchment or termination arises, such a dispute on diffcrence shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute not with standing that no other workman nor any union of workman is a party to the dispute.

The contractor (MW -2) in his evidence stated that the workman used to cleans the files and stack them . Butthe work order Ext. M - 11 is totally silent as to these jobs. Even if the workman was engaged for cleaning and stacking of the office file by the contractor, that was done outside the scope of the work order and for that she can not be paid by him . On the other hand, the works detailed in the work order had to be performed at the store premises at the installations at NP Stores, Central Stores , LKW stores and Rly Yard Sibsagar, which have no link with the works performed by the workman . MW- 1 , Girish Ch . Dutta , Sr. P& A Officer, ONGC , Sibsagar stated in his evidence that he knew the workman from 1986. She came to his office seeking job and she was given a typing job by him on contract basis @Rs . 2.00 per page . MW-3 Md . Sayed Abdul Khaleque stated in his evidence that no contract works in respect of shifting, stacking , cleaning etc. have been done since 1997. This witness in his cross - examinations stated that he was attached to the Napukhuri Store but the workman never worked at the Napukhuri Store . She worked in the Central Store of the Material Management Deptt . From this piece of evidence it can be clearly seen that this witness has no clear knowledge as to where the workman worked . Further this witness stated that the works shown in the Ext . 11 of the contractor have been discontinued from 1997. The workman did not work at all at the Napukhuri Store where the MW - 3 worked. If this is the fact , we have reason to doubt about the veracity of his evidence . The ONGC establishment at Nazira is not certainly a small establishment to permit each employee to know the everyone in the establishment . The evidence of MW - 4 is also found to be not satisfactory. This witness stated that he has been working in the Transportation Officer in the Transport, Planning and provisioning Cell , Sibsagar since 1989. But this witness in his cross -exams stated that he could not say if the workman was working in the Transport Deptt . He also could not say from which Head of Account . She was paid. Now, the question is if he was working in the Transport , Planning and provisioning Cell at Sibsagar as a Senior Officer, he must have the knowledge as to from which Head of account she was paid . Even he failed to say whether the workman was working in his Deptt . This being the position , the evidence of this witness is also not at all

trustworthy.

Being situated thus, I am constrained to hold that the stand taken by the management is purely an

Now, let me examine as to whether the dispute raised by the workman falls within the perview of the cases as defined by Section 2K or 2 - A of the I.D. Act. What does the term " otherwise terminate imply " ? The employer can 'dismiss , discharge , retrench or otherwise terminate the service ofa workman. When an employer can not discharge. dismiss or retrench a workman he can otherwise terminate the service of a workman . The dictionary meaning of the word ' Terminate ' is to put an end to . The workman in question was not a regular employce of the Management and this being the position , the management was not in a position to discharge , dismiss or retrench her. The only recourse for the employer in the case in hand was to put the service of the workman to an end by refusing to allot her anymore typing work.

253 G1 /06-19 1320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Moreover , it can be seen from me order of the Hon'ble High court in the Civil Rule No. 3366/95 that the dispute for regularisation of service was not raised by the workman alone . There were 19 other workinen with her.

The Sun and 19 others raised an industrial dispute bet Asstt Lebarammer (Central) Dibrugar thegre-instatement and ularisation of their service diation idiled releren .. mater was forwarded to the secretary, Minist of Lee ,Govt . of India where ruferred the disputes in the form of two workers, as referred by spliting it haute for 10 men. So, in no sence inman said that this dispute was mised individually by the workern This being the position , even if the dispute raised by the workman does not come within the perview of Section 2 - A of the Act , it shall come within the perview ofSection 2 ( K ) of the Act.

This being the case , even if the case of the workman does not come within the perview of Section 2 ( K) of the Actitwill certainly come within the perview of Section 2 -A ofthe Act. Hence , in my view the dispute is maintainable in itspresent fo

The Lat mense ! for the Management argued that there must be a jacal aciationship between the employer and chiplence before the workman can claim regularisation or reinstaterem . As has been decided earlier that the workman was the direct employee of the Management not a contract labour . the jural relationship has always been there between them . The learned counsel cited the case laws of the Home High Court in Indian Oil CorporationVs. P.O.CGIT, Guwahati and others 1992 ( 2 ) GLT 265 and Indian OilCorporation Ltd. Vs. P.O.I.T. Assam and other ( 1999 ) 2 GLR.360 .

The learned counsel for the Management also tried to convince us that the dispute in hand is not an industrial dispute but an individual dispute and therefore , not maintainable . The learned counsel for the Management cited several case laws in support of his arguments which are:---

( 1 ) C.P Transport Services Ltd. Vs. R.G. Patyvasn 1957 (1 ) LL.J page 27 .

(2) Indian Cable Co. Ltd. Vs. Its workmen FLR (4) 1962 Page444.

(3) Dipak Industries Vs State of West Bengal 1975 ( 1 ) (4) Arunangshree Chakraborty Vs. Aajkaal Publishers Lid. & Others 1994 ( 1 ) CLR Page 1084.

The learned counsel also argued vehemently that the burden of proof lies on the workman to prove that she worked for 240 days per year for claiming her regularisation/ reinstatement.

in support of his arguments the learned counsel for the Management cited the following case laws: ---

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] (1) M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Hariram 2004 (8 ) S.C.C. 446 .

(2) Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. Vs. State ofRajasthan 2004 ( 8 ) SCC Page 161 .

(3) Municipal Corporation , Faridabad Vs. Siri Niwas 2004 ( 8 ) S.C.C. 195.

(4) Essen Deinki Vs. Rajib Kumar 2002 ( 8 ) S.C.C. Page400.

(5) Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani 2002 (3 ) S.C.C. 25.

There is not the least of doubt that the burden lies on the workman to prove that he worked for 240 days each year before he claims regularisation . The workman in hand has discharged this burden by proving some documents .

The learned counsel also argued that the workman was a contract labour under one Tuniram , Phukan (MW -2) and she can not raise any dispute for regularisation/re- instatement unless the employment of contract labour is prohibited by the Appropriate Govt . by a notification U/S 10(1) ofthe Contract Labour (Regularisation & Abolition ) Act . In support of his arguments the learned counsel cited various case laws which are: -

(1 ) State of U.P. Vs. Ajoy Kumar 1997 (4 ) S.C.C. Page 88 .

(2) Raj Kumar Dhali Vs. State of West Bengal 2001 ( 2) C.H.N. page450.

and

(3) Union of India Vs. Uma Maheswari 1997 ( XI ) SCC Page228.

In view of my decision aforesaid that the workman was not a contract labour , but a direct employee of the Management the case laws cited above do not hold the field.

The learned counsel also argued at length that the workman is estopped from claiming as direct employee of the Management as she did not raise any dispute while she was engaged as a contract labour . This argument also holds no water in view of my decision that the workman was never engaged through any contractor.

The learned counsel also argued that the dispute of the workman is neither espoused by any recognised union of the employees of the ONGC not it has been backed by considerable number of workmen . In support of his argument he cited some case laws too . But as it has already been held that the case of the workman falls within the pcrview of Section 2 - A of the I.D. Act no such espousal by the union or support by a considerable number of workmen is necessary.

The learned counsel also argued that the percentage of the workman who raised the same dispute with the present workman is not enough to hold that the workman's dispute is supported by a considerable number of workman .

The counsel for the Management further argued that as the workmen in question was a contract labour and this [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Tribunal has no power to direct the Management to regularise the workman unless the Appropriate Govt . abolishes the employment of contract labours in the ONGC by a notification U/s 10 ( I ) of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act . In support of his argument the learned counsel cited the case law in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers &Others 2001 AIR SCW 3574. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said appeal held that :- " If the contract is found to be genuine and prohibition notification under Section 10 ( 1 ) ofthe CLRA Act in respect of the concerned establishment has been issued by the appropriate Government , Prohibiting employment of contract labour in any process , operation or other work of any establishment and where in such process , operation or other work of the establishment the principal employer intends to employ regular workmen he shall give preference to the erstwhile contract labour , if otherwise found suitable and , if necessary, by relaxing the condition as to maximum age appropriately taking into consideration the age of the workers at the time of their initial employment by the contractor and also relaxing the condition as to academic qualification other than technical qualifications."

But in the case in hand , there was no contract and if there was any, the same was nothing but a camouflage . Hence, the ratio of this case law is not applicable to the dispute under reference .

The learned counsel also argued that this Tribunal can not travel beyond the terms of reference . The learned counsel cited several case laws in support of his arguments which are :

1. Pottery Mazdoor Panchayat Vs. The Perfect Pottery Co. Ltd and another 1983 ( 1 ) LLJ . SC . 232 .

2. Sabitri Motor Service Pvt . Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal & others 1976 (33 ) FLR pg. 14 .

3. Indragraphic Art Machinery Co. (Pvt) Ltd. Vs. Labour Courts & others 1991 ( 1 ) LLN pg. 885.

4. Burma Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Co. of India Ltd. & others , Vs. Their Workmen and others 1961 (2) LLJ pg . 124.

5. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd.

Theirworkmen & others 1967 ( 1 ) LLJ Pg. 423 .

There is not the least of doubt that this Tribunal can not travel beyond the terms of reference but it has thể power to decide the mattes incidental thereto.

The Sub- Section 4 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has given this power to the Tribunal . The reference in hand is the question of regularisation of the service of the workman . Hence , this Tribunal can not consider the question of her reinstatement and direct the ONGC to do so. This plea of the Management is without and substance and legal force because unless and until a

1321

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

workman is retrenched or terminated from service, how can the question of re - instatement come ? Before directing the Management to regularise or re - instate a workmen it must be decided whether the action of the Management in not regularising the service or termination of the service, as the case maybe, was justified or not ? Unless the Tribunal decides this issue it can not direct the employer to regularise the service of the workman or to re - instate him . These matters are ancillary or incidental to the reference and therefore the Tribunal has the power to decide such incidental matters .

The learned counsel for the workman argued that this is not a case of simple regularisation but a case of termination . He argued that the question of re -instatement and regularisation can not arise unless one is retrenched or his service is terminated . Hence , it would be wrong to say this is a case of regularisation which does not come U/S 2- A of the Act . He further argued that the dispute in question is not an individual dispute but the same dispute wasraisedby 20 workmen and claimed for regularisation of their service . The 20 workmen including the present workman filed a writ petition in the High Court and the Hon'ble High Court directed the workmen to approach the Labour Commissioner and while he approached the Labour Commissioner , it was he who had split the case of the present workman from the other workmen . This can be seen from the concillation failure report of the Labour Commissioner . The learned counsel further argued that the workman never worked as a contract labour under any contractor. The documents proved by the Management are not genuine .Hence, the case Law ofthe Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National Union Water Front Workers& Others 2001 AIR SCW 3574 is not applicable in this case .

The learned counsel for the workman also argued that the management has illegally terminated the service of the workmen by stopping job contract to her by refusing to provide her any more work. He further argued that the nature ofjob performed by the workman is perennial in nature and she worked for more than 240 days for several years . The learned counsel for the workman of course did not cite any case law in favour of his arguments .

Afterconsidering all the materials on the record, 1 am constrained to hold that the claim for regularisation of the workman isjustified. The Management is therefore , directed to re- engage her in the job of typist from the date of her termination and also further directed to regularise her service from the date of her re -employment . Further, the Management is directed to give her all the financial benefits from the date of her termination from service. The reference is answered accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal on this the 1st day of December, 2005.

B. BORA, Presiding Officer 1322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22, 1927

नई दिल्ली , 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 588.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियन , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, उदयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-01-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-43012/4 /97 - आई आर ( विविध ) ] थी. एम. डेविड, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 588. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award of the Industrial Tribunal , Udaipur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Zinc Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-01-06 .

[No. L -43012/4/97-1R (M) ] B. M. DAVID, Under Secy .

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण एवं श्रम न्यायालय, उदयपुर

(राज.)

पीठासीन अधिकारी उषा अग्रवाल , आर. एच. जे . एस.

प्रकरण सं. 6/97 श्रम वाद

श्री भरत बंसल द्वारा

आखिल भारतीय जस्ता

उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ

रामचन्द चम्पालाल धर्मशाला

प्रार्थी

के बाहर, उदयपुर

विरूद्ध

मुख्य प्रबन्धक, राजपुरा

दरीबा माईन्स, हिन्दुस्तान जिंक लिमिटेड, दरीबा,

विपक्षी

जिला राजसमन्द

उपस्थित:-

प्रार्थी की ओरसे :

श्री प्रदीप पालीवाल, विपक्षी की ओर से:

श्री बी.एल. गुप्ता दिनांक 23-12-2005

पंचाट

भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय के आदेश संख्या एल 43012.4- 97 आई. आर. /मिस. न्यूदेहली दिनाकं 19-6-27 के द्वारा सिनलिखित प्रसंग इस न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रेषित किया गया.

"Whether the action of the Management of Rajpura Dariba Mine of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. in stopping one

[PART II-- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] increment with cumulative effect of Shri Bharatlal Bansal . Sr. Draughts , isjustified? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled?"

उक्त आशय का प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 9-7-97 को नियभित श्रम बाद सं. 6/97 दर्ज रजिस्टर किया जाकर पक्षकारान को नोटिस जारी किये गये जिस पर प्रार्थी की ओर से क्लेम व विपक्षी की ओर से जबाब पेश किया गया ।

प्रार्थी की ओर से परतु वलेप के तथ्य संक्षेप में इस प्रकार है कि प्रार्थी विपक्षी नियोजक के अधीन सीनियर ड्राफ्टस्मैन के पद पर केटेगरी 9 में कार्यरत रहा है और उसकी सेवा निवृत्ति दिनांक 31-5-2000 को कीगई । प्रार्थी पर दो दिन कार्य से अनुपस्थिति का आरोप लगा कर एक तरफा कमाफ्लेज जांच कार्यवाही कर दिनांक 20-4-95 को आदेश प्रसारित कर भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से स्थाई रूप से एक वेतन वृद्धि रोक दी गई जिससे पीड़ित होकर विवाद प्रस्तुत किया जिसमें कोई समझौता नहीं हो सका ।

प्रार्थी के विरूद्ध यह आरोप दुर्भावना से उसकी विभिन्न विचारों के कारण उसे दण्डित किया । बादग्रस्त आदेश से पूर्व प्रार्थी को बचाव का पूर्ण अवसर प्राप्त नहीं हुआ, जांच अधिकारी द्वारा निर्धारित तिथियों की सूचना संदर्भित श्रमिक को नहीं दी गई । वादग्रस्त आदेश नैसर्गिक न्याय के विरूद्ध है । वादग्रस्त आदेश द्वारा श्रमिक की एक वेतन वृद्धि भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से स्थायी रूप से रोकी गई है जो मेजर पनिश्मेन्ट की श्रेणी में आता है । और जो श्रभिक पर आरोप अनुपस्थिति के संदर्भ में लगाये हैं जो परिमाण से बहुत ज्यादा है और निरस्त किये जाने योग्य हैं । अतः प्रार्थना की है कि वादग्रस्त आदेश जिसमें भूतलक्षी प्रभाव से स्थायी रूप से संदर्भित श्रमिक की एक वेतन वृद्धि रोकी गई है, निरस्त करने व समस्त आर्थिक लाभ दिलाये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।

विपक्षी ने अपने जबाव में प्रार्थी का अपने अधीन ड्राफ्टमेन के भद पर होना व 31-5-2000 को सेवा निवृत होने के तथ्य को स्वीकार किया है तथा प्रार्थी 23-10-93 व 25-10-93 को कार्य पर उपस्थित होने के उपरान्त बिना अनुमति के कार्यस्थल से अनुपस्थित पाये जाने के आरोप में आरोप पत्र जारी कर प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेशों के खण्ड 18 (8 ) के अन्तर्गत जांच कार्यवाही प्राकृतिक याय के सिद्धान्तों के अनुकूल करते हुए उन्हे अपने पक्ष में बचाव का पूर्ण अवसर दिया । 1-4-95 को जांच प्रतिवेदन की प्रति स्वयं भरत लाल ने प्राप्त की, जबकि दण्ड आदेश 20-4-95 को जारी किया । समझांता अधिकारी के समक्ष बाद प्रस्तुत होने पर प्रबन्धन द्वारा अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत किया परन्तु इस विषय में प्रबन्धन पक्ष को नहीं माने जाने के कारण कोई समझौता नहीं हो सका और विवाद संदर्भित किया । विवाद यूनियन ने प्रस्तुत किया । किन्तु क्लेम यूनियन ने प्रस्तुत नहीं किया इस कारण क्लेम निरस्त योग्य है । प्रार्थी को दण्डादेश जारी करने के पूर्व साक्ष्य एवं बचाव का पूर्ण अवसर दिया गया। प्रार्थी को दण्डादेश दिनांक 20-4-95 जारी करने के पूर्व दिनांक 1-4-95 को जांच प्रतिवेदन की अति दी गई जो स्वयं प्रार्थी ने प्राप्त की । जांच अधिकारी द्वारा निर्धारित तिथियों की सूचना समय पर प्रार्थी को प्रदान की । प्रार्थी को जारी दण्डादेश कम्पनी के प्रमाणित स्थायी आदेशों के अनुसार कदाचार की गम्भीरता को देखते हुए दिया गया है । इसलिये प्रार्थी कोई आर्थिक लाभ या एरियर प्राप्त करने का [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अधिकारी नहीं है तथा उसका प्रार्थना पत्र सव्यय खरिज किये जाने की प्रार्थना की है ।

उभय पक्षकारों की बहस सुनी गई । पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया गया ।

हस्तगत क्लेम में विपक्षी जस्ता कंपनी की ओर से यह आपत्ति की गयी है कि हस्तगत क्लेम प्रार्था की ओर से प्रस्तुत किया गया है ; जबकिविवाद यूनियन ने प्रस्तुत किया है । विपक्षी प्रतिनिधि की वहसा है किधारा: 2 -क ओ. वि. अधि. के तहत यदि किसी कर्मकार का विवाद उन्मोचन, पदच्युति छंटनी या पर्यावसान से संसक्त कोई विवाद नियोजक व नियोजित के मध्य से होने पर कर्मकार औद्योगिक विवाद उठा सकता है, किन्तु हस्तगत प्रकरण कर्मकार के सेवापृथक छंटनी पर्यावसन या उन्मोचन से संबधित नहीं है बल्किसेवा वृद्धि संचयी प्रभाव से रोके जाने के संबंध में है , इसलिये कर्मकार अकेला औद्योगिक विवाद नहीं उठा सकताहै । प्रार्थी ने नियमानुसार समझौता अधिकारी के समक्ष यूनियनके जरिये विवाद प्रस्तुत किया है तथा केन्द्रिय सरकार ने विवाद भी हस्तगत न्यायालय को अधिनिर्णय हेतु प्रार्थी संघ के माध्यम से ही भिजवाया है । किन्तु प्रार्थी ने क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र में पक्षकार तो भरत बंसल द्वारा अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ, रामचन्द्र चम्पालाल धर्मशाला के बाहर उदयपुर को बनाया है , किन्तु क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र पर सत्यापन हस्ताक्षर भरत बंसल के हैं , संघ के नहीं हैं न ही पैरवी की है व इसको प्रस्तुत भी भरत बंसल ने ही किया है । इस प्रकार अखिल भारतीय जस्ता उत्पादक संघ ने प्रार्थी के क्लेम का प्रतिनिधित्व नहीं किया है इसलिये प्रार्थी के द्वारा प्रस्तुत क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र विचारणीय न होने से खारिज किये जाने योग्य है । जबकि प्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि का तर्क है कि यह बात सही है कि क्लेम भरत बंसल के द्वारा प्रस्तुत किया है जो कि स्वयं श्रमिक है । हमने उभयपक्षकारों के तर्कों पर मनन किया । धारा 2- क औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के तहत यदि किसी नियोजक ने कर्मकार को सेवा प्रकरण सेवा पृथक, उन्मोचन छंटनी या पर्यावसन कर दिया है तो स्वयं श्रमिक ऐसा विवाद उठा सकता है । इस बात के होते हुए भी कि ऐसा विवाद कर्मकारों के समूह द्वारा यह विवाद नहीं उठाया गया है तथा श्रमिक संघ इसमें पक्षकार नहीं है तो भी ऐसा विवाद औद्योगिक विवाद होगा । प्रार्थी का प्रकरण विपक्षी नियोजक द्वारा संचयी प्रभाव से वेतन वृद्धिरोकने के संबंध में है, अतः यह विवाद प्रार्थी स्वयं नहीं उठा सकता है या तो श्रमिक समूह द्वारा ऐसा विवाद उठाया जा सकता है या श्रमिक संघ जो कि कंपनी से मान्यताप्राप्त है ही ऐसा विवाद उठा सकती है । प्रार्थी ने वाद शीर्षक के जरिये अखिल भारतीय जस्त उत्पादक श्रमिक संघ लिखा है उसने उक्त श्रमिक संघ को पक्षकार नहीं बनाया जाता है, बल्कियह तो मात्र प्रार्थी को पता है । प्रकरण में पेरवी भी अधिवक्ता ने की है, अतः प्रार्थी का प्रार्थना पत्र नियमानुसार प्रस्तुत नहीं होने से खारिज किया जाता है ।

इसलिये केन्द्रिय सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित प्रसंग को अधिनिर्णित करते हुए पंचाट इस प्रकार पारिज किया गाता है कि "Tle: action of the management of Rajpura Danba Mine of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. in stopping one increment with cumulative affect of Shri Bharatlal Bansal Sr. Drafatsman can not be adjudicated by the tribunal because the claim filed by the petitioner is not according to Law hence the claim of petitioner is

1323

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

rejected" पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ श्रम मंत्रालय भारत सरकार को भेजा जावे ।

पंचाट आज दिनांक: 23-12-2005 को खुले न्यायालय में लिखाया जाकर सुनाया गया ।

उपा अग्रवाल, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 589. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडियाके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , पटना के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10( C ) /2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-1-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/46/2005- आई आर ( बी. II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 589. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. 10( C) /2005 ) of the Industrial Tribunal , Patna ( Bihar) as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of United Bank of India , and their workmen. received by the Central Government on 12-01-06.

[No. L - 12012/46/2005 - IR ( B - 11) |

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PATNA.

Reference Case No. 10 ( C) of 2005 .

Management of United Bank of India . Abhay Bhawan , 2nd Floor Frazer Road , Patna and their workman Sri Bachan Prasad Lal Arya Kumar Road, Patna - 4 .

For the Management : Sri Ranjan Kumar Sinha , A.R.M. (P) .

For the Workman : SriB. Prasad, General Secretary , Bank Employees Federation .

PRESENT: Om Prakash Sinha, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal, Patna .

AWARD

Patna , dated the 30th December , 2005 By adjudication order No. L- 12012/ 46/2005 - IR (B - II ) dated 27-7-2005 , 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 management of United Bank of India , Frazer Road , Patna and their 1324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 / MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] workman Sri Bachan Prasad Lal , Arya Kumar Road , Patna for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Management of United Bank of India, Patna in awarding the punishment of dismissal to Shri Bachan Prasad Lal , Clerk-Cum- Typist of Katihar Branch of UBI for alleged involvement of fraud is legal and justined? If not, to what relief Shri Bachan Prasad Lal is entitled?

Appeal after lapse of over three years , which was communicated to the workman vide letter dated 27-7-2004 (Ext . W/7 ) . It has been stated that both the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority failed to discharge their duties as quasi judicial Authorities and passed order without applying their minds . That under some definite promise, coercion , threat and inducement, the workman was compelled to sign on some typed papers and other related documents .

2. On receipt of the reference notices were issued to the parties . Both the parties appeared and fried their respective written tatement before this Tribunal.

3. The case of the workman, as it appeared from his statement of claim-com-yritten statement is as follows:

( iv) That after the dismissal order having been slapped on the workman , he was left with no alternative but to raise an Industrial dispute before the Appropriate Authority, That after Industrial Dispute was raised, the Assistant Labour Commissioner . ( Central ) intervened in the matter, held Conciliation Proceedings and tried his best to settle the dispute through bilateral talks, but due to the rigid attitude of the management the Conciliation ended in failure and failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government. The Government after considering the matter referred the dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal .

(i) That the workman was appointed as Clerk- cum- Typist by the ma..agerment of the United Bank of India in the year 1973. After ing, at Derbhanga, Lohardaga and Purnea Branches of the Bank , the workman was transferred to Katihar Branchhoftibl in the year 1979. That the workman was placed under aspension vide office order No. 1/95 dated 7-8-1995 . No explanation or show cause was issued to him before putting him under suspension . No charge sheet was handed over to him so that he might explain the correct position of the matter. It is stated that after his suspension a charge sheet was issued to him to which he furnished a reply to the Bank Management. This reply, however, was not found satisfactory by the management and an order for holding a domestic enquiry was made.

(v) It has been stated further that the workman is at the fag end of his service and shall be deprived from his superannuation benefits in case the order of dismissal is not set- aside . That the workman is innocent did not commit any misconduct and has fallen a victim of the circumstances . He never indulged in fraudulent activities . He has his wife and two unmarried daughters to look after and has been left with no source of income and is at the brink of starvation. He has prayed for being reinstated in the service with back wages and other consequential benefits. On these grounds it has been prayed that the Awardmay be made in favour of the workman .

4. The case of the Management , as it appears from its written statement , is as follows:-

( i) That the aforesaid reference as raised by the workman is not maintainable at all in the eyes of law as well as on facts. That the statement of claim made by the workman is based on surmises and conjectures without any proof and basis .

(ii) It is further case of the workman that the Enquiry Officer did not conduct Enquiry, fairly and properly and acted under the influence of out side pressure. That the Enquiry Officer relied on external materials and considerations ignoring the material facts available on the record. In this way Principles of natural justice were given a good bye. It is further stated that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse . That the Enquiry Officer failed to discharge his duties as a quasi judicial Authority and acted like an Administrative Officer and did not maintain any order sheet while holding the enquiry. That the Disciplinary Authority on receipt of the Enquiry Report acted with closed mind and biased approach and failed to apply his mind fairly and properly while proposing the punishment and passing his final order of dismissal of the workman . That while passing this punishment order the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the past service record of the woman and passed his final order of "Dismissal without Fotice " , which was communicated to the workman vide letter dated 6.12.2000 (Ext . W/5 ) .

(ii) The specific case of the Bank management is that the workman while working as a Special Assistant at Katihar Branch fraudulently prepared Nine Credit Transfer Vouchers aggregating to Rs . 53,465 /- on various dates on the pretext of payment of interest towards Fixed Deposit Accounts and crediting the full amount to one S.B. Accounts No. 8762 in the name of one Asha Devi , who was not traccable on her address . The transfer of interest was done by Sri Lal (Workman ) without the mandate of said. F.D. account holders. In order to accommodate the amount of the above fraudulent ercdit enteries he manipulated the other books and records . That the amount so credited was subsequently withdrawn by withdrawal slips on various dates and all the withdrawal slips were passed by him. In this way a fraudulent misappropriation ofRs . 53465 was perpertrated.

(iii) The workman being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Disciplinary Authority preferred an Appeal before the Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 16-1-2001 ( Ext . W/ 6 ) . The workman was to be allowed Personal Hearing within 30 days as per his service condition . That the Appellate Authority also acted with closed mind and biased approach and disposed of the

1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1325

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

the workman was compelled to sign on some typed papers and other related documents is totally baseless and misleading . That Shri Lal put his signature knowing fullywell of his indulgence in the fraudulent activities perpetrating financial loss to the Bank. The very fact that the workman deposited such a large amount to make good the loss incurred by the Bank goes to show his involvement in the malafide act .

(f) That it has been admitted by Shri Lal that he had taken heavy loan for getting his sisters marrie and was in a disturbed and worried state of mind with mental agony, clearly goes to show his indulgence perpetrating the financial loss to the Bank and can notbe accepted in institutions like Bank's which deal with the money matters ofpublic.

(iii) A departmental enquiry was instituted against theworkman in course of which all reasonable opportunities were provided to the workman to defend him . The Enquiry Officer after conclusion of his enquiry submitted his enquiry report dated 14-9-2000 wherein he reported that the charge of fraudulent mis - appropriation of Rs . 53,465 was established and proved in course of enquiry. That in course of enquiry it was found that while acting as a Special Assistant , the workman used to release the vouchers prepared by himself by putting his signature singly and the Second signature was not obtained, which is a clear violation ofBanking Rules and Practice . That he was given a personal hearing on 30-11-2000 by the Disciplinary Authority and the Regional Manager and a punishment of "dismissal without notice" was inflicted upon him by the Disciplinary Authority.

(g) It has been further stated on behalf of the Bank management that it has been held in different cases by the Apex Court of the land that the court or Tribunal can not reappreciate the evidence and substitute its own findings . It is not open for the Tribunal to reverse the findings of the Enquiry Authority for lack of sufficient evidence .

(iv) That his Appeal petition was also subsequently disposed of by the Appellate Authority, who confirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter the workman raised this Industrial Dispute . Conciliation Proceedings took place but that ended in failure . Thereafter this reference has been made by the Government of India , Ministry of Labour.

(vii ) On these grounds it has been prayed that the Award may be made in favour of the management .

(v) That the management has raised some points which are crucial and must be considered before arriving to any conclusion .

5. On the basis of the cases of the parties the Government of India , Ministry of Labour referred this matter to this Tribunal for adjudication on following point .

(a) The fraud was detected on 24-7-95 . Seeing the gravity of the fraud commited by the workman , he was put under suspension on 7-8-95 .

(b) The Enquiry Officer conducted the Departmental proceeding in a fair manner . His action was inconformity with the Rules as prevailing in the Bank.

"Whether the action of the management of United Bank of India, Patna in awarding the punishment of dismissal to Shri Bachan Prasad Lal, Clerk -cum -Typist ofKatihar Branch of UBI for alleged involvement of fraud is legal andjustified? If not , to what relief Shri Bachan Prasad Lal is entitled?" .

(c) Even the workman appreciated the gravity of the matter and agreed to make good the loss incurredby the Bank due to fraud committed by him.

From the terms of reference it is clear that this Tribunal has to confine itself on the point of punishment awarded to Shri Bachan Prasad Lal the workman , (d) The Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were very senior and experienced officers of the Bank and conducted the Departmental Proceedings taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter in an unbiased manner.

6.Before entering into discussion of the materials filed on behalf of parties we would like to refer to the evidence both oral and documentary adduced by both the parties . The management has examined two M. Ws. ' in this case. The management has filed 44 documents and Zerox copies of a few vouchers .

7. The workman has examined only one W. W. who is workman himself. As many as 11 Exts . Exts. W to W/ 10 on behalfof the workman have been filed . We would consider and refer to the Exts. filed on behalf of the parties in course ofdiscussion of the evidence .

( e) The workman accepted the charges of perpetrating the financial losses to the Bank and consented to make good all the losses caused to the Bank by the fraudulent activities committed by him vide his letter dated 18-5-96 . The workman actively participated in the Departmental Proceedings and was always accommodated by the Enquiry Officer whenever he Prayed for time for filing his defence . That the Appellate Authority also considered his Appeal and taking into consideration the gravity of the charges he confirmed the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the Appeal filed by the workman . That the statement of the workman that under some definite , promise, threat and inducement

8. Umesh Kumar Rai ( M. W.1 ) was the Manager at Katihar Branch of the Bank from 3-9-96 to 12-8-2000 . Не has stated that B.P. Lal was a suspended employee of Katihar Branch of the Bank . He was suspended for defalcating Bank's money at Katihar Branch . That an enquiry was set up against him . That he deposited the 1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22. 1927

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

witnesses can be examined only in case the enquiry is held to be unfair and improper and that too with the permission ofthe Court in the event of pleading to that effect . It was further submitted that under these circumstances the evidence of these two witnesses do not carry any weight .

11. Shri Boden Pd Lal (W.W.J ) is the concerned workman. He has stated that he did not get opened the Accounts of Asha Devi and Geeta Devi . That he did not ask Sita Ram Mandal to introduce Asta Devi and Geeta Devi for opening their accounts in the Bank. He also denied to have withdrawn money from the Account of Asha Devi after signing the withdrawal slip . He has stated that no explanation or any show cause letter was served on him before placing him under suspension with effect from 7-8-95. That there were two Unions operating at Katihar Branch and there was rivalry between them . He has also termed the findings of the boquiry Officer as perverse . That he never indulged in any fraud and the punishntent of dismissal awarded against him was not justified . That due to dismissal he had no means of income to look after his farnily. His condition is miserable due to his dismissal.

defalcated amount of the Bank in instalments . That he had enquired from the Bank authority as to loss of amount the Bank had sustained on his Account . The Bank told him about the extent of loss and he deposited the money in the Bank . He has referred to a letter dated 14-11-98 bearing his signature , which is marked as Ext.M. In this letter there are twenty - five catries and the total amount comes to Rs.9,70,193. The letter shows that deposits of this amount ondifferent dates by the workman has been acknowledged by the Branch Manager, who was this M/ 1 . He bas stated that such type of financial irregularity is reckond as gross misconduct as provided in the Bipartite Settlement . In course of his cross -examination he has stated about the procedure of opening of an Account in the Bank. He was shown the account opening Form of Asha Devi ( Ext.M/ 1 ) andhe admitted that this was her Account Opening Form . He also stated that on this Form an Officer of the Bank nantely Sanjay Armid had put his signature . That B.P. Lal was not chargeshected for defalcation of Rs. 9,70,000 .He, however, could not say as to for what amount ofdefalcation hewas charges hected. The charge sheet issued to workman B.P. Lal was shown to hint and he admitted this to be the charge sheet to have been served upon B.P. Lal . This is marked as Ext. M/2 . He did not know whether any other chargesheet was served upon B.P. Lal or not

12. It was submitted on behalf of the workinan that the workman worked as temporary Special Assistant and as a Teller Clerk during the period between 4-12-90 to 1-7-95. It has been further submitted that it is alleged that the workman prepared 9 fraudulent eredit transfer vouchers amountingto R3.53.46.5 on various dates . That full details of vouchers are not available . That this also has come to light that the aforesaid amount is said to have been credited to S / A.No.8762 belongingto one Asta Devi . It was submitted by the learned D.R that as per rules an applicant willing to open as account in the Bank must approach the Bank authority along with an introducer .That from facts of this case it is clear that signatures of Asha Devi and her introducer Sita Ram Mandal were obtained in persence of Sanjay Anand, the Depoty Manager of the Branch . The Account was opened on 4-12-1990 as it would appear from Ext. M/ 16 . That after lapse of 4 years this fact cannot be denied.

9. Ashok Frasad Mishra , M. W.2 was posted at Katihar Branch as Cashier-cum-Clerk from the year 1988 to 1999. He has stated that B.P. Lal was working there from before 1988. That a Departmental Enquiry was conducied against B.P. Lal for defalcating the Bank's money. That he knew about in on 22-7-95. On that day he was working as Bank Ledger Keeper. The workman B.P. Lal gave him two vouchers of different accounts . That he posted then the ledger. In course of posting the vouchers he noticed that his initial had already been made in it . He gave information about this to bus higher Officers on 24-7-95 . This letter is marked as Ext . iM/ 3 . That on the basis of his letter an Enquiry was initiated and thereafter B.P. Lal the workman, was put under suspension . Thereafter the Departmental Proceedings ensued. In his cross- examination he has accepted that he was a member of Union other than the Union of the workman. He did not remember as to vouchers of which dates belonging to Geeta Devi and Asha Devi were posted by him on that date. That later on B.P. Lal struck out both the entries . That he reported the matterto his Bank Manager, his Union. Regional Manager and Vigilance Department . That after his information in writing charge sheet was issued . He has stated that such type of irregularity is termed as serious inisconduct . He, however , could not say a to which type of charges were included in minor misconduct and serious misconduct .

10. From the evidence of these two M. Ws .' it is clear that they did not participate in the Departmental Enquiry.It is therefore clear that they are new witnesses . It was submitted on behalf of the workmar that the new

13. The learned D.R. submitted that the entire case started on the opening of the Saving Bank Account No. 8762 in the narie of Asha Devi . From the Account Opening Form it is clear that this Asha Devi was introduced by Sita Ram Mandal and this Form bears the signature of Sita Ram Mandal and also of S.K. Anand an Officer of the U.B.I. Katihar Branch. That this Sita Rannu Mandal was not examined in the course of enquiry . These facts lead to the conclusion that Asha Devi had gone to the Bank for opening the Savings Bank Account in the Bank and. therefore, it cannot be said that this Asha Devi was a fake lady. No. witness has been examined by the management to say that Asha Devi did not receise the payment of withdrawal slip in person. He further sabunted that from Ext . Mit is clear that the workman deposited a sum of Rs . 9,70,193 on 1 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

different dates in the Bank . That the amount shown in the charge sheet (Ext.M/2) is included in Ext.M. That if the amount of charge sheet i.e. Rs . 53,465 is deducted from the total amount of Rs.9 , 70 , 193/- it comes to Rs.9,16,728 . No evidence oral or documentary had been brought on the record to show that somebody else was responsible for defalcating a sum of Rs.9,16,728. The entiredocuments filed by the management do not show and are rather silent about the amount which was deposited by the workman . That in the circumstances the plea of the workman that due to his mistake commited in thought lessness of his mind, in the circumstances must be accepted . That the workman shouldered the responsibility of making good the loss caused to the Bank and accordingly he deposited the money in the Bank in instalments , which was accepted by the Bank . The learned D.R. submitted that if the loss of Rs . 9,16,728 is considered to be loss on account of mistake of the workman , why a loss of Rs . 53,465 only should be termed as a fraud commited by the workman. That it can be, therefore , safely concluded that the loss of Rs . 53,465 is included in Rs . 9,70,193 and it is a case of mistake and not fraud.

14. The workman has stated in his evidence and it has also been admitted by the M.Ws. that the workman was as signed huge duties since 1988 relating to Saving Bank Deposit , Current Deposit, Cash Credit, Over Draft, FixDeposit etc. having the work of thirty ledgers. He was directedto look after entire deposit sections as a Clerk and a Supervisor at the same time . There is no gainsaying the fact that the workman was overburdened due to the job allotted to him . That in spite of all these constraints the workman managed the work allotted to him successfully. It was due to the sincerity and ability of the workman, that an appreciation letter was forwarded by the Branch Manager to the Regional Manager in 1995. This fact, however , have not been controverted by the Bank management .

15. The learned D.R. extending his argument subrnitted that in midst of the overburden the father of workman died due to heart attack . That after death of the father he got his three sisters married. Besides that he had also to look after his widow mother and two minor daughters. In course of the marriage of the sister he had incurred heavy expenses and as a result he had taken loans and naturally was mentally perturbed . That under this condition of thoughtlessness of his mind and some mental depression the workman commited some mistakes in course ofdischarge of his duties. Considering all these facts we are of the opinion that such depression due several types ofworries is not unwarranted.

16. Pointing out to some glaring discrepencies in the domestic enquiry the Icarned D.R. submitted that the workman was never informed by the Bank management that the loss was caused not due to his mistake but due to hisfraudulent acts . This goesto show that the management accepted the submissions of the workman . That in course 253 G1/06-20

1327

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

of cross - examination no suggestion was made by the learned representative of the managment that the workman indulge in fraudulent activities causing financial loss to the Bank . That during the whole domestic enquiry not a single eye witness submitted that the workman indulged in fraudulent acts causing loss to the Bank . He further submitted that the Bank had forwarded the Account Opening Form and other papers to the handwriting expert for examining the handwriting on the Form. The handwriting expert did not subrnit any report to the effect that the handwritingwere of the workman and withdrawals were made by him . He submitted furhter that due to all these reasons the dornestic enquiry findings were perverse and without application of proper mind . That the order of dismissal has landed the workman to serious financial hardship as he has no other means of livelihood. That he has behind him his wife and two young unmarried daughters. That the workman committed some mistake but did not indulge in any fraudulent acts . The representative for theBank could not meet the points raised by the learned D.R.

17. From consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case it is clear that in course of domestic enquiry a finding regarding loss of Rs . 53,465 onlywas given, though the workman admitedly deposited Rs . 9,70,193 in instalments on different dates . The Bank managementment has not been able to say as to why the workman was charged for defalcation of Rs . 53,465 only. The submission of the learned representative of the management that in view of the fact that the workman deposited Rs . 9,70,193 to the Bank it would be inferred that he had defalcated this entire amount cannot be accepted. The entire facts lead to the only conclusion that the workman had committed mistake causing the loss of a sum ofRs. 53,465 only, as he was over pressed with work .

18. Having regard to the fact that the workman was saddled with different types of work having to deal with thirty ledgers some mistakes might have been made by him incourse of discharge of his duties . Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the punishment awarded to the workman by the management is not commensurate with the charges levelled against him. It is settled law and natural justice also demands that the punishment must be commensurate with the charge. Inthis regard we may refer to the Ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Management of Federation of Indian Chembers of Commerce and Industry I's . R.K. Mittal ( 1971 II LLJ - 630) . It has been held that where the order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act of misconduct of which no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances , that itself would lead to the in reference of victimization or unfair labour practice. which would vitiate the order of dismissal or discharge. The learned D.R. submitted that by chang of Sec . 11A the legislature has transferred the discretion of the [PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22. 1927

1328

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Madras Port Trust and their workman . which was received by the Central Government on 09-01-2006.

[No. L - 33015/ 1 /2005 -IR ( B - II) | C. GANGADHARAN. Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

employer imposing punishment to the adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction of the Industrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of punishment for proved aut of misconduct in cases of discharge or dismissal . It the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstems on the facts of th case it has the not only to i je order of punishment asi dia the reinstalk.arom stock wages, but it has also the power to impose certain condition as it tive relief to the workman may decre includio , who of nishment in licu ot discharge o

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Friday, the 9th December, 2005

PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer 19. On the basis of tuc law as laid down U / s . 111 of the I.D. Act it is clear that the Tribunal has the power to set aside the order of the punishment inflicted by the management .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NΝΟ . 102/2005

(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 Madras Port Trust and their workmen)

BETWEEN

: I Party/Claimant

The General Sceretary,

Port& Dock Labour Union , Chennai .

AND

The Chairman ,

: 11 Party/Management

Madras Port Trust , Chennai .

APPEARANCE :

: None

For the Claimant

For the Management

: M/s . Dharani Chander, Advocates

AWARD

20. In view of the foregoing discussion we are of the opinion that the action of the management of United Bank of India , Patna in awarding the punishment of dismissal to She, Prasad Lal , Clerk-cum-Typist of Katihar Brand of United Bank of India for alleged involveme Fraud is not legal and justified. The punishment the workmga is not commensurate with the ch the workman. We there , set aside thunishment of dismissal passed by the managen , med Bank of India. The management is ordered to theitate the workinan Shri B.P. Lel with effect from the date et his dismissal with back wages . It is also ordered that there will be no payment of full salary and allowances for the period of his suspension save and except payment of subsistence allowance . The management is directed to reinstate Shri B.P. Lal after lowering down of two stages in his basic pay that he was getting at the time of his dismissal. The order must be complied within one month from the date of publication of this Award.

21. Award accordingly. Dictated and Correctedby me .

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide order No. L - 33015/ 1 / 2005 - IR- ( B - II ) dated 14-9-2005 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is- OM PRAKASH SINHA , Presiding Officer. नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

"Whether the action of the management of Madras Port Trust in reverting Shri G. Narayanasamy from the postofMaster Grade Il to the post of Peon and fixation ofpay in the lower scale is legal and justified? If not , whatrelief is the disputant concerned entitled to?" का.था. 590.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मद्रास पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्मित औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्र लय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 102/2005 ) को प्रकाशित जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-33015/1/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 102/2005 and notices were issued to both the parties . The II Party/Management appeared through his advocate on the other hand , even though two notices were served on the Petitioner namely General Secretary, Port& Dock Labour Union , no one has appeared before this Tribunal either personally or through their advocate . Therefore, the Petitioner was called absent and set ex- parte and the II Party /Management was asked to file memo of objection.

3. The allegations in the memo of objection filed by the II Party/Management are briefly as follows: - S. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes17 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby put Award ( Ref. No. 102/2005 ) of the 1329 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

Point:

5. As I have already pointed out, the Petitioner has not appeared before this Tribunal to substantiate their claim namely the action of the II Party/Management in reverting the concerned employee Sri G. Narayanasamy from the postofMaster Grade II to the post of Peon is not legal and justified. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that since the concerned employee had a poor vision and since there was no alternative employment to be given in the same department and since he has no requisite educational qualification for alternative employment in the same department , he was offered with the post of Peon in COS department and he has also accepted the offer and joined duty and there was no monetary loss in reverting him from the post of Master Grade II to Peon . Under such circumstances, after serving the post for more than six years , he cannot now claim that he has been reverted illegally. hence, this claim is not maintainable . As I have already pointed out since the Petitioner has not appeared before this Court to substantiate their claim , 1 find the concerned employee is not entitled to any relief as prayed for by the Petitioner Union ,

6. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P. A. , transcribed and typed by him . corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 9th December, 2005.)

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 591.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार, औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं० - I , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/239/1997- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 Thedispute is not at all maintainable on the ground of delay and latches . Though the concerned employee namelyMr. G. Narayanasamy has worked as Master Grade II, II Party/Management has offered alternative employment as Peon to the concerned employee in the year 1986 , since he was found unfit to carry out his duties of Master Grade II on account of his sub - standard vision in both eyes . The said employee has rightly accepted and he has served the post till his retirement . The said employee joined the Respondent/Management on 29-7-1963 as lascar grade II and subsequently promoted to Deck Tindal , Syrang and before his medical invalidation he worked as Master Grade II in marine department from 16-7-82. The Master Grade Il is incharge of pilot launch, it take pilot and takes pilot on board and manoeuvre the launch along side the moving vessels to embark/disembark pilots on to/from ships. During night operations , the Master Grade II is excepted to carry out duties in meticulous manner at such times , the entire operation on Master concerned and in the event ofMaster having poor vision, the pilot launch manoeuvred by him may take conduct with the moving vessel and in the impact, the Master his crew numbering about three and the pilot officer will all get killed . Therefore, the concerned employee with a sub -standard vision cannot do the work ofMaster Grade II post . Further Master Grade II must undergo periodical medical check up as per medical rules of Chennai PortTrust . As per medical report dated 14-8-85, it was stated that concerned employee was unfit to continue as a Master Grade II sincehis eye sight has become failure under medical classification of A A2 prefix AB to sub - standard vision C C1 .As per Section 110 ( 1 ) of Chapter VIII of Chennai Port Trust medical manual , the Respondent/Management can discharge the concerned employee on medical grounds . But, however, on humanitarian consideration Respondent tried to put him in other category in the same department . But, unfortunately, he did not have requisite qualification for doing the some other jobs in the same department. Therefore , an alternative appointment in COS department as a peon was offered and the concerned employee has given his acceptance and joined the said post and joined on 19-2-86 in COS department as Peon. The concerned employee has voluntarily accepted the alternative employment and therefore , he cannot challenge the same after more than six years . Further, the drop in wages on account of alternative appointment was also made good by granting him a sum of Rs. 336.12 per month from the MadrasPort Trust Employee's contributory loss in wages Compensation Scheme and he has received this Compensation till his superannuation . Therefore , he was also not lost any monetary benefits . Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim with costs.

S.O. 591. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/1998 ) ofthe Central Govent Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Dhanbai No. 1 as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of UCO Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006.

4. In such circumstances , the point for my determination is-

[No. L - 12012 /239/ 1997 - IR (B- II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

"To what relief the concerned employee is entitled?" 1330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ S . 10 ( 1 ) (d ) (2A) of I.D. Act REFERENCE NO. 1 OF 1998

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of UCOBank.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT :

Shri Sarju Prasad , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate .

For the Worknien : Shri P. K. Singh , Concerned Workınan.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:Bank:

Dated, the 20th December, 2005

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12012 /239 / 97 /IR- (B - 11 ) dated 13-12-97 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - sec . ( 1 ) and sub - sec . ( 2A) of I.D. Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

[ PART II- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] New Delhi , the 13th January , 2006

S.O. 592.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 1/95 ) of the Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ajmer as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 09-01-2006.

[No. L- 12012/305/94- IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy .

अनुबन्ध

न्यायालय श्रम एवं औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण, अजमेर

(राज.)

पीठासीन अधिकारीः- श्री जी. एस. शेखावत, आर एच जे एस प्रकरण सं.- सी आई टी आर 01/1995 (रेफरेंस नं. एल-12012 / 305/ 94 दिनांक 9 मार्च , 1995 ) ओम प्रकाश शर्मा पुत्र

श्री नालाराम सनातन धर्मसभा,

प्रार्थी स्टेशन रोड डीडवाना, जिला नागौर राज.

बनाम

प्रबंध , यूको बैंक शाखा डीडवाना ,

अप्रार्थी जिला नागौर (राज. )

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank , BERO. Ranchi in terminating the services of Sh. Pramod Kumar Singh , is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the said workınan is entitled to?" 2. Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate , appearing on behalf of the management files a petition alongwith a copy of Award passed by the Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal No. 2. Dhanbad and submits that the same number of order from the Govt . of India was reffered to Central Govt . Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad and was registered as Reference No. 5 of 1998 which has already been decided by the said Tribunal , hence there is no need to proceed the matter in this Tribunal . The concerned workman , who is present today, has no objection on it .

In view of such circumstances there is no need to proceed with the matter here and the case is dropped .

SARJU PRASAD. Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 592.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अजमेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/305/94- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव उपस्थित : श्री एम. ए. चिश्ती,

प्रार्थी विद्वान अधिवक्ता,

अप्रार्थी श्री ओ.पी. बाहेती, विद्वान अधिवक्ता,

दिनांक 7-12-2005

अवार्ड

केंद्र सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित विवाद निम्न प्रकार है:-

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank , Deedwana Distt . Nagaur in terminating the services of Sh . Om Prakash Sharma , casual workman w.e.f. January, 1991 is legal and justified ? If not . what relief is the said workman entitled to ?"

नोटिस के उपरांत उभयपक्ष उपस्थित आये । प्रार्थी ने क्लेम के विवरण में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप मेंप्रतिपक्षी बैंक की डीडवाना शाखा में सन् 1984 से कार्यरत था । प्रारंभ में कुछ समय के लिए पानी वाला के रूप में दर्शाया गया किंतु वास्तव में उससे एक चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के सभी कार्य करवाये गये । सन् 1984 में अभिलेख में कुछ महीने प्रार्थी को चौकीदार के रूप में दर्शाया गया । प्रार्थी ने निरंतर कार्य किया है । प्रार्थी से दिनांक 26-9-84 से चौकीदार [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1331

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

है । इसके विपरीत प्रतिपक्षी ने प्रदर्श एम -1 प्रस्तुत किया है, जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी ने सभी 1990 में , जनवरी 90 में 17 दिन, फरवरी , 90 में 15दिन, मार्च 90 में 23 दिन और अप्रैल, 90 में पांच दिन कार्य किया है । यह सत्य है कि प्रतिपक्षी के साक्षी ने अभिलेख के आधार पर साक्ष्य दी है और इस संबंध में उसकी कोई व्यक्तिगत जानकारी नहीं है । 240 दिन तक निरंतर कार्य करना सिद्ध करने का भार प्रार्थी पर है, जिसे उसने सिद्ध नहीं किया है ।

का कार्य लिया जाता रहा । सन् 1986 से प्रार्थी ने चपरासी के रूप में 446 दिन कार्य किया । एम्पलायी फैडरेशन के साथ हुए समझौते तथा बैंक की नीतिके अनुसार ऐसे सभी कर्मचारी जिसे समझौते की दि. 12-10-89 से पहले तीन साल में 240 दिन या अधिक दिन कार्य किया है वे सभी बैंको की स्थाई सेवा में समाविष्ट हुए थे । प्रार्थी भी समाविष्ट होने में सक्षम था किंतु प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा उचित सूचना नहीं भेजने से समाविष्ट होने से वंचित रहना पड़ा जबकि प्रार्थी से कनिष्ठ स्थाई सेवा में समाविष्ट हो गये । इस प्रकार प्रतिपक्षी ने पक्षपातपूर्ण रवैया अपनाया । प्रार्थी ने अनेक बार प्रतिपक्षी को लिखित निवेदन किया किंतु संतोषप्रद उत्तर नहीं मिला । अंत में प्रार्थी को उससे कनिष्ठ कर्मचारियों को नियुक्ति देने की तिथि से गत वेतन भत्तों सहित नियमित नियुक्ति के आदेश पारित करने की प्रार्थना कीहै ।

जहां तक प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति की प्रकृति और प्रतिपक्षी के आदेश दिनांक 19-10-89 प्रदर्श एम-2 समझौते के अंतर्गत प्रार्थी को समाविष्ट किये जाने के प्रश्न का संबंध है , प्रतिपक्षी द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रलेखों से स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी को पानी भरने के बदले में सूक्षम राशि का भुगतान किया जाता था जिसका उल्लेख प्रतिपक्षी के वाऊचर्स में है । अगस्त, सितंबर और अक्तूबर, 1984 में प्रार्थी को चौकीदार का कार्य करने का भुगतान किया गया । प्रतिपक्षी की शाखा में नव- निर्माण किये जाने पर प्रार्थी को एक निश्चित उद्देश्य और निश्चित अवधि के लिए चौकीदार का कार्य करने हेतु दस रु. प्रतिदिन की दर से लगाया गया था । प्रार्थी को कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं दिया गया । प्रार्थी को आकस्मिक रूप से बीस- तीस मिनट तक कभी- कभी पानी भरने का कार्य करने से उसे कोई अधिकार प्राप्त नहीं होता । प्रार्थी द्वारा कभी- कभी कोई सामान बाजार से लाने पर उसका भुगतान प्राप्त करने से भी कोई अधिकार नहीं बनता । प्रार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्षी रामचंद्र मूंदड़ा बैंक के सामने चाय की दुकान लगाता है और साक्षी रामनिवास बैंक का खातेदार होने के कारण बैंक में आने- जाने वाला व्यक्ति है । जिन्होंने कोई निश्चित साक्ष्य नहीं दी है । कभी- कभी चाय पीने आने से या रामनिवास खातेदार द्वारा बैंक में जाने पर प्रार्थी को कार्य करते देखने से यह निष्कर्ष नहीं निकाला जा सकता कि प्रार्थी नियमित रूप से दिन भर कार्य करता हो । प्रदर्श एम -2 प्रबंधन और तीन यूनियनों के मध्य का समझौता पत्र है जिसके क्लॉज-2 ए निम्न प्रकार है : " However, those who have been engaged as Water Boy on daily wage would not be eligible for being considered for absorption under this settlement . "

प्रतिपक्षी ने उत्तर में अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी पानी के बरतन और पानी का स्थान साफ करने तथा पानी भरने हेतु प्रारंभ में सन् 1981 में पचास पैसे प्रतिदिन उसके पश्चात् दो रु. प्रतिदिन और उसके पश्चात् पांच रु. प्रतिदिन पर रखा गया था जो निरंतर नहीं था । उसका कार्य समाप्त होते ही उसको रखना समाप्त कर दिया जाता था । उसका कार्य केवल बीस से तीस मिनट प्रतिदिन का था । प्रतिपक्षी नियोक्ता के यहां वाटर ब्वाँय का कोई पद नहीं था । प्रार्थी की प्रतिदिन नयी नियुक्तिहोती थी । अगस्त, सितंबर और अक्टुबर, 1984 में दो - तीन माह के लिए प्रार्थी को चौकीदार के कार्य पर डीडवाना शाखा के नव- निर्माण तक रखा गया। यह कार्य भी निश्चित उद्देश्यों और निश्चित अवधि के लिए अर्थात्तीन माह तक दस रु. प्रतिदिन का था । जैसे ही भवन का नव- निर्माण पूरा हुआ उसे हटा दिया गया । प्रार्थी ने दस वर्ष तक यह विवाद नहीं उठाया अतः विलंब से विवाद नहीं उठाया जा सकता । वॉटर ब्यॉय और चौकीदार के प्रतिपक्षी बैंक के यहां कोई पद नहीं है । प्रार्थी के कार्य दिवसों की सूचना सहायक श्रम आयुक्त को दे दी गयी थी जिसकी प्रति अनेक्सचर -1 है । प्रबंधन और स्टाफ यूनियन के मध्य हुए समझौते दिनांक 12-10-89 को सरक्यूलर दिनांक 19-10-89 द्वारा सभी को सरक्यूलेट किया गया जिसका क्लॉज़ 2 के अनुसार वाटर ब्यॉय को स्थाई रूप से समाविष्ट किये जाने का प्रावधान नहीं था । अंत में क्लेम निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की है ।

प्रार्थी ने अपने क्लेम की संपुष्टि में स्वयं का शपथ पत्र और रामचंद्र मूंदड़ा, रामनिवास पुरोहित के शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवायाहै । जबकि प्रतिपक्षी की ओर से श्री सागर मल गुप्ता, उप मुख्य अधिकारी का शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत कर प्रतिपरीक्षण करवाया है । प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य में प्रदर्श एम -1 से 55 प्रलेखों की प्रतियां प्रदर्शित करवाकर प्रस्तुत कीहै ।

इस प्रकार इस समझौते के उक्त क्लॉज में ही यह स्पष्ट कर दिया था कि वॉटर ब्यॉय के रूप में दैनिक वेतन भोगी स्थाई पद पर समाविष्ट का अधिकारी उक्त समझौते के अंतर्गत नहीं होगा । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी इस समझौते के अंतर्गत लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहींहै । अंत में मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुंचता हूं कि प्रार्थी की नियुक्ति छंटनी की श्रेणी में नहीं आती है और प्रार्थी समझौते के अंतर्गत कोई लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है । इस प्रकार प्रार्थी का क्लेम निरस्त होने योग्य है ।

आदेश

उभयपक्ष का श्रवण किया, पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया । प्रतिपक्षी के विद्वान अभिभाषक ने 1996 डीएनजे ( राज. ) 34का दृष्टांत प्रस्तुत किया जिसका ससम्मान अध्ययन किया ।

फलतः प्रस्तुत विवाद का उत्तर इस प्रकार से दिया जाता है कि यूको बैंक, डीडवाना, जिला नागौर राज. के प्रबंधन द्वारा प्रार्थी ओमप्रकाश शर्मा कीसेवामुक्ति जनवरी, 1991 वैद्य एवं उचित है प्रार्थी कोई अनुतोप प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है ।

जहां तक प्रार्थी द्वारा सेवा समाप्ति जनवरी , 1991 से गत वर्ष में 240 दिन कार्य किये जाने के प्रश्न का संबंध है । प्रार्थी ने इस संबंध में कोई प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं की है । प्रार्थी के शपथ पत्र और प्रार्थी के साक्षियों के शपथ पत्र में भी कार्य के निश्चित दिवस को नहीं बताया गया

जी. एस. शेखावत, न्यायाधीश 1332

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

"Whether the claim ofMs. S. Sudali for reinstatement into service with continuity of service with back wages and with all other attendant benefits against themanagement of Central Bank of India , Madurai is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman isentitled ? "

का. आ. 593.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्दीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल 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 चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं ० एल-12012/64/2005- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 67/2005 and notices were issued to both the parties . Even though two notices were issued to the Petitioner , the Petitioner has therefore , she was called absent and set ex - parte . On the other hand , the Respondent/Management entered appearance through their advocate and filed memo of objection .

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

3. In these circumstances the points for my determination are

(i) " Whether the claim of reinstatement into service with attendant benefits against the Respondent/ Management is legal and justified?"

S.O. 593. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 67/ 2005 of the Central Govt. Industrial - Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their work men , received by the Central Government on 09-01-2006 .

(ii) "To what relief the Petitioner is entitled ? " Point Nos . 1 & 2 :

[No. L - 12012/64/2005 - IR (B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Friday. the 25th November, 2005

4. As I have already pointed out even though two notices were received by the Petitioner, she has not appeared before this Tribunal to put forth her claim . The Respondent/Management has filed memo of objecting stating that since the Petitioner has not entered appearance nor filed her Claim Statement , the Tribunal may Pass an award on merit holding that the Petitioner has not made out any claim and therefore , she is not entitled to any relief.

PRESENT:

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 67/2005

5. Since Petitioner has not appeared before this Tribunal and not filed her Claim Statement, I find the Petitioner has not established before this Court that she is entitled to reinstatement in service and also attendant benefits . Therefore, I find the petitioner is not entitledto any relief as claimed by her. No Costs .

6. Thus , the reference is disposed of accordingly.

(In the matter of 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 Central Bank of India and their workman) .

BETWEEN

Ms. S. Sudali

: Ist Party/Petitioner

(Dictated to the P. A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 25th November, 2005) .

AND

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer : II Party/Management

The Regional Manager ,

Central Bank of India . Madurai .

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

APPEARANCE :

: None

For the Petitioner

For the Management : M/s . T.S. Gopalan & Co. Advocates

AWARD

का. आ. 594.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सैन्ट्रल 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, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 93/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं० एल -12012/ 21/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 12012/64/ 2005 - IR ( B - II ) dated 22-08-2005 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is:-

1333 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 594.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 93/ 2002) of the Central Govt . Industrial -Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the indus- trial dispute between the management of Central Bank of India, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006 .

Act. Second time he was terminated from Nagpura Branch in March 1999 in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act and 3rd time he was terminated from Nagpura branch on 9-6-2001 in violation of ( section 25F. Worker approached Nagpura branch after termination of service but with no result ultimately he espoused dispute before Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( C) Allahabad . Worker has therefore prayed to hold that the termination w.e.f. 9-6-2001 is illegal and unjustified and court may award for absorption of the worker in the permanent services of theBank.

[No. L- 12012/21/2002 -IR (B-II)]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT :

SHRIKANT SHUKLA , Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 93/2002

Ref. No. L- 12012/21 /2002 - IR (B - II) dated 2-5-2002

BETWEEN

Sri Raj Kumar Prasad

Village Swarupur, P.O. Chilmahar Ballia, Distt . Ballia (U.P. ) 277001

And

The Branch Manager Central Bank of India Nagpura Branch Ballia,

Ballia (U.P. ) 277001

AWARD

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi referred the following dispute . No. L - 12012/21 /2002- IR (B- II) dated 2-5-2002 for adjudication to Presiding Officer, CGIT-cum -Labour Court , Lucknow;

"WHETHER THE ACTION OF THE MANAGE- MENT OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA IN TERMI- NATING THE SERVICES OF SRI RAJ KUMAR PRASAD. w.e.f. 9-6-2001 AND NOT CONSIDERING HIM FOR FURTHER EMPLOYMENT IS LEGAL AND JUSTIFIED ? IF NOT, WHAT RELIEF IS HE ENTITLED TO ?"

The worker's case is that worker worked in following branches ofCentral Bank of India for the period mentioned against it.

24-1-90 to 30-12-95

1. Chilkahar Branch Ballia aspart time Safaikarmchari

06-1-97 to March 99

2. Nagpura Branch Ballia aspart time Safaikarmchari

14-8-2000 to

8-6-2001

3. Nagpura Branch Ballia as part time Safaikarmchari

The case of the opposite party is that Nagpura branch ofthe Central Bank of India is a Rural branch of medium size where Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was engaged as a casual labour on daily rated basis for fetching water and cleaning work and he did not hold any regular and permanent post in the bank in any cadre whatsoever. The engagement of the worker was dependant on the exigencies of work and its availability in the bank. It is further submitted that Raj Kumar Prasad was engaged for 2 or 3 hours in a day and he never worked as whole timer. Worker was never appointed by the bank on the post of Safai Karamchari in regular and permanent basis. The bank never issued any appointment letter or orders to Sri Raj Kumar Prasad , therefore the question of termination of his services also do not arise and there was no question for giving any appointment letter or any notice pay and compensation whatsoever to Sri Raj Kumar Prasad . It is also submitted that no such termination letter was issued to Sri Raj Kumar Prasad as he was never appointed. It is also submitted that Raj Kumar Prasad had never worked 240 working days in any calendar year or preceding 12 months in the bank . He has been paid for the actual days he worked in the branch. It is further allegedby the bank that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad discontinued casual job ofhis own accord for better engagement elsewhere. There is no employer -employee relationship between the bank and Sri Raj Kumar Prasad. The service conditions of the bank are not applicable on casual labour and casual labours are not entitled to get any benefit like regular and permanent employees of the bank. It is also submitted by the bank that there are set guidelines of the Government for recruitment for which candidates are sponsored by the Regional Employment Exchange , Tests /interview held only successful candidates absorbed thereafter. No deviation is permitted from these rules, Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was not subjected to such exercise and he has given a misstatement to misguide to Court . Sri Raj Kumar Prasad is trying to gain back door entry by way of litigation in contravention of these Government rules. The claim of the worker is not covered by Sections 25-B , 25 - F , 25 -G and 25 - H of the I. D. Act , 1947. It is alleged that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad has not filed any documentary proof or particulars in the statement of claim whether he had actually worked on permanent and regular post in the bank or not. In absence of any documentary proof the contentions as mentioned in the statement of claim have become infructuous , bad in law and not maintainable . It is alleged that it is neither a case of It is alleged that he was terminated firstly from Chilkahar Branch in violation of Section 25F of the I.D.

1334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

to enter Government services through the back door and the Labour Court can not be allowed to be used as a legal means for such back door entry . It is settled that a person who has worked on daily basis or adhoc basis does not have any right to the post .

He can not claim regularization of his services merely because he has completed 240 days in services .

The management has subnutted that for the following reasons Sri Raj Kumar Prasad neither entitled to reinstatement . It is not practicable nor possible for reinstatement him nor he is entitled any wages or relief/ compensation whatsoever on the basis of present reference order.

The worker has filed rejoinder stating that bank submitted very lengthy written statement containing irrelevant matters repetative paragraph and arguments . therefore the contention in the entire written statement are denied. The worker has reiterated the facts alleged in the statement of claim .

Opposite party has filed the photo copy of the vouchers paper no . 12/2 to12/40 .

Sri Raj Kumar Prasad has filed his affidavit together with the photo copy of letter of General Manager. Central Bank of India dt, 4-10-90 . Worker has been cross examined by the opposite party.

Opposite party has examined Sri A. B. Singh , Parties have filled written argument .

Perused the written argument and evidence on record carefully.

The issue referred to this court is whether the action ofthe management of Central Bank of India in terminating the services of Sri Raj Kumar Prasad w. e . f. 9-6-0 land not considering him for employment is legal and justified .

termination or retrenchment nor dismissal . He has got no claim for reinstatement or permanent absorption in the bank. It is also alleged that claim is belated and over stale and it is not maintainable . It is also alleged that the dispute is not tenable as it is beyond thejurisdiction of the Tribunal under I. D. Act . 1947 and this court can not hear and decide the claim of Sri Raj Kumar Prasad. It is submitted that " part- time Safai Karmchari " has not been specified by the Central Government for adjudication in the present reference order. Hence, this issue can not be taken into consideration by the court. It is submitted that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad has not mentioned any formal letter of reference or appointment letter in his statement of claim. It is also alleged that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad had never worked continuously in the bank and had not completed 240 days in any calendar year or preceding 12 months in the bank. It is also alleged that the necessary parties like Anil Kumar and Chotey Lal etc. have not been impleaded by the worker and therefore the court can not hear and decide the matter of termination . When dealing with the cases of this type where a workman tries to take the protection of law for back door entry into public services or service of the bank. It is of vital importance in a country like India where there is large scale unemployment thatwe should not ignore infringing fundamental rights in the matter of equality ofopportunity ofyoungmen who are entitled to seek equal opportunity in the matter of employment in nationalised bank. It is further stated that a person who thus gets into the regular employment in the bank not wholly based on considerations of merits and giving equality of opportunity in the matter of employment , ifallowed to enter into regular service in the bank by his absorption in bank . It will entail infringement of equality of opportunity for youngmen in the country in the matter of seeking employment in the bank's services . It is further stated that the rights of that unknown class should not be forgotten when we deal with cases of this type and what is pressed before us is only the equality of person who is before the Labour Court/ Tribunal . The Tribunal/ Labour Court before issuing any directions in respect of such casual labour must not forget about the existence of that class of unemployment who are waiting for equal opportunity in the matter of employment so that their rights are not curtailed by such back door entry into bank's service.

Itispertinent to mention here that according to the worker allegations , he was engaged in Chilkhara branch at Ballia as part time Safai Karmchari w. e. f. 24-1-90 to 30-12-95 and he was terminated thercafter and he was never engaged in the branch of Chilkhara any more. There is absolutely no issue for adjudicating the termination of the worker from Chilkhara branch w. e . f. 1-1-1996. If the worker had any grievence against the Chilkhara branch he ought to have raised the industrial dispute at that time . This court cannot adjudicate the termination from Chilkhara branch ofthe bank after 30-12-95 .

It is pointed out that in accordance with Section 10 (4) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947 , 9-6-2001 has been specified as the date of his alleged termination and therefore the court is to confine to 9-6-2001 and no other date . It is also submitted that the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India , Varanasi has not been impleaded as party in the present reference order as hence the refcrence order is bad in law and without jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Sri Raj Kumar Prasad is gainfully engaged elsewhere hence he is not entitled to any relief.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the worker has alleged that he was part time Safai Karmchari w. c . f. 6-1-99 to March 99. It is observed from the pleadings that worker remained unemployed thereafter till 13-8-2000 . Worker has not mentioned the specific date of March 99 when he was terminated from the Nagpura branch . There is no issue for adjudication before me for adjudicating the termination from service from Nagpura branch w. e . f. March , 1999.

It is also well settled that daily and casual workers who are engaged in disregard of all rules can not be allowed 1335 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

(ii) onehundred and twenty days , in any other case.

Explanation : For the purposes of clause (2) the number ofdays on which a workman has actually worked under an employer shall include the days on which- As already mentioned above the issue for adjudication is whether the action of the management of terminating the services of Sri Raj Kumar Prasad w. e. f. 9-6-01 is legal and justified . The management has pleaded in para 129 of the written statement that in accordance with Section 10(4) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947. 9-6-01 has been specified as a date of his alleged termination therefore we have to confine to 9-6-01 and no other date ..

Section 10 (4) reads as under:

(1) he has been laid off under an agreement or as permitted by standing orders made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (20 of 1946) or under the Act or under any other law applicable to theindustrial establishment .

(ii) he hasbeen on leave with full wages , earned in the previous years;

"Where in an order referring an industrial dispute ( to a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal ) under this section or in subsequent order, the appropriate Government has specified the points of dispute for adjudication ( the Labour Court or the National Tribunal , as the case maybe) shail confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto . "

(iii) he has been absent due to temporary disablement caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and

In the circumstances this court is legally bound to adjudicate the termination referred by the Government .

(iv) in the case of a female , she has been on maternity leave , so , however, that the total period of such maternity leave does not exceed twelve weeks .

Inparas 8 to 11 of the statement of claim the worker has alleged that he was appointed as Safai Karmchari- cum-water boy on 14-8-2000 and he worked till 8-6-01 when his services were terminated w. e . f. 9-6-01 . In the circumstances sections 25 -B , 25 -F of the 1. D. Act are relevant which are reproduced as under:

25B Definition of continuous service : For the purposes of this Chapter-

25F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workers:-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 been given one month's notice inwriting indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired , or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;

( 1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous service for a period if he is , for that period, in uninterrupted service, including service which may be intertrupted on account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or a strike which is not illegal , or a lock out or a cessation of work which is not due to any fault on the part of the workman.

(2) where a workmen is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause ( 1 ) for a period of one year or 6 months he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer-

(b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay ( for every completed year of continuous service ) or any part thereof in excess of six months ; and (a) for a period of one year, if the workman, during a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than-

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government ( for such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette).

(i ) one hundred and ninety days in the case ofa workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days , in any other case;

The conditions precedent for the workman is that the workman should be in continuous service of one year immediately before the date of termination and the continuous service have been defined in section 25 - Fan inthepresentcase it is 240 days . The worker is therefore prove that he worked continuously for 12 months precedin the date of his termination and that in 12 months he has worked for 240 days .

(b) for a period of six months , if the workman, during a period of six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than

(i) ninety five days in the case of workman employed below ground in a mine; and

Accordingto own allegations of the worker t worker was not in employment in June and July of the yo 2000and he entered into the service of Nagpura branch theBank on 14-8-2000. Thus, the worker has not compl 253G1/06--21 1336

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 / MAGHA 22 , 1927

04-06-2001 to09-06-2001

5days

11-06-2001 to 16-06-2001

6days

223 days

Total days worked

one year's continuous service before his termination . However, in the given circumstances the worker has to prove that he has worked for 240 days preceding his termination within 12 months.

13. I say that in addition to the above working days Iwas also paid an additional amount ofRs. 2.5/- per day for the work of Daftari that was taken from ine on the following

dates :--

The worker has filed affidavit in support of his case i.e. paper No. 16/2 the paras 12 and 13 of the said affidavit . are relevant to the facts of this case which are re - produced below:

11-07-2000 for 2 days

01-11-2000 for 1 day

26-12-2000 for 1 day

I say that I have worked for 223 days ( on the following dates) during the above period from 14-8-2000 to8-6-2001 : -

11-01-2000 for 1 day

@Rs. 30/-per day

12-01-2000 for 1 day

14-8-2000 to 19-8-2000

5days

16-01-2000 for 1 day

21-8-2000 to 26-8-2000

5days

18-01-2000 for 4 days

6 davs

28-8-2000 to02-9-2000

12-03-2000 for 3 days

04-9-2000 to 09-9-2000

6days

11-9-2000 to 16-9-2000

6days

Rajesh Kumar 15-07-2000 for 2 days in the name of 18-9-2000 to 23-9-2000

6days

22-07-2000 for 1 day in the name of 25-9-2000 to 3-10-2000

7 days

Raj Kumar Prasad

03-10-2000 to 5-10-2000

2 days

13-01-2001 for 2 days in the name of Anil Kumar. 9-10-2000 to 14-10-2000

6days

23-10-2000 to 28-10-2000

4days

6-11-2000 to 10-11-2000

5days

13-11-2000 to 18-11-2000

6days

20-11-2000 to 25-11-2000

5days

27-11-2000 to 2-12-2000

6days

In para 13 of the affidavit worker has tried to prove that he worked as Daftari and was paid additional amountofRs . 25/- per day on 11-7-2000 . It is noteworthy that workerhas not pleaded in his statement ofclaim that he worked inNagpura branch on 11-7-2000 . Therefore, this evidence is beyond the pleadings and cannot be looked into. 4-12-2000 to 9-12-2000

6days

18-12-2000 to 23-12-2000

6 days

16-12-2000 to 23-12-2000

4days

1-1-2001 to6-1-2001

6days

8-1-2001 to 13-1-2001

6 days

15-1-2001 to 20-1-2001

6days

22-1-2001 to 27-1-2001

Workerhas pleaded in his statement of claim that he worked upto 8-6-2000 and thereafter he was terminated w. e. f. 9-6-2001 but in para 12 of the affidavit at page 4 the worker has tried to state that he worked w. e . f. 4-6-2001 to 9-6-2001 for 5 days and 11-6-01 to 16-6-01 for 6 days . In the circumstances the affidavit sofar as it relates to working on 9-6-2001 to 16-6-01 is beyond the pleading .

5 days

29-1-2001 to 3-2-2001

6 days

5-2-2001 to 10-2-2001

6days

12-2-2001 to 17-2-2001

6 days

The management has filed all vouchers with list A2-12which are paper Nos . 12/2 to 12/40 . I have scrutinised the vouchers on record and find that vouchers pertain to 202working days .

19-2-2001 to 24-2-2001

5 days

@Rs. 35/-per day

26-02-2001 to 03-03-2001

6days

05-03-2001 to 08-03-2001

3 days

12-03-2001 to 17-03-2001

6days

19-03-2001 to 24-03-2001

6days

26-03-2001 to 31-03-2001

6days

01-04-2001 to 07-04-2001

5 days

09-04-2001 to 12-04-2001

4days

Worker by his affidavit has tried to establish that he has worked from 25-9-2000 to 3-10-2000 . There is no such voucher available on the record by which it could be said thatworker did worked from 25-9-2000 to 3-10-2000 . 1n. fact on 3-10-2000 the day on which he was paid for his work on 5-10-2000 , worker was paid Rs. 150/- for purchase ofsugar and 5 It. Kerosene oil. Similarly there is no voucher for 16-12-2000 to 23-12-2000 actual payment voucher which hasbeen filed by the management is paper No. 12/18 which relates to 18-12-2000 to 23-12-2000 ,

16-04-2001 to 21-04-2001

6days

23-04-2001 to 28-04-2001

6 days

30-04-2001 to 05-05-2001

Workers statement on affidavit that he worked for 223 days in para 12 is false .

6days

08-05-2001 to 12-05-2001

5days

14-05-2001 to 19-05-2001

6 days

21-05-2001 to 26-05-2001

6days

Worker has admitted in his affidavit in para 14 that he was not paid any wages for sundays or even National holidays that fell between 14-8-2000 to 8-6-2001 . He has also stated in para 22 of the affidavit that he had worked 28-05-2001 to 02-06-2001

6days 1337 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006 /माघ 22, 1927

continuously and his total working days including sundays is 265 days . In para 23 of the affidavit he has stated there were42 sundays between period 14-8-2000 to 9-6-01 but he was not paid wages for these days . In para 24 of the affidavit he has stated there were 14 holidays for which days also no payment was made to him.

basis salary was being paid to the concerned workman. However in para 14 it has been stated that the concerned workman has been made payment for the actual days he worked orwas engaged in branch on daily wages and casual labour, while no attendance register or muster roll has never been produced by the management before the Tribunal . The workman has cited case law of H.D. Singh Vs Reserve Bank of India in ( 1985 ) 4 SCC 201 .

Itisadmitted in the affidavit that he was on daily wages and paid Rs.30/- per day and thereafter daily wages were increasedtoRs.35/- per day. It is not mentioned any where that there was any attendance register maintained for his attendance . It is also admitted fact that there was no appointment letter for his appointment. It is also admitted fact thatthe worker's brother Sri Anil Kumar is already employee inthe Central Bank of India branch Ratanpura for last 10 years. Workerhas admitted this fact in the cross -examination is that hiswages are not due over the opposite party.

TheHon'ble Supreme Court in Case law 2005 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) 609 has distingushed H.D. Singh Vs Reserve Bank of India ( 1985) 4 SCC 201 : 1985 SCC (L& S ) 975 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that only because the employer has failed to prove his plea of abondment of the serviceby the worker, the same case law can not be taken circumstances that respondents has proved their case. Meaning thereby the worker has to prove in all its certainity that he worked for 240 days in a year and he was paid wages for 240 days. Worker has filed no document in support of his case that he worked for 240 days . On the other hand the employer has filed certified photo copy of the vouchers pertaining to the payment to the worker .

Worker has stated in para 12 of the cross examination that there are holidays in the banks and he was availing the holidays but he was not paid for that period. It is also admitted fact that there was no interview and test before his engagement. There is also no written termination order.

Worker has not summonned the attendance register and he has not stated in the evidence that he was subjected todaily attendance and therefore it was not obligatory for the management to produce the attendance register.

Ifissettled law that initial burden to prove as on the workman to show that he has completed 240 days ofservice and court has to considered this .

In the circumstances it is well established that the worker was engaged as casual labour. It is very specifically clear that worker was not a regular employee which entitled him wages for sundays and holidays . Sri A.B. Singh management witness has clearly stated that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was never engaged on full time basis in the bank and he alsodid not work on permanent or regular post.He has gone on to say that there was no test and interview conducted before his engagement nor his name was sponsored by Employment Exchange .

TheHon'ble Supreme Court in case law 2005 SCC (L&S) 609 Manager, Reserve Bank of India , BangaloreVs. S. Mani and others referred the case law Range Forest Officer Vs S.T. Hadimani it is stated SCC page 26 para 3;

Ihave perused2005 Supreme Court Cases (L& S ) 609 Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs S. Mani and Others. This principle has been laid down in the said case law that initial burden of prove was on the workman to show that he had completed 240 days of wages . Filing of affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had worked for 240 days in a year. Such evidence might include proofof receipt ofwages for 240 days or order or record of appointment of engagement of this period . Terms and conditions of his offer of appointment as by examination of any other witness in support of his case.

Worker has to prove that he worked 240 days continuously and was paid wages for 240 days . Workman has failed to prove in the instant case that he was paid the wages for 240 days .

" In our opinion the Tribunal was not right in placing the onus on the management without first determining on the basis of cogent evidence that the respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding his termination . It was the case of the claimant that he had so worked but this claim was denied by the appellant . It was then for the claimant to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in the year preceding his termination . Filing of an affidavit is only his own statement in his favour and that cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal to come to the conclusion that a workman had, in fact , worked for 240 days in a year. No proof of receipt of salary or wages for 240 days or order of record of appointment or engagement for this period was produced by the workman . On this ground alone , the award is liable to be set aside . "

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case law hasalso referred the case of Sri Niwas which is reproduced:

"The provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 per se are not applicable in an industrial adjudication . The The written argument contains in para 4 ofworker's written argument that since there was no binding upon the workman regarding attendance and there was no timing of his coming and going as stated on behalf of the management is to how the working period (actual days ) has being calculated by the management and on which [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

general principles of it are, however, applicable. It is also imperative for the Industrial Tribunal to see that the principles of natural justice are complied with. Theburden ofproof was on the respondent workman herein to show that he had worked for 240 days in the preceding twelve months prior to his alleged retrenchment. In terms of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act . 1947 , an order retrenching a workman would not be effective unless the conditions precedent therefore are satisfied . Section 25 -F postulates the following conditions to be fulfilled by an employer for effecting a valid retrenchment ;

(i ) One month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof;

(ii ) Payment ofcompensation equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year or continuous service or any part thereof in excess ofsix months . "

sponsored by the Regional Employment Exchange, test/ interview held and only successful candidates are absorbed thereafter and no deviation is permitted from these rules , Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was not subjected to such exercise and he has given a mis - statement to misguide the Tribunal . Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was never sponsored by Regional Employment Exchange and was not interviewed by any interview pannel as per the laid down procedures. Hence there is no question of absorption of worker as Safai Karmchari on permanent basis in the bank . Itisfurther argued that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad is merely trying to gain back door entry by way of litigation in contravention of these Government rules . Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was engaged according to the bank's exigencies is not covered by the bank awards and settlements. It has pointed out by the management that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad has not filed any documentary proof or particulars in the statement of claim whether he had actually worked on permanent and regular post in the bank or not . In absence of any documentary proof, the contentions as mentioned in the statement of claim have become infructuous bad in law and not maintainable . Different breaks in his casual job was due to the reasons that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad himself did not turnup for casual job on such days it was due to the own fault of worker and no action was taken as his name was not on the muster roll nor did he occupy any regular post in the bank in any cadre whatsoever. Sri Raj Kumar Prasad had no lien or right on any regular and permanent post in the bank . The argument of the management is that whenever there was work of casual nature Sri Raj Kumar Prasad was engaged only for the days on which there was a work .

As noticed hereinbefore , the burden of proof was on theworkman. From the award it does not appear that the workman adduced any evidence whatsoever in support of hiscontention that he complied with the requirements of Section 25 -F ofthe I.D. Act. Apart from examining himself insupport of his contention he did not produce or call for any documentfrom the office of the appellant herein including the muster rolls . It is improbable that a person working in a local authority would not be in possession of any documentary evidence to support his claim before the Tribunal .Apart from muster rolls he could have shown the terms and conditions of his offer of appointment and the remuneration received by him for working during the aforementioned period, He did not even examine any other witness in support of his case . Yet again in Hariram it was opined (SCC p . 250 para 10):

We cannot but bear in mind the fact that the initial burden of establishing the factum of their continuous work for 240 days in a year rests with the respondent applicants .

From the evidence it is proved that Raj Kumar Prasad was not appointed by the bank on the post of Safai Karmchari in regular and permanent basis . It is also proved that he was not pointed on adhoc basis on monthly payment.

It is noteworthy that the parties have not filed any case law in support of their argument . It is no doubt true that banks's are under obligation to follow guidelines for fulfilling the vacancies in the banks. It is only to meet the exigencies ofwork , the Branch Manager is expected to hire labour from the market casually to meet the requirement naturally the need shall be when the bank is working such . had casual labour who are paid for the days he worked. Such casual labours can not claim payment of Sundays and holidays when the banks are closed. Furthermore such casual labours are not monthly paid workers. If a person is monthly paid then Sundays and holidays are calculated in the salary. Whereas in the case of daily wager when they are paid for daily casual work can not equated themself with the monthly paid labourers .

In the above circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the worker was to prove by satisfactory evidence that he worked 240 days before his disengagement from the bank and he has utterly failed to prove it. In the circumustances there is no violation of any provision of I.D. Act . 1947 as alleged by the worker . The workers intention is to claim back door entry in the bank which can not be allowed .

The argument on behalf of the management is that Sri Raj Kumar Prasad has been made payment for actual days he has worked/engaged in the branch on dailywages and as casual labour. It is also argued that Raj Kumar Prasad discontinued casual job on his own accord for better engagement elsewhere . There was never any employer employee relationship between bank and worker Raj Kumar Prasad and the service conditions of the Bank are not applicable on casual labours. It is also mentioned in the argument that recruitment in the bank is done as per the set guidelines of the Government , vide which candidates are [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

I , therefore come to the conclusion that the disengagement of the worker w.e.f. 9-6-01 is not illegal and unjustified . It is also noteworthy the management has not been able to prove that worker himself left the job but for the success of the claim of the workman it was obligatory on the part of the workman to prove that he worked 240 daysntinuously prior to his disengagement within 12 calendar months.. The issue is therefore answered against the workman. I also come to the conclusion that the worker is not entitled to any relief whatsoever.

SHRIKANT SHUKLA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 595.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्दीय 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, इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2005 और 5/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 09-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं० एल-12011 /132/2004 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ; एल. - 12011 /133/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 S.O. 595. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 4/2005 &5/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Canara Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 09-01-2006 .

[Nos . L- 12011 /132/2004- IR (B-II) ; L-12011/ 133/2004/-IR (B- II)] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy. ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 30th day of December, 2005/ 09th Pousham 1927)

I. D. 4 of 2005 & LD . 5 of 2005

I.D. 4/2005

Workmen : Smt. A. Bindu

Represented by the State Secretary, Canara Bank Employees ' Union, P. Balakrishna Menon Smarakom, Ambujavilasam Road,

Thiruvananthapuram -695001.

By Advocate Shri Renjith Thampan

1339

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

Management: The General Manager, CanaraBank, CircleOffice , Spencer Junction , M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram -695.001 . Chairman

By Advocate Shri M.P Sreekrishnan .

I.D. 5/2005 Workmen: Smt. P. K. Ammukutty Represented by the State Secretary CanaraBank Employees Union P. Balakrishna Menon Smarakom , Ambujavilasam Road, Thiruvananthapuram -695001 .

ByAdvocate Shri Renjith Thampan Management: The General Manager,

CanaraBank , CircleOffice, Spencer Junction, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram -695001 . Chairman By Advocate Shri M.P Sreekrishnan .

AWARD

These are references made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) and (2A) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal , Palakkad and were later transferred to this Court as per order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Writ Petition No. 10997/2005 dated 22-7-2005 . Since facts and evidence are common they are jointly tried and evidence is adduced in I.D. 4/2005 .

2. The facts in brief in these cases are as follows :-- I.D. 4/2005:

Thedispute referred is:--

"Whether the demand of the Canara Bank Employees ' Union before the management of Canara Bank toabsorb Smt . A. Bindu , Temporary Part-time Employee in the regular vacancy of part- time employee is proper and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?" 3. The Union filed a claim statement contending as follows:-

On 1-9-2002 a permanent vacancy of a part -time sweeper arose in Mangalam Dam Branch of Canara Bank. Smt . A. Bindu was engaged as part - time sweeper temporarily. She worked as part -time sweeper till 31-3-2004. Shewas given wages . Her signature was obtained in Daily Wage Register of Bank. She worked continuously for a period of 500 days . She was also paid bonus . As per the procedure followed by the bank, part - time sweepers 1340

[PART 11 -SEC. 3 (ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

engaged on daily wages in leave vacancies were regularized whenever permanent vacancies arose. This was the practice followed in Ollur branch in respect ofone Smt . C.A. Liza, in Kodungallur branch in respect of Smt . Savitri , in Kunnumkulam branch in respect of Smt. Rosa . The procedure of sponsoring candidates from Employment Exchange came into force only in 2004. Even prior to 1-9-2002. Smt. Bindu was officiating in leave vacancy of PTE. In 2004 the management attempted to fill up the permanent vacancy of part - time sweeper through Employment Exchange. This was in violation ofthe practice followed by the bank denying the right of Smt . Bindu for regularization in the post. It is an unfair labour practice.

6. The management filed written statement contending that Smt . Ammukutty was not an employee of CanaraBank . There is no employer-employee relationship between the two. Whenever the permanent PTE went on leave she used to engage Smt . Ammukutty as a substitute. Onsuch occasions Smt . Ammukutty was paid wages and bonus.But that will not confer any specific right on her for the purpose of regular employment . Since she was not an employee of the bank there is no question of termination of her service . Smt . Ammukuity did not conform to the recruitment nornas of the bank and she was over - aged. An Employment Exchange hand is already appointed in the PTE vacancy. There is no unfair labour practice or violation ofprovisions of Industrial Disputes Act .

7. In the light of the above pleadings the following pointsarise for consideration .

(1) Is the reference maintainable ?

(2) What, if any, is the right that temporary PTES have acquired during their service in the bank?

(3) Are they entitled to be regularized?

(4) Reliefs and costs .

8. The evidence consists of oral testimony of WWI and MWland documentary evidence of Exts . Wl to W3 andExts . M1 to M7 .

9. Point No. 1 :

4. The management filed written statement contending that the reference itself is not maintainable. Smt . Bindu was not an employee of Canara Bank. She was engaged by her mother - in - law Smt. Kunjithai whenever the latter was on leave. This will not confer any right on Smt. Bindu . The bank has regular recruitment process . A permanent vacancy of PTE arose in Mangalam Darm branch oftheBank consequent to the retirement of Smt. Kunjithai .. Smt . Bindu was over- aged as per norms for recruitment . Since Smt. Bindu was not an employee of the bank there is no question of termination of her service. The more fact that she was paid wages and borus will not give her any right for regularization . There is no uair labour practice or violation of any industrial law. or

5. L.D. 5/2005

Thedispute referred is:-

Though the management has raised a plea that the reference is not maintainable , no reasons are stated . This aspect was also not pursued during evidence or argument . It has therefore to be presumed that the bank is not serious to pursue the contention . Even otherwise I do not find any infirmity in the reference or reason to say that the reference is not maintainable . Point is answered against the management.

10. Points No. 2 & 3 :

" Whether the demand of the Canara Bank Einployees' Union before the management ofCanara Bank to absorb Smt . P.K. Ammukutty, TemporaryPart- time Employee in the regular vacancy of part -time employee is proper and justified? If not, what other relief the workman is entitled to?"

Smt . A. Bindu was working in the leave vacancy of permanent PTE, Smt. Kunjithai from 11-8-2001 onwards in Mangalam Dam branch in Palakkad District . Smt. Kunjithai isthe mother-in -law of Smt . Bindu . The former retired on 31-8-2002. Smt . Bindu worked as Daily Wager in the permanent PTE post from 1-9-2002 to 28-2-2004 . Thereafter , different persons are being engaged to do the work ofpart- time sweeper.

11. Smt. P.K. Ammukutty was working in the leave vacancy of Smt. Janaki ( PTE ) from 1978 onwards in Sreekrishnapuram branch in Palakkad District. Smt . Janaki retired on 31-5-2003 . In that vacancy Smt . Anımukuttywas engaged from 1-6-2003 to 24-2-2004 on daily wage basis . Thereafter, another person from Employment Exchange wasappointed.

The Union filed a claim statement contending that a permanent vacancy of part - time sweeper in Sreekrishnapuram branch of Canara Bank arose in June , 2003 consequent to the retirement of Smt. O. Janaki , From 1-6-2003 till 3-2-2004 Smt . P.K. Ammukutty was working continuously in the permanent vacancy. She was given wages and bonus and was asked to sign in Daily Wage Register . The bank has been following the procedure of regularizing temporary part- time sweepers who were working in leave vacancies , in permanent posts of PTE . There are several such instances in different branches of CanaraBank , namely, Oliur, Kodungallur , Kunnumkulam etc. Smt . Ammukutty was terminated from service in violation of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . She is entitled tobe regularized. She belongs to OBC community. In2004 the permanent vacancy was filled up by Employment Exchange candidate on temporary basis . The action ofthe bank amounts to an unfair labour practice .

12. According to the claimants , they have been working for a long time as part - time sweepers in leave vacancies and in permanent vacancies that arose 1 1341 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

subsequently in Mangalam Dam and Sreekrishnapuram branches . But, they are not regularized though similar persons in different branches were absorbed in permanent vacancies . According to the management , as per bank recruitment norms the above two persons were over-aged at the time when permanent vacancies arose . Besides , as perbank regulation the permanent vacancies are to be filled upby calling candidates from Employment Exchange .

13. There are 3 categories ofPTEs in CanaraBank . Their scaies are 1/3rd, 1/2 & 3 /4th Ext . M5 are the norms published by the bank in 1993 regarding recruitment of PTEs . Ext. M6 is revised norms regarding filling up of vacancies in different categories of PTEs . As per Ext. M5 , the age limit for general candidates who are engaged on dailywage basis is between 18-22 years . For absorption in permanent vacancy of PTE the age limit for general candidates isbetween 18-26 years . However the age criterias canbe relaxed by DGM ofthe Circle of the Bank . There is no minimum educational qualification and the maximum educational qualification is 5th standard. Page 2 of Ext. M5 , clause' e' says that it is not necessary to approach Employment Exchange for sponsoring candidates to fill up PTE vacancy at rural/semi -urban branches . Ext. M6 contains the norms regarding upward movement ofPTEs . Itsays that as per the procedure in vogue the vacancies of PTE in a branch is being filled by considering the candidature ofpersons working in leave vacancies provided he/she has worked for a sufficiently long period of time and conforms to the norms. In deserving cases the norms are being relaxed for regularization. It also provides that in branches where there are more than one PTE in different scales I /3rd, 1/2 & 3 /4th then in case of vacancy in 3/4 scale it is to be filled up by upward movement ofpersons from 1/2 scale to 3 /4th and vacancies in 1/2 scale is to be filled by upward movement of persons from 1 /3rd scale. The consequential vacancy in 1 /3rd scale is to be filled either by engaging persons working in leave vacancy or bydirect recruitment from Employment Exchange. Ext. M6, page 2, clauses ' a' to ' c' refer to the abovementioned procedure. However Ext . M6 does not contain guidelines regarding regular recruitment process for filling up vacancy in I /3rd scale. It is contained only in Ext . M5 norms . Ext . M6 was issued on the basis of a Joint Conference of Representatives of Management and Bank Employees (Ext. M7). It is admitted by MW1 the management representative that regular recruitment process is contained in Ext . M5 only and not in Ext. M6 . Thus, Exts . M5 & M6 are the guidelines/norms for filling up vacancies in different scales ofPTEsin the permanent vacancies as well as temporary vacancies. The objection of the bank for regularization of Smt. Bindu and Smt. Ammukutty in 1 /3rd scale of PTEs is mainly two - fold, ( 1 ) age bar (2 ) Employment Exchange persons alone can be recruited.

onwards . The permanent vacancy of PTE arose on 1-9-2002 . She worked in that vacancy from 1-9-2002 to 28-2-2004 . Ifbank had insisted to go by Ext . M5 norms for regularizing Smt. Bindu in the permanent PTE vacancy there wasage bar. Her date ofbirth is 16-3-1976 . As on 1-9-2002 she was aged 26 years and 6 months . But even for engaging her on daily wage basis the age limit was 22 years (see para 13 ) . Smt . Bindu had crossed that age as on 1-9-2002 and bank could not have allowed her to work in thatvacancy even as a temporary part - time sweeper as per Ext. M5. But bank did not follow Ext . M5 and engaged Smt. Bindu in the permanent post without regularizing her . Ifthe bank had not followed Ext . M5 norms for engaging her on daily wage basis in the permanent post on 1-9-2002 there is no justification in invoking the same norms for considering her candidature for regularization . While clause 1, first portion of Ext . M5 refers to engagement of PTE on daily wage basis, the second portion refers to absorption inthe permanent post of PTE. The bank cannot accept the norms at one time and reject it at another time according to theirwhims and fancies. It is clear from Ext. M6, 1st page itselfthat the practice ofthe bank in filling up of permanent vacancy in 1/3rd scale of PTE is by absorbing persons who has been working in leave vacancies for a sufficiently long time and who are free from any adverse remarks. It is also mentioned that in deserving cases the criteria with regard to age and qualification can be relaxed (by DGM) . This is a fit case in which the management can exercise their discretion to relax the age criteria bacause the bank has no case that the character and antecedents of Smt.Bindu are unsatisfactory or her work is not satisfactory. There are instances in which persons working in leave vacancies were regularized as and when permanent vacancy arose. Ext . W1 to 3 are such instances . Ext. Wl are proceedings of the bank regarding appointment of Smt. Teresa who was working in leave vacancy in the permanent vacancy of PTE in Trichur main branch and DailyWage Register of that branch. Similarly, as per Ext . W2 (Appointment Order and Daily Wage Register) Smt. Savitri of Kodungallur branch , working in leave vacancy, was regularized in the permanent vacancy. As perExt . W3 , Smt. Liza of Ollur Branch was regularized . The argument of the learned counsel for the management is that thesevacancies had arisen prior to 1-10-2000 and hence Ext.M6 norms were not applicable in their cases. No doubt, Ext . M6 norms were made applicable with regard to vacancies that arose on or after I - 10-2000 . But, in the case of Smt . Teresa of Trichur main branch, the vacancy arose after 1-10-2000. Still she was regularized . However, it is to be noted that Ext. M6 is not the norms that are applicable for filling up regular vacancies in 1 /3rd scale ofPTE. Ext . M6 isregarding the upgradation/upward movement ofPTE from 1 /3rd scale to ½ scale and ½ scale to 3 /4th scale . The vacancy in last scale , i.e. 1 / 3rd scale is to be filled up as per Ext. M5 norms . Therefore , while regularizing Smt. Teresa, Savitri and Liza, the norms that were applicable 14. So far as Smt . Bindu is concerned, she has been working intermittently in leave vacancies from 11-8-2001 1342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

were Ext . M5 . As per that there was age limit for them too. Smt. Teresa and Savitri were aged 40 years at the time of vacancy and regularization . So far as Smt . Liza is concerned, no document is produced either by union or management to show her age . Thus the bank had not followed Ext . M5 guidelines for filling up the permanent vacancy in 1/3rd scale . Besides , Ext . M6 1st page refers to the practice followed by the bank in absorbing PTEs working in leave vacancies , in permanent vacancies . There is no reason or justification in striking a different note in the case of Smt. Bindu with regard to age bar.

15. The contention of the management that candidates from Employment Exchange alone can be considered for regularization in the permanent vacancy of PTE also has no legs to stand. Ext . M5 , page 2 , clause ' e' clarifies the position. It is mentioned that it is not necessary to call for candidates from Employment Exchange for filling up PTE vacancy in rural/ semi - urban branches . Let me say atthe risk of repetition that the contention of the bank that the guidelines for recruitment to PTE permanent vacancy is as per procedure mentioned in Ext. M6 is misconceived. It is regarding promotion to higher scales from 1 /3rd scale (to 2 and 3 /4th scales) . The consequential vacancy in 1 / 3rd scale is to be filled up by regular recruitment process (Ext. M5). Clause ' e ' of Ext. M6 reads: -

" The consequential vacancies in 1 /3rd scale is to be filled up by regular recruitment process (relevantportion) " .

The regular recruitment process is admittedly contained in Ext. M5 .

16. In the light of the proceduré mentioned in Exts . M5 & M6 and the practice of the bank evidenced by documents Exts . W1 to 3 and in view of the fact that there are no adverse renmarks against Smt. Bindu , there is no justification in not absorbing her in the permanent post of PTE in Mangalam Dam branch .

17. The case of Smt. Ammukutty of Sreekrishnapuram branch is not different. She has been working in leave vacancies from 1-2-1978 onwards . A permanent vacancy arose on 1-6-2003 . Since then till 24-2-2004 she worked as dailywager in the permanent post without regularization. Against her also there are no adverse remarks . Her work was also satisfactoryto the bank. On some lame excuses the bank wants to smoke her out. It is improper, unjust and an act of unfair labour practice . The bank could have avoided unnecessary disputes by absorbing the existing PTEs working in leave vacancies and stopping such egagements in leave vacancies in future and conducting direct recruitment. It is for the bank to decide . But, the action ofthe bank, so for as Smt. Bindu and Ammukutty are concerned , cannot be justified . They are to be absorbed in the leave vacancies . In the case of Smt . Bindu , vacancy arose in 2002 and in case of Ammukutty in 2003 and it may

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] not be appropriate to order payment of back wages from thatdate. Hence I refrain from doing so . However, they are to be regularized . Points are answered accordingly .

Piont No. 4 (See Award portion)

18. In the result , an award is passed in I.D. 4 and 5 of2005 allowing the claims of Smt . A. Bindu and Smt . P.K. Ammukutty for absorption in the permanent vacancies of PTEs in Mangalam Dam branch and Sreekrishnapuram branch respectively. The bank will issue appointment orders within 6 weeks from the date of publication of the award under S - 17 of ID Act, failing which the PTEs concerned will be entitled to get salary on 1 /3rd scale and other benefits from the date of expiry of 6 weeks aforesaid . Parties will suffer their respective cost . The award will take effect one month after its publication in the Official Gazette .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 30th day of December, 2005 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the worker:

WW1 - C.D . Josson - 23-12-2005 .

Witness for the management :

MW1- P.G. Siva Prasad - 23-12-2005 .

Exhibits for the worker:

WI Photocopy of Proceedings of Appointment & Daily Wage Register of PTEs of Thrissur Branch .

W2 Photocopy of Proceedings of Appointment & Daily Wage Register of PTEs of Kodungallur Branch .

W3 Photocopy of Proceedings of Appointment & DailyWage Register of PTEs of Ollur Branch .

Exhibits for the management :

MI Photocopy ofDaily Wage Register of Mangalam Dam Branch.

M2 Photocopy ofBonus Paid Register of Mangalam Dam Branch.

M3 Photocopy of relevant pages of Daily Wage Register of Sreekrishnapuram Branch.

M3(a) Photocopy of relevant pages of Daily Wage Register of Sreekrishnapuram Branch .

Photocopy of relevant pages of Bonus paid Register of Sreekrishnapuram Branch. M4

M4(a) Photocopy of relevant pages of Bonus paid Registerof Sreekrishnapuram Branch .

Photocopy of recruitment norms for PTEs dated 23-12-1993 . M5

M6 Photocopy of norms regarding upward moverment of PTEs dated 5-10-2000 .

M7 Photocopy of minutes of Joint Conference dated 9-6-2000 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1343 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 596.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन ओवरसिज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, अहमदाबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 926/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/144/90- आई आर ( बी.- II ) ] सी. गगांधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 596. -In pursuance of Section 17 of (he Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 926/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Ahmedabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 12-1-2006 .

[No. L - 12012/ 144/90 - IR ( B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT AHMEDABAD

PRESENT : Shri B.1 . Kazi , B. Sc. , L.L.M.

PresidingOfficer

Industrial Dispute No. 926/04

(Old ITC No. 1/1990 transferred from I.T. Ahmedabad)

The Regional Manager , Indian Overseas Bank,

Asram Road, Ahmedabad

....First Party

V/ s.

Shri Devjibhai M. Parmar

6-A Vihot Kurpa Nava Thorial Road ,

Rajkot-360003

.... Second Party

Sh . S.B. Gogia

Shri M.R. Karathia

APPEARANCE FirstParty Second Party

AWARD

1. The Government of India has referred the Industrial Dispute between the above parties by Order No. L- 12012/144/90- IR . B.II dated 25-07-1990to this Tribunal for adjudication. The terms of reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

2. By Ex. 2 a notice has been issued to the second party to file a statement of claim . The second party has submitted a statement of claim. By Ex. 5. The brief facts are that the workman was employed in the opponent bank at Rajkot Vaniawadi Branch as a Godown - keeper -cum- shroff. He was given a charge sheet and suspension order dated 04-09-1986 and subsequent additional charge sheet was given dated 19-01-1987 . It is false , vague and not tenable and therefore he denied the charges by letter dated 02-02-1987. He was discharged from the opponent bank services without any show- cause notice or notice pay or any compensation . He appealed against the discharge order on 08-07-1988 before appellate authority, but he did not consider the request . Thus (he opponent order is incorrect , improper and without application of mind . The opponent had not done any proper inquiry as per law. It was one sided . No reasonable opportunity was given to the workman , The finding is perverse , baseless and vague. He had not done anything wrong or committed error which may cause damage to the reputation or any loss to the opponent bank . There is no misappropriation or any wrongful gain. He did not derive benefit from the trade or business . The charges not tenable or as per relevant rules and regulation . The workman had wrote a letter dated 02-02-1987 against the opponent charge sheet dated 17-01-1987 . M/ s . Vihot Industry is the proposed unit on paper and neither materialized and nor taken any concrete shape of any trade or business . There is no misconduct. indiscipline or any breach is committed, as he had not entered into a partnership business in the M/ s . Vihot Industries . The second charge is that on 14-107-1986 at the opponent Ashram Road , Ahmedabad Branch the workman encashed the cheque for Rs . 200 without sufficient funds in his account . In this regard he stated that he lost cash in travelingform Rajkot to Ahmedabad and had not resourceful in Ahmedabad. So that he can get the cash from anvone . It was only option open for him to get his cheque ( o purchase to get required amount and to repay after coming back to Rajkot . The opponent had recovered by the commission charges Rs . 8 / - of Rs . 200 from the applicant . Charges are without foundation of law and therefore not maintainable at law. The workman was under suspensionfrom 04-09-1986 to 3.1-05-1988 . He was not paid subsistence allowance prescribed under the law. He was given the lumpsum amount . He filed recovery application for those allowance which is No. 19/89 . The whole inquiry proceeding is vitiated and malafide due to non observation of the rule pertaining suspension allowance . Thus he was denied of natural justice. The inquiry officer has no right to issue of discharge order as per model standing order . So he may be reinstated on his origional post . No fair opportunity was given to him to bring defence witness before inquiry officer and to lead the evidence . He was not afforded the opportunity of cross -examination. He requested the inquiry proceeding shall be conducted at Rajkot for defence witness. Opponent conducted the inquiry at Madras and "Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in discharging Sh . Devjibhai M. Parmar is justified? If not, what refief is the workman entitled" .

253 G1 /06-22 1344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] he could not understand language of Madras. He was only man ofGujarat in the inquiry. All the relevant documents and witness, available at Rajkot . Thus the inquiry is fatal and vitiated. The discharge order is very harsh. A registered notice was given on 08-02-1988 . So it is prayed that the opponent shall reinstate, the workman with full back wages and on his original post with continuity of service as the order ofdischarge is bad in law.

officer has no right to issue the discharge order . It is not admitted that the applicant was not given the fair opportunity to bring his defense witness or to cross- examination and lead the evidence . It is not admitted that he could not understand the language at Madras or he was only man of Gujarat in the inquiry. It is not admitted that his request for conducting the inquiry at Rajkot was not considered and therefore the inquiry is vitiated . It is not admitted that the applicant has not mis - appropriated amount or has not established any trade or business . It is not admitted that his discharge order is very harsh and the bank has not followed the procedure as provided under theact . The applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 04-09-1986 and he was suspended pending the inquiry. He was served an additional charge sheet on 19-01-1987 . The explanation offered by the applicant were not satisfactory and therefore as per the prevailing rules and regulations inquiry was held in presence of the applicant . During the course of proceeding full opportunity was given and it was held as per the principles of natural justice. During the course of inquiry his mis - conduct was proved and accordingly, the finding of inquiry officer was received . Therefore, he was called for submissions regarding the proposed punishment. He did not attend the same and the hearing was ex-parte. In view ofthe extenuating circum- stances, in his submission dated 12-05-1988 and in view ofhis family circumstances the disciplinary authoritytook lenient view. And he was served within an order of discharge from the bank's services w.e.f. 31-05-1988 . Inquiry was as per the Bipartite settlement . Confindence isthe main creed for an employee ofthe Bank . Looking to the mis-conduct committed by the employee , it is the case of the loss of confidence . The applicant can not be re -instated. Thus it is prayed that reference may be dismissed with cost.

4. The second party has submitted a documentary listby Ex . 24. and by Ex. 27. Documents submitted by mark 24.1 to 25.5 are exhibited as Ex . 50 to 54 and document submitted mark 27.1 to 27.9 is exhibited as 41 to 49. The first party has submitted a D.E. list by Ex. 32 and by Ex . 37. The document submitted by Ex . 32 is exhibited as Ex . 55 to Ex . 97 .

5. The second party is examined by Ex . 98. The second party has closed the oral evidence by Ex . 99. The first party has no oral evidence . The first party has closed the oral evidence by Ex . 101 .

6. The parties have submitted the written argument which is considered by me. Looking to the submissions of the parties .Looking to the materials on record and terms of reference the following issues are to be decided for my consideration :

3. A notice was issued to file written statement . by Ex.6 . The first party has submitted a written statement. The brief facts are that the contents of the statement of claim are not true and correct and does not admit the same. Regarding para 2 it is not in dispute that the applicant served with the charge sheet and suspension order dated 04-09-1986 and 19-01-1987 . It is not admitted that the applicant was discharged without any show cause notice or notice pay or compensation . Thus the charges are not tenable or the appellate authority has not considered and applied his mind to the submissions and circumstances as shown in appeal is incorrect and totally false, baseless , - misconceived and misleading and therefore not admitted. In reply para 4 to 5 they are not true and correct and are misconceived and misleading. It is not admitted that bank did not do proper inquiry or the inquiry was one sided or the reasonable opportunity was not given to defend his case or the finding are perverse baseless and vague. It is not admitted that the applicant has not committed any breach which may cause damage to the reputation or loss to the bank or the applicant had not mis - appropriated any amount or not established in trade or business . The contents are false, baseless misconceived and misleading and not admitted . Thus it is submitted that Shri Bhatti , a S.B A/c. holder had given a sum ofRs . 1000 to the applicant on 02-07-1986 who had assured him that he directly credit his account . Accordingly he made the credit entry in the pass book . However, he did not deposit the same in the bank and also did not made any entry in the ledger folio . And accordingly has misappropriated that amount . The statement of para 7 is not admitted. It is not admitted that the workman had or bonafidely or he asked for the permission for the said M/ s . Vihot Industry and it is on paper and it was a proposed unit or it was not materialized. It is also not admitted that the applicant has not committed any mis- conduct by entering into partnership . It is not admitted that the applicant had lost his cash in travelling, and he has not sufficient funds or to get amount from any one in Ahmedabad and it was not possible or it was only option to get cheque purchased. It is not admitted that he had not committed any mis- conduct or the charges are without foundation of law. It is not admitted that the applicant is not paid subsistence allowance . The contention that the lump sum amount can not be regarded as subsistence allowance and for that whole inquiry proceeding are therefore vitiated is not admitted . It is not admitted that bank did not observe rules pertaining to suspension allowance . It is not admitted the inquiry

(A) Whether the action of the first party in discharging the concerned workman is justified?

1345

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(B) Whether the workman entitle a relief under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act ?

My answer to the above issues are as under :

(A) No

(B) Yes

fromBombay was as per his request and not the facts . This evidence is clear to disapprove the charges against the concerned workman regarding the credit entry of Rs . 1000 on 10-07-1986 in the saving bank pass book of S.B.A/c . No. 6105. The charge of misappropriation of Rs . 1000 relating to the above entry is not proved . Thus the guilt of the concernedworkman is not established by the evidence inthe inquiry. Thus the charges under para 17.5 ( a) , 17.5 (j ) is not established against the concerned workman .

REASONS

8. Lookingto the deposition of M. W. 3 the findings of the inquiry officer for the above charges are not supported by the evidence . Not only that if it is an act of misappropriation, the bank has not filed any criminal case against the concerned workman. Thus the so called fictitious entry of Rs . 1000 in the pass book of Shri Harisbhai D. Bhatti after taking money from him has not been proved. It may be error on the part of employee but certainly not a misappropriation on the part of workman .

7. Under Section 11 A of the I.D. Act when there is a dispute relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman the adjudicator, if he is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. It may by it's award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement ofthe workman on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstance of the case may require. For thatpurpose the Tribunal shall rely only on the material on record and shall not take fresh evidence in relation to the matter. Looking to this provisions the Tribunal has power to give relief to the workman in case of discharge or dismissal . Thus when the management takes responsibility to level the charges of misconduct , there mustbe material insupport of such charge where there is no such material the action and the charge would be vitiated by basic error orperversity. In workman of Fire , Stone , Rubber, Company India Private Ltd. V/s. Management 1973 1 LLJ page No. 278 S.C. , it was held that Under Section 11 A the Tribunal has power to differ both on finding of misconduct arrived at by an employer as well as the punishment imposed by him. It is not necessary for the workman to plead Section 11A. The adjudicator himself has to apply the provisions ofthis section irrespective of the fact, whether the workman has mentioned it in his pleadings and claimed relief, there under or not . Thus the adjudicator has power regarding of finding of misconduct as well as punishment imposed by employer. If we peruse the inquiry proceedings against the concerned workman (Ex . 82 page Nos . 1 to 29) management witness No. 3 Shri Harisbhai Dalpatbhai Bhatti has deposed to the inquiry officer that he did not meet manager on 05-08-1986 the day on which he came to withdraw the cash from the S.B Account . It is also clear that he met the officer from the bank during the month of October 1986 , while the chargesheet was given to the concerned workman on 04-09-1986 . He also says that he is not agree with the letter which he has written on 10-10-1986 . And it was his misunderstanding regarding the entry of Rs . 1000. He admitted that Shri D.M. Parmar has given the amount to him on the same day that it is on 02-07-1986 . Не replied that he did not give any money to Mr. D.M. Parmar. Regarding his letter, he made sufficient explanation in the inquiry. Thus the evidence of M. W. 3 is clear admission that the letter, he has written to the officer

9. Looking to the chargesheet dated 19-01-1987. The first charge is of engaging in to the partnership of M/sVihot Industries. Looking to the inquiry papers it is established that the unit is on paper and yet to take particular shape. There is no evidence that there was any trade/business under taken by M/ s . Vihot Industries . The only evidence is of a bank account and G.S. F.C. letter. But no person was examined from Bank of India at Rajkot , regarding the account. Thus without proper evidence and without any material on record it can not be established that M/s . Vihot Industries has done any trade/business . The workman applied for loan to G.S.F.C. with a clear understanding that after resignation loan can be sanctioned . Thus there is no document to show that the concerned workman was a partner of M/s. Vihot Industries and that unit was materialized and has done any trade/ business . The charges against the concerned workman that he is a partner of M/ s . Vihot Industries is also not clearly established. The only charge proved against the concerned workman is of purchasing a cheque of Rs . 200 and for that he had submitted reasonable explanation of the circumstances for the purchase . The letter dated 23-10-1986 from G.S.F.C. does not establish that M/ s . Vihot Industries has carried out any trade/business . It was a merely paper arrangement which was never materialized . Looking to the letter of the bank also the account of M/s. Vihot Industries was closed on 20-12-1986 . The account does not show that any trade/business was materialized during the period from 28-03-1986 to 22-12-1986 . Thus there is no evidence to show that M/ s. Vihot Industries is a real entity and that firm has done any trade/business . Thus the charges against the concerned workman being a partner of Vihot Industries did not established . However, the charges of purchasing a cheque of Rs . 200 from Ashram Road Branch is proved , but for that a sufficient explanation has been given by the concerned workman . He also narrated the circumstances for which it was purchased . No only that the concerned 1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

workman has repaid the amount and charge of Rs . 8 is also recovered from him . Thus it is not a grave misconduct on the part of the concerned workman , so that he shall be discharged from the services . Thus the charges under para 17.5 (a) is not established as well as under para 17.5 (J ) is also not established because there is no loss to the bank for purchasing a cheque ofRs . 200.

10. It is clear that the first party has not paid suspension allowances as per the Bi partite settlement .

Only lump sum amount has been paid and for that a recovery application has been filed which is pending. Thus the right of defense of the concerned workman without proper suspension allowance is a greatly prejudiced . Thus the act of the first party of not paying suspension allowance as per the rule during the period of suspension affected the principle of natural justice . Not only that the first party has not given the proper opportunity to the workman before inflicting the punishment and has inflicted the punishment inhaste . As the concerned workrman was called at Madras with short notice the concerned workman being class IV employees and being suspended it was highly impossible for him to arrange in short time to go Madras and to represent regarding the punishment .

11. The first party in his written argument has relied on several judgements ( 1 ) 1998 , II CLR page 339 is not applicable in the present case because there is no misappropriation of public funds. (2) 1998 page No. 1032 is also not applicable in the present case because there is no misappropriation of public funds . ( 3 ) In Vinod Chandra Balkrishna Pandit V/s . State of Gujarat 1998 ( 1 ) G.L.R. 843 , itwas a case of illegal gratification in sanctioning loans . This is not a case of illegal gratification . (4) Inspecting Asst. Commissioner Bombay V/s . Sharat Narayan Parab 1988 , F.L.R. Vol . 78 P. 79 was a case of conviction and therefore punishment was not unreasonable . Here the punishment is very harsh, looking to the gravity of the charges . (5) In Satya Prakesh V/ s . State of U.P. 1988 F.L.R. , Vol 78 P. 94 was a case, where there was a embezzlement of government money. This is not a case of embezzlement , hence the punishrnent of discharge is very harsh . (6 ) In state of Karnataka and Others V/s . H. Nagaraj was a case ofbribery by the policeman . This is not a case of bribery. In the present case there is no loss to the bank and it is a mere and error on the part of the concerned workman by entry of Rs . 1000 in the pass book . (7) In Punjab Dairy Development Cooperation Ltd. Anr , V/ s. Kala Singh 1997 L.L.R. Vol . 28 P. 778 the charge was proved and then punishment of dismissal was there . In the present case, the major charges are not proved against the concerned workman . (8) In Deoki Nandan Sharma V/ s . Union of India & Others there was a serious misconduct allowing overdraft to parties , unauthorized passed fictitious credits to parties shortage on cash balance and purchased cheques from certain traders . It was a serious charges which was duly proved

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] against him . Hence the removal from service was justified . (9) In Maharastra State Transport Corporation V/ s . Bim Rao1999 (83 ) F.L.R. P. No. 992 is also not applicable . The concerned workman has not misappropriated of Rs . 1000, but there was an error of entry and no bank amount was involved . Not only that M. W. 3 is clarified that he did not give any money to the concerned workman .

12. On the contrary the charge against the concerned workman except the purchase of cheque of Rs . 200 is not established against the concerned workman and the right ofdefence was prejudiced by not giving proper suspension allowance as per the rules. Not only that no proper opportunity was given before inflecting the punishment and the bank has taken a decision in haste .

13. Looking to the evidence of the concerned workman at Ex . 98 that after the discharge , he did not get any employment . Thus for the unjust act of the first party. he suffered an unemployment. Thus it is necessary to reinstate , the second party on his post with continuity of service, but with only 25% back wages from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement . For the charge of purchasing a cheque of Rs . 200/- his one increment shall be stopped with curnulative effect . I think this is proper punishment for the proved misconduct. Thus the first party hereby directed to reinstate the second party workman on hisoriginal post with continuity of service and to pay 25% back wages from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement . The concerned workman shall be reinstated within30 days from the date of receipt of this award by the firstparty.

14. Looking to the above observations I hereby pass the following order:

ORDER

The order of discharge of D.M. Parmar is not justified. The first party management of Indian Overseas Bank is hereby directed to reinstate the second party on his original postwith continuity of service within 30 days of receipt of this award . The first party is also hereby directed to pay 25% back wages to the work man from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement of the concerned workman within 60 days of the receipt of this order. One increment of the concerned workman shall be stopped with cumulative effect for the proved rnisconduct . It is also directed that the first party shall pay Rs . 1000 as a cost to the second party of this reference .

Ahmedabad

Date: 12-12-2005

B. I. KAZI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 597.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इलियासबाओ परेरा एण्ड सन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1347

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय मुम्बई नं. - 2 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/79/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-36011 / 1/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सीगंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 597- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 2/79/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Mumbai No. 2 as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Elasbao Periera & Sons , and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 12-1-2006.

[No. L- 36011/ 1/2005 - IR (B-II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 AT MUMBAI Present :

Shri B.I. Kazi PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE No. CGIT - 2/79 of 2005 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OFM/S . ELASBAO PEREIRA & SONS AND THEIR WORKMEN

APPEARANCES:

FOR THE EMPLOYER : Mr. P. Gopalkrishnan Advocate

FOR THE WORKMAN : Mr. B.S. Bhosle , General Secretary, Transport & Dock Workers Union , Goa .

Mumbai , dated 6th December, 2005

AWARD

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , by its Order No. L-36011 / 1 /2005 -IR- ( B- II ) dated 01-06-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Elasbao Pereira & Sons, Goa in not paying wages , legal dues and other benefits to their workmen as demanded by the Transport & Dock Workers ' Union, Goa is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workmen are entitled for ?"

2. On receipt of Order ofReference from Government notices were issued to Management and Union (Ex, 2 ). Both parties served (Ex.3 & 4) . Union filed application stating that theworkmenwere paid their claims (Ex.5 ). Union also filed statement to that effect by way of " No Claim Statement" (Ex.10).

3. Today both parties remained present . Union filed purshis for withdrawal of the case and for passing Award in terms of the " No Claim Statement" . Management had no objection for the same .Accordingly , I pass the following order.

ORDER

Allowed to withdraw.

No order as to costs . Date:06-12-2005

B.I. KAZI, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 598.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार 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 धनबाद नं. 1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 104/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/47/1996- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सीगंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 598. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 104/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Dhanbad No. 1 as shown in the Annexure . in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 09-01-2006.

[No. L- 12012/47 / 1996 - IR (B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 AT DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 ) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act . REFERENCE No. 104 of 1997

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofBank of India .

AND Their Workmen

PRESENT:

Shri SARJU PRASAD , PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCES :

: None.

Forthe Employers Forthe Workman

: None .

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal .

1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Dated, the 21st December, 2005

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12012 /47/96 - L- IR(B- II) dated 7-5-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of Sec . (1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the I.D. Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in recovering instalments towards repayments of loans/ advances from subsistance allowance of suspended employees of Telco Town Branch Jamshedpur, namely, S / Shri S.K. Rath , Utpal Bhattacharjee and B.K. Chatterjce during their suspension period is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workmen are entitled ? " 2. This reference case is of the year 1997. In spite of registered notice none appears on behalf of the concerned workman to take any step . It therefore appears that neither the sponsoring union nor the concerned workman is interested to contest the case .

3. In such circumstances , 1 render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute.

SARJU PRASAD , Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 599.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बम्बई डाक लेबर बोर्ड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/1993 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं . एल-31012/13 /1987 - डी 4 ( A) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O.599-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 1 Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bombay Dock Labour Board and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 3-1-2006 .

[No. L -31012/ 13/ 1987 - D4( A) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , MUMBAI

PRESENT :

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS. PresidingOfficer

REFERENCE No. CGIT- 32 OF 1993 PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management ofBombay Dock Labour Board

AND

TheirWorkmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management

Shri : Shamrao Patil , Advocate Shri . A.S. Patil , Adv .

For the Workman

Mrs. Shobha Gopal . Adv.

State

: Maharashtra Mumbai dated the 20th Day of 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 /13/ 87- D-4-A dated 25-1-1989 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

क्या बम्बई डाक लेबर बोर्ड, बम्बई के बम्बई स्थित चिकित्सा विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र 31-8-1983 से सर्व श्री कृपा शंकर शुक्ला, अशोक विठ्ठल जाधव तथा ए.जी. गुजावर एम्बुलेंस बोर्ड ब्वाय की सेवाएँ समाप्त करने की कार्रवाई न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं तो संबंधित कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं ।

2. At the very outset, it may be mentioned that this reference had been rejected by this Tribunal vide Order dated 05-06-1996 . This order was challenged before the Honourable High Court of Bombay. The said order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to this Tribunal for deciding it on merits holding inter alia that Whether the Petitioner are the Employees of the Respondent Board is the issue clearly incidental to the reference viz . Whether the termination of the services of the petitioners by the Bombay Dock Labour Board since 31st August. 1983 is legal and if not so, to what reliefs are the workmen entitled to? Thereafter , the notices were issued to the parties .

3. The reference has been made in respect of three workmen namely, S/ Shri . A. V. Jadhav, Kripashankar Shukla and A. G. Mujawar. It maybe mentioned that this reference has been prosecuted and contested finally by only one person Shri Kripashankar Shukla , Mr. Jadhav had filed his Statement of claim and also affidavit in licu of his भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

examination in chief; but he did not appear thereafter and offeredhimself for cross -examination . He was accordingly discharged. The third person Mr. Mujawar never appeared to contest or prosecute the claim. Thus , the Tribunal is left with the matter of Mr. Shukla only at this juncture .

4. The contention of Mr. Shukla as borne out from the Statement of Claim dated 19-12-1995 is that he was employed by or with Bombay Dock Labour Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on and from 09-02-1982 as Medical Staff- Ward Boy. He was required to work in the Ambulance run by the Board . He worked under the Medical Officer of the Board namely; Mr. D.L. Desai . On 22-12-1982 Mr. Desai informed him that one Dr. Paradkar was appointed in charge of the Ambulence Van run by the Board and he shall have to work under him. He continued to work in the establishment of the Board for about 19 months . During this period, the Secretary of the Board had categorically and repeatedly assured that the workmanwould be confirmed and registered in the services of the Board . However, despite repeated assurances, he was not confirmed. Accordingly, he, in the month of August 1983 along with other colleagues approached the Secretary of the Board for the aforesaid request ; but the Secretary behaved rudely and told him that his services were not required from the very next day. The Secretary informed him that he was not an employee of the Board; but of the aforesaid Dr. Paradkar . He was refused permission to enter the Docks from the very next day. He raised the dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner vide letter dated 13-9-1983 which was common to other colleagues also. The matter remained pending and the reference was made by the Government in the year 1993. The workman had also fileda complaint under Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 registered as ULP No. 40 of 1984 on 23-3-1984. This complaint was however dismissed on a technical ground that thejurisdiction was with the Central Government for all Dock Labour Board . This was one of the reason for delay in making the reference to this Tribunal .

5. The Bombay Dock Labour Board ( hereinafter referred to as the Board) has been superseded by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause A of sub- section 1 of Section 6 - B of the Dock worker's (Regulation of Employment Act , 1948 ) by the notification dated 25-2-1994, duly published in the Official Gazatte on or or about 28-2-1994 and by virtue of this notification All powers and functions excersied performed by the Board shall be exercised or performed by the Chairman of the Trust . In this back ground , the Written Statement has been filed by the Bombay Port Trust ( hereinafter referred to as Trust) for and behalf of the Board.

6. The contention of the Board is that the workmen were never employed as workmen by the Board . There was no relationship of Employee and Employer . The present reference is not maintainable since the workmen

1349 under reference never became the workmen within the difinition of Section 2 ( s ) of the Act . It is also contended that the Board was not an industry and for that reason too the reference is not maintainable .

7. It is alleged by the Board that the Board at its meeting held on 27-6-1980 , sanctioned the purchase of a well equipped ambulance for attending to Dock workers who may sustain injury during the course of their employment and for admitting suchi workman to the nearest hospital within the shortest possible time . Accordingly, anorder was placed on 09-10-1980 with M/ s . Car Marketing Pvt. Ltd. , Bombay for a Matador ambulance . The Board got the delivery of the ambulance on or about 08-1-1982 . Due to the lack of experienced personnel available to man the ambulance , the Board accepted proposal subject to certainterms and conditions of Late Vaidya T. G. Paradkar Smarak Samiti , 100/3 , Kalyandas Wadi , Opp . Jai Hind Cinema , Chinckpokli , Bombay-400012 (hereinafter referred to as Samiti ) for manning the ambulance of the Board and the same had been commissioned on and from 22-1-1982 by it. For this purpose, the Samiti employed the man power such as Doctors , Drivers and Ward Boys of persons employed as such were the workmen of the Samiti and not of the Board . The Board had no control or supervision over the work of the employees of Samiti including the workman under reference . The Board had no authority to initiate disciplinary action against them . There was no relationship of employer and employee . The allegations made by the workman in his Statement of claim have been specifically denied by the Board. It is contended that the Board never employed the workmen nor ever terminated the services . It has no concern if the Samiti terminated the services on the ground of unsatisfactory services .

8. On the pleadings of the parties, the predecessor inoffice had framed the following issues on 26-4-1999 .

1. Whether the second party are "workmen " within the meaning ofSection 2(s ) of the Act ofthe Bombay Dock Labour Board ?

2. Whether the Bombay a Dock Labour Board is not an " Industy " under the provisions of Section 2 (j ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ?

3. If so what reliefs the second party is entitled to ?"

4. What Award ? "

9. One more additional Issue was framed by the predecessor in office on 05-10-1999 " Whether there was delay in approaching the proper authority for oblining the reference and later on prosecuting and adjudicating thereference.

10. Mr. Shukla filed his own affidavit in lieu of his 1350

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

examination in chief on 16-12-1998 . It was later on amended under the orders of the tribunal . He was cross examined by the Counsel for the Board on a number of dates for months together.

13. The Board has filed the documents on 13-10-1991 , marked as Ex . M - 1 to M- 13 . Ex . M- 1 is the DockWorkers(Regulation of Act , 1948 ) , Ex . M-2 is the copy of the letter written by the Chairman to Late Vaidya T.G.P. Smarak Samiti to the Secretary of the Bombay Dock Labour Board dated 04-1-1982, Ex. M - 3 is the Copy of the letter written by the Board to the Samiti dated 07-1-1982 、 Ex. M-4 is the copy of the letterdt . 11-1-1982 written by the Samiti to the Board , Ex . M- 5 is the letter dt. 25-5-1982 addressed by the Samiti to the Board, Ex- M- 6 is the copy ofthe letter dated 27-5-1982 , written by the Secretary to the Board to the Samiti , Ex - M- 7 is the copy of the Office notedt. 18-11-1982 prepared by Dy. Chairman for approval from the Chairman for continuance of the arrangement with the Samiti , Ex . M - 8 is the copy of the letter dt . 20-11-1982 written by the Board to the Samiti . Ex. M- 9 is the copy of the letter written by Samiti to Senior Inspector of Police , Yellow Gate Police Station dt. 30-9-1983 , Ex - M - 10 is the copy of the letter dt . 05-9-1983 written by the Board to the Senior Inspector of Police, Ex . M - 11 and M - 12 are the copies of the correspondence in between the Board and the Conciliation Officer, Ex. M- 13 is the copy of the Interim Relief application filed in the Complaint No. 40 of 1984 in the Labour Court . TheBoard has also filed the Salary register and also Annual reports for the years 1980-81 , 1981-82 and 1982-83 to show that the workmen were never on the role of the Board nor they were paid by the Board nor there was any pay scale starting from Rs . 200 p. m. as alleged by the workman Mr. Shukla.

11. The Board filed the affidavit of Shri Ramesh S. Ghadavale, working as Assistant Secretary in the erstwhile Board and now working as Administrative Officer with the Trust since March 2001. He has reiterated the facts relating to the contention of the Board and has given out the facts and circumstances in detail to be referred later on . He has proved the documents filed by the Board . The Board further filed the affidavit of Mr. Ramchandra Rajaram Paradkar son of Late Dr. R. T. Paradkar who was Chairman of Late Vaidya T. G. Paradkar Smarak Samiti , Mumbai , referred to as Samiti . He stated that from 1982 to 1992 the contract to run the Ambulance was awarded from time to timeby the Board to Samiti and since January 1993 the deponent has been running the Ambulance service on a contract basis at Mumbai Port Trust in the name and style of R. R. Paradkar . He stated that the workmen were employed as ward boys on daily wages by the Samiti and the salaries were paid to them by the Samiti . Late Dr. R. T. Paradkar was engaged in multifarious social activities , he was a Physician and Surgeon associated with Medical , Social and Educational Institutions across Mumbai . He also stated that the service of the ward boys were found to be unsatisfactory and hence they were removed from service w.e.f. 31-8-1983 . The letter dated 05-9-1983 was writtenby Late Dr. R. T. Paradkar to the Senior Inspector of Police , YellowGate Police Station , Mumbai informing to cancel and confiscate the Dock entry permits issued to them.

14. The parties have filed their written submissions and the rulings in support of their respective cases .

15. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the partics and gone through the entire evidence on record.

16. In view ofthe law laid down by Honourable High Court of Calcutta in a case reported in 1976 Lab IC 202 in between Swapna Das Gupta , Head note ( c) vs. Industrial Labour Court, the burden of proof lies upon the workman to prove that he is a workman of the Company when it is denied by the Company.

12. The documents in all 29 have been filed by the workmen vide list dated 04-4-1996 . It consists of identity cards and Dock entry permits ( Ex . W- 1 to W- 7 ) issued to the workmen , sample copy of the letter of Durga Polyclinic for issuance of dock entry permit to their workmen , Copy ofthe letter dated 01-9-1983 addressed to the Dy. Chairman ofBoard by the concerned workmen (Ex. W -9 ) , Complaint lodged by the work men with the Yellow Gate Police Station (Ex . W- 10) , Copy of letterdt . 05-9-1983 issued by Inspector ofPolice, Yellow Gate Police Station regarding deposit of Dock entry permit (Ex . W - 11 ) , Copy of letter addressed by Police Personnel of Yellow Gate Police Station to Shri Shukla (Ex. W- 12 ) , Copy of the Sample envelope ofBombay Dock Labour Board issued to the workmen for payment of wages ( Ex . W - 13 ) and Copies of the letters and communications in between the Authorities of the Board with the Conciliation Officer and the workmen (Ex. W- 14) and finally, the report of the Conciliation Officer regarding failure of conciliation and the order of reference made by the Government. The relevant documents are ( Ex . W - 1 to W- 13 ) for the purpose of this reference and more particularly, are the issuance of identity cards and Dock entrypermits.

17. It is the admitted position that the contesting Mr. Shukla workman was never issued any Appointment letter by the Board. It is asserted that he had signed the Attendance register of the Board but no proof whatsoever is available on record to prove this fact . It is further asserted that the workman was paid the wages by the Board but no proof whatsoever is available on record to prove this fact. It is asserted that the workman was under the supervision and control of the Baord but again to say that no proof is available on record . The workman stated that he was appointed at Rs . 200 p.m. It is surprising that as per records of the Board no such pay scale starting from Rs . 200 p.nu. is there . No workman is paid the starting salary with Rs 200. It is again a false statement on the part of the workman that he received the annual increment after 1351

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

20. The rulings relied upon by the learned counsel for the workman reported in 1978 ( 2) Supreme Court case 213 in between Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board V/s . Rajappa and Others , 1995 1 CLR 648 . Management of Dock Labour Board . Vishakapatnam Vis . Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad. 1978 ( 4 ) SCC , 257 Hussainbhai Is . The Alath Factory Thezhilali Union and 1996 LIC , 644 Shri Mahila Griha Udyog v/ s . Smt . R. D. Koten and 1977 LIC . 1594 , M/s . R. Rokde /s . S. C. Warkar are not helpful on the facts and circumstances of the case for showing the relationship of employer and employee in between the parties . They go to show that Bombay Dock Labour Board is an Industry ' but not helpful for showing the ward boys as workmen within the definition of Section 2 ( s ) of the Act. keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the present case discussed above . The issue is accordingly answered in negative .

21. Issue No. 2 : As discussed above. Bombay Dock Labour Board is an industry ' in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, referred to above . It may also be observed that this point loses its relevancy in view of the circumstances under which this reference has been restored for decision on merits under the orders of the Honourable Bombay High Court . The Bombay Dock Labour Board is accordingly held to be an industry within the definition of Section 2 (j ) of the Act .

Issue No. 5 : There appears to be no delay in approaching the proper authority for industrial reference . However, it could be said that this reference has been contested by both the parties with peace . Neither of the parties has been cager to get the reference expedited. Nonc of the parties could be solely blamed for it. Issue is answered accordingly...

justundergoing six months service . The annual increment is never granted half yearly. It is always granted after satisfactory service of one year. Admittedly, the workman was never given the other benefits of PF ctc. by the Board nor the workman was ever given the Bonus by the Board. The reliance is mainly placed upon the Identity Card and Dock entry perrhits issued by the Board. I feel that this document do not prove that the workmen were employed by the Board . The necessity of issuance of Identity Card and Dock entry permits was there in view of the foot that the workmen admittedly worked as ward boys at the Ambulance run by the Board even in prohibited area . The contention of the Board is that this Ambulance service was for the welfare of the workmen and it was run under the contract which was given to late Dr. Paradkar . The relevant evidence has been filed on record to show as to how the sanction was there regarding the purchase of Ambulance van for Medical services to the workmen throughout day and night . The Ambulance was duly purchased by the Board. It is immaterial as to what procedure was adopted for its purchase . The fact remains that it was purchased by the Board. It is proved on record that this Ambulance van was given on contract to Late Dr. Paradkar since Jan. 1982. The employment of the workmen came as ward boy on 9-2-1982 which is a relevant date when the Ambulance service was given on contract to Late Dr. Paradkar through Vaidya T. G. Paradkar Smarak Samiti . The Samiti was given the contract to run the Ambulance service on contract basis . The arrangement continued from the year 1982 to 1993 till Dr. Paradkar remained alive and thereafter continued through his son under different name and style . The evidence has also been filed on recordto show that the Samiti owned the workmen under reference as its employee and when it found the services to be unsatisfactory, wrote a letter to the Chairman ofthe Board and also to the Senior Inspector of concerned Police Station . Accordingly, the Dock entry permits were cancelled and recovered by the police from the workmen .

18. The clear picture which emerges on record is that the workman worked as ward boy on Ambulance which was maintained and run by the Board through a contract given out to Late Dr. Paradkar. Now the question arises as to whether the ward boy who worked as casual worker and worked for 19 months only can be said to be a workman of the Board within the definition of Section 2 ( s ) of the Act.

22. Issue No. 3 and 4 : In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues , the workmen are not entitled to any relief. It may however be observed that even if for the sake of argument the contesting wardboy Mr. Shukla may be said to be a workınan of the Board for a period of 19 months through the Samiti during the period February 1982 to August 1983. for working as ward boy on the Ambulance . owned by the Board and run on contract by the Samiti , it is not going to be beneficial for the workman for granting the reliefofreinstatement and back wages after a lapse ofperiod of more than two decades . I do not find any rationale to direct the Board to reinstate Mr. Shukla as ward boy with backwages. It is natural that Mr. Shukla must have engaged himself in some way or the other to make his livelihood . No evidence whatsoever has been led to show that Mr. Shukla remained idle throughout and did not find his livelihood .. The question of granting back wages does not arise .

23. Hence I conclude , that the workmen are entitled toany relief.

19. As referred to above , the burden lies upon the workman first and I feel that this burden has not been discharged on record . The documents relied upon by the workman are quite insufficient in drawing a conclusion that the ward boy became the workman of the Board under law as defined under Section 2 ( s ) of the Act . Thus , there was no relationship of employer and employee in between the workmen and the Board.

24. The reference is accordingly answered . Justice GHANSHYAM DASS . Presiding Officer.

253 G1/06-23 1352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 600.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012 /159/1998- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 600. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 7/99 of the Central Govt . Indus . Tribunal Cum-Labour Court , Kanpur (U.P. ) as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between theManagement of Vijaya Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 5-1-2006 .

[No. L- 12012/ 159/ 1998 - IR (B- II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI SURESH CHANDRA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT SARVODAYA NAGAR, KANPUR, U.P.

Industrial Dispute No. 7 of 99

Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal , 7. Inner City, Ring Road, Agra, U.P.

AND

The Deputy General Manager , Vijaya Bank , Vijaya 3rd Floor, 17-Barakhamba Road, NewDelhi

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi vide its Notification No. L- 12012 / 159/ 98 /IR ( B - II ) dt . 30-12-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the Management of Vijaya Bank in dismissing Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal vide order dated 30-9-97 was legal andjustified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to? " 2. It is common ground that the workman Pawan Kumar Agrawal was appointed by the Management of Vijaya Bank as Hindi Typist . While working as such the workman was issued a chargesheet dated 30-11-92 by the disciplinary authority of the Bank on various allegations of misconduct Sri S. Karunakar Shetty Senior Manager was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the inquiry against the workman . The enquiry officer commenced the enquiry on 3-8-93 and concluded the same on 4-8-93 and after conclusion of the enquiry, enquiry officer submitted his findings to the disciplinary authority . On receipt of the findings the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 20-11-93 to the workman and the disciplinary authority on the request of the applicant granted him personal hearing before inflicting punishment on the workman. Proceedings ofpersonal hearing was held on 26-4-94 whereafter noting was done in the matter for 22 years . The enquiry against the workman was reopened by the disciplinary authority only for the purposes of allowing the workman to cross examining the management witnesses vide his order dated 19-10-96. The enquiry against the workman was reopened on 28-1-97 and was closed the same day on 31-1-97. Again the enquiry officer submitted his findings dated 5-11-93 to the disciplinary authority of the bank who in turn issued the workman a show cause notice vide his order dated 30-9-97 inflicted the following punishment on the workman: Charge No. 1 Stoppage of one increment permanently.

Charge No. 2 Stoppage of two increments permanently. Charge No. 3 Dismissal from service with immediate effect .

3. The grievance of the workman in the instant case is he was not allowed to cross examine the management witnesses during the course of departmental inquiry, that the disciplinary authority has not been appointed in accordance with para 19.14 of the first bipartite settlement : that the workman was not granted an opportunity ofhearing to the show cause notice issued to him second time on 9-8-97; that the disciplinary authority had reopened the enquiry only for the purposes of affording an opportunity to the workman for cross examining of the workman but not to afford an opportunity to the workman for his defence; that there is no provision in the service condition empowering the disciplinary authority to reopen the inquiry after receipt of the findings by the enquiry officer especially when the disciplinary authority had already issued to him show cause notice and had provided him personal hearing in the matter ; that since the chargesheet contains false allegations the same was illegal ; that the workman was not allowed to cross examine the management witness by the enquiry officer who conducted the enquiry in a hasty manner ; that the findings of the enquiry officer is perverse and not based on proper appraisal of evidence available on the record .

4. On the basis of allegations as above , it has been prayed by the workman that the punishment order be set aside and the workman be reinstated in service with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

5. Management of Vijaya Bank filed its written statement inwhich it has been stated that the workman Pawan Kumar . Agrawal while working at the Agra Cantt . Branch was 1353

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

entrusted with the following work during the period I -2-92 to 31-8-92 as per job allocation-

(1) Issue of tokens and maintenance of register thereof

(ii) Writing and maintenance oftransfer scroll

(iii) Handling despatch work and other work related to despatch section.

(iv) Calculation and application of interest on SB Account as and when allotted .

(v) Any other work that may be entrusted from timeto timeby the branch manager/officer.

5-11-93 wherein he held all the three charges as proved against the workman and after considering the gravity of the charges the disciplinary authority proposed to impose on the applicant the punishment of removal from service of the bank with immediate effect . The proposed punishment was communicated to the workman vide letter dt. 20-11-93 alongwith a copy of the report of enquiry officer dated 5-11-93 against which the workman submitted representation on 4-1-94. After considering the submissions made by the workman orally as well as in writing the disciplinary authority on 26-4-94 in order to ensure that the principles justice were fully complied with remanded the case back to the enquiry officer with a direction to give the workman a further opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses who deposed against him before the enquiry officer on 4-8-93 . Enquiry officer reopened the enquiry as advised by the disciplinary authority and conducted the enquiry from 28-1-97 to 31-1-97 at the Agra Cantt Branch . The workman defended himself and did not produce or examine any exhibits witnesses in his defence . The workman did not cross-examined the remaining witnesses of the management except M.W. 1 , M.W. 2 and M.W. 3. The enquiry officer submitted a fresh enquiry report dated 1-7-97 wherein he had held all the charges as proved and established against the workman . The disciplinary authority after careful consideration of the entire connected records including enquiry proceedings accepted the findings of the enquiry officerdt . 1-7-97 and held the applicant guilty of the charges as proved and established during the enquiry and after careful consideration of the connected records of the workman , the disciplinary authority decided the punishment details of which have already given above in the body of this award. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the workman vide letter dated 9-8-97 along with a copy of the report ofenquiry officer and the workman was called upon to submit his representation in the matter. The disciplinary authority after careful considerations the grounds mentioned by the workman in his represenation 5-9-97 awarded punishment of dismissal from service to the workman.

It has further been alleged that the workman was taking the work entrusted to him in a very casual manner and was in the habit of leaving the work incomplete . It has been alleged that on 26-5-92. at about 1 p.m. Sri Ravi Joshi theAssistant Branch Manager noticed the applicant sitting in front of the air cooler near day book section without attending to the entrusted work advised him to go to his seat and issue tokens and attend other work allotted to him, but the workman instead of carrying out the instructions given by his official superior , remarked against Sri Joshi by saying ' Mr Joshi had been saying it, he is saying it and you would keep on saying like this ' . Further after lunch hours at about 2.30 p.m. Sri Joshi came to the workman while he was again found sitting in front of the air cooler near the day book section and asked him to go to his seat as his lunch hour was over . Sri Joshi also advised the workman to behave properly and not to pass such remarks against the officers , thereupon the applicant suddenly got agitated and started using abusive language and derogatory remarks against Sri Joshi . On hearing the loud voice of the workman the staff members came to the scene and tried to pacify the applicant and advised him to behave properly with his superiors and in the meanwhile Sri U.K. Verma Secretary of the employees union who has handling cash on that day reached the spot and intervened and tried to pacify the applicant. When Sri Y.K. Verma advised the applicant to behave in a decent manner, the applicant remarked against Sri Verma saying 'you are chamcha of Joshi ' and then the applicant assaulted Sri Verma by slapping him on his face and neck as a result of it the specticles of Sri Verma fell down and his gold chain was broken. The applicant also caught Sri Verma by his coller and pushed him . The staff members who were witnessing the scene were shocked at the rude indecent . violent anddisorderly behaviour and assault on the part of the applicant and seperated the workman from Mr. Verma and when the applicant got free from the hold of staff members , he once again assaulted Sri Verma by hitting him on his neck and stomach. It has been alleged that the chargesheet dated 30-11-92 was sent at the residential address of the workman disclosing all the circumstances appearing against him. The applicant submitted his reply denying the allegations of charges on 13-3-93 . Enquiry officer after concluding enquiry submitted his report dated

6. It has further been alleged by the bank that the workman was appointed as Hindi Typist . It is also alleged by the bank that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry against the workman as per the provisions of the bipartite settlement applicable to him and in accordance with the principles of natural justice . It has also been alleged that the workman during the course of departmental enquiry refused to sign on pages 9 and 10 of the enquiry proceedings and left the venue of enquiry with ulterior motive and without assigning any reason workman did not attend the PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

1354

the basis of report submitted by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the workman as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted upon the workman . The show cause notice is dated 20-11-93. The disciplinary authority aceeded to the request of the official and granted him personal hearing which was held on 26-4-96 and the disciplinary authority directed to reopen the aforesaid enquiry vide letter no . DZ: IRD 18658 : 96 dated 19-10-96 . The enquiry was thus reopened by the enquiry officer fixing 28-1-97 . The enquiry was concluded after reopening and the punishment order was passed against the erring official by the disciplinary authority holding charge no . 1 , 2 and 3 as proved and imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment on charge no. 1 , stoppage of two increment on charge no . 2 and dismissal from bank's service with immediate effect on charge no. 3.

11. It has been pointed out on behalf of the workman that the said order imposing the proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority is bad in law and is perverse and also the finding of the enquiry officer is not based on proper appreciation of evidence on record thus the finding is also perverse .

enquiry on 4-8-93 for which he had due intimation . The enquiry officer has rightly come to the conclusion that the applicant had remained absent on feigned sickness . Allegation of the workman that the officer who issued the show cause notice to the workman was not empowered to do so is misconcieved and that he had every authority to issue the show cause notice. The disciplinary authority at the request of the workman granted him a personal hearing on 26-4-94 on the show cause notice containing the proposal about the punishment . It has been denied by the management that the enquiry officer closed the enquiry abruptly . It has also been alleged that assault of a co-employee in the branch office is a gross misconduct hence the punishment of dismissal from service of the bank was imposed on the applicant vide final order dated 30-9-97 and the punishment is quite commensurate with the gravity of misconducts proved against the workman . Rules of natural justice have been followed by the enquiry officer as well as by the disciplinary authority during the course of conduct of enquiry against the workman . There was a prima facie case to believe that the workman had committed certain acts of gross misconduct and it was decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the workman . On the basis of above allegations it has been prayed by the bank that the claim preferred by the workman does not inerit any consideration and that the workman has rightly been imposed the punishment for proved misconduct hence the reference be answered in favour of the bank and the claim preferred by the workman be rejected .

7. Workman has also filed rejoinder in the case but nothing new has been alleged in it except reiterating the facts mentioned in his statement of claim .

8. Both contesting parties have filed documentary evidence apart from adducing oral evidence , whereas workman has examined himself as W. W. I management examined enquiry officer S. Karunakar Shetty as M. W. I and Sri Raj Kumar Bawalíya as M. W. 2 in support of its case.

9. Heard the respective authorised representatives at length and also examined the record and the evidence carefully. The present reference has been received for adjudication against the dismissal order passed by the management ofVijaya Bank against the employee Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal vide order dated 30-9-97. The controversey involved in the case is in respect of justification of the inquiry finding and its fairness and also regarding justification of the punishment awarded to the workman.

12. So far as charges nos . ( 1 ) and (2) framed against the workman by the disciplinary authority are concerned charge no . 1 relate to the allegations that the chargesheeted employee failed to complete the work entrusted to him and failed to comply with the instructions of the superior officials and secondly that the chargesheeted employce behaved riotously and disorderly manner on 26-5-92 . Thc enquiry officer in his enquiry report after discussion of the evidence adduced by the management held that the chargesheeted employee was on sanctioned leave during the period from 3-3-92 to 7-3-92 and the allegations against the delinquent employce that the token register was neither tallied nor totalled with cash scroll by him on 5-3-92, however the enquiry officer held that the allegations in respect of other duties is held to be maintainable . On going through the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer it is apparent that the enquiry officer was in haste and appears to be under the managerial obligations to conclude the inquiry against the chargesheeted employee . If part of the allegations made by the management held to be truc the rest of the allegations will have to be screened more cautiously when it is found that the management is bent upon to take action and push the chargesheeted employce by hook or crook. Similarly chargesheeted employee is alleged to have not despatched the documents in time was also held to be not maintainable by the enquiry officer . Strange enough to state that after recording of the above findings against the employce in respect of second charge. the enquiry officer held that the allegation is maintainable against the workman without any plausible evidence.

13. The branch manager was adnuttedly not present when the alleged incident of Marpeet took place . Thus 10. On behalf of the workman it has been argued that prejudice has been caused to him while defending his case before the enquiry officer inasmuch as he has not been afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself by the enquiry officer. It is worthwhile to note that the enquiry was instituted against the workman on the basis of chargesheet dated 30-11-92 and the enquiry officer concluded the inquiry against the workman on 4-8-93 . On 1355

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

15. Itis the admitted fact that the charged employee was appointed as Hindi Typist by the management . The admitted entrusted work by the Branch Manager relates to the issue of token and maintenance of register thereof: writing and maintenance of transfer register and scroll maintenance of despatch work and other work related to despatch section ; calculation and verification of interest ofsaving bank account besides any other work entrusted to the charged employee from time to time . Needless to say that these alleged entrusted work are not in consonance with the duties of a Hindi Typist . The authorised representative for the management failed to put anymaterial before the tribunal which may reveal that, that a Hindi Typist may also be asked to discharged the above duties which mainly relate to maintenance of different registers scorlls and calculation of interest etc. If this is the position the management cannot impose punishment in respect of non compliance of work by the charged employee.

the evidence of the Branch Manager cannot be said to be acceptable and supporting evidence . Thus the charge- sheeted employee in respect of second charge of riotous behavious cannot be said to be proved against the workman. It is also worth to mention that the enquiry officer without examining the 17 staff members has based his finding on the joint statement (Ext . M- 4) of the enquiry proceeding) and also without giving an opportunity to the chargesheeted employee to cross examine these witnesses . Such basis of the enquiry report holding the charged employee guilty of the charges is not only against the principles of natural justice but also expresses the callous attitude of the enquiry officer who has admittedly refused to allow the workman to cross examine the management witnesses during the earlier inquiry made by the enquiry officer . The designated disciplinary authority while agreeing with the representation and personal hearing the disciplinary authority was fully satisfied that justice was not done with the charged employee when he was refused opportunity by the enquiry officer to cross examine the management witnesses . The proceedings recorded by the enquiry officer are sufficient to prove the fact that the enquiry officer deliberately avoided to give opportunity to the employee to cross examine the management witnesses . Hence charge No. 1 as framed against the workman for not complying with the instructions of the senior officer is therefore held to be unjustified , unreasonable and also that finding of the enquiry officer on this charge is totall ; perverse and against the principles of natural justice. The finding the enquiry officer are based on surmises and of his own conduct which is not called for . Justice should not only be done but should be shown to have been done is the common and well known principle of equity and natural justice .

16. The stand taken by the employee is that the employee was belavoured and beaten by other staff members and at the behest of the then Branch Manager of the branch . The employee has already filed the medical report before the enquiry officer which was not taken into consideration on the ground the medical was done after one day of the alleged incident . The medical officer who recorded injuries sustained by the charged employee and prepared the injury report subsequently shows that the injuries were one day old. If the injury sustained by the workman is held to be one day old by the medical officer who conducted medical examination on the next day then it cannot be said that no incident causing the injuries to the charged employee took place . Non consideration of this vital fact without examining the medical officer gives strength to the allegations of the charged employee that the management was prejudice with the charged employee and in order to impose the extreme punishment they cooked up a false story of non compliance of work and also the alleged incident of Marpit with other officials be the charged employee Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal . On serious consideration of facts evidence recorded by enquiry officer it is held that the inquiry was neither fair nor just it has been held against all canons of natural justice. Therefore on the basis of such inquiry the punishment imposed on the charged employee is held to be unjustified and illegal .

14. In the present case if the first inquiry report was not acceptable by the designated disciplinary authority there appears no provisions in the service rules applicable to the employees of the bank directing reopening of the inquiry against the charged employee. It is also clear from the record that the charged employee prior to the imposition of the proposed punishment on the charged employee he was placed under suspension by the management. A mere glance on the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the charged employee would be indicative of the fact that the management allowed the charged employee full salary oftheperiod during which he was placed under suspension . This itself supports the contention of the workman that the workmanwas chargesheeted for other heads also for which there was no material on record prior to the alleged incident whenalleged incident took place on 26-5-92 . The charges so far as they relate to the non -compliance of instructions and not completing the work entrusted to the charged employee from 1-2-92 to 31-8-92 does not find support from the evidence recorded by the enquiry officer.

17. Subsequent inquiry report after reopening inquiry suffers from another legal defect . The enquiry officer has made the basis of his enquiry of the evidence recorded by him in similar inquiry . If the inquiry was reopened it was necessary for the management to afford sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the workman for his defence . From the record it is clear that the order of reopening of the inquiry was passed after a period of 1356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

more than two and half year after personal hearing in respect of the proposed punishment was given to the charged employee by the disciplinary authority. If earlier inquiry has been concluded and the designated disciplinary authority was of the opinion that the same has not been donc after observing the principles of natural justice there appears to be no provisions under law to reopen the inquiry on the same basis against the charged employee . If the carlier inquiry was held to be unfair by the designated disciplinary authority the charged employee becomes entitled for his reinstatement. Even if it is taken to be granted that the subsequent reopened inquiry was in continuation of the earlier inquiry the same also suffers from unreasonableness and unjustification . Admittedly the inquiry was repoened after such a long period by the disciplinary authority instead of passing the final order on the proposed punishment , the enquiry officer repeated the same mistake by not affording the reasonable opportunity to the charged employee to defend himself when he was refused opportunity to cross examine the management witnesses on flimsy grounds . The enquiry officer no where recorded what unreasonable questions were being put by the charged employce during the course ofcross examination of the management witnesses which compelled the enquiry officer to close the inquiry abruptly. To reiterate it is held that the enquiry officer conducted the inquiry against the charged employee with undue haste without giving opportunity to the charged employee to cross examine the management witnesses and also denying to make available the documents and that the inquiry officer was working under the influence of the management and erstwhile branch manager.

18. For the foregoing reasons the domestic inquiry conducted by the management is held to be unfair unjust and illegal and is also against the principles of natural justice.

19. The management examined two witnesses before the tribunal on merit of the case out of which one is the enquiry officer himself and the other is management officer . The evidence of sole witness who has not made any complaint in writing about the incident to the management itself proves the fact that no such incident of Maarpit and riotous beliavious as alleged by the managernent ever took place in the branch premises. Consequently the evidence of such sole witness is held to be tainted and after thought .

20. For the foregoing reasons it is held that the action ofthemanagement ofVijaya Bank in dismissing from Service Sri Pawan Kumar Agrawal vide order dated 30-9-97 is held to be illegal and unjustified. Consequently workman is heldto be reinstated in service with continuity, from the date of his dismissal . Workman is also held entitled for back wages together with all consequential benefits .

21. Reference is answered accordingly.

SURESH CHANDRA, Presiding Officer 1

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 601.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार तूतीकोरिन पोर्ट ट्रस्ट 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 8/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -44011/3/2004- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006 S.O. 601. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 8/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Tuticorin Port Trust and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006 .

[No. L-44011 /3 /2004 - IR (B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, the 16th November, 2005

PRESENT:

K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ. 8/2005 (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 Tuticorin Port Trust and their workmen) .

BETWEEN:

IParty/Claimant The General Secretary, Tuticorin Port Employee's Trade Union , Tuticorin . AND

: II Party/Management The Chairman, Tuticorin Port Trust , Tuticorin.

APPEARANCE :

For the Claimant

: M/s . V. Balamurugan & D.Rajaraman, Advocates 1357 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

FortheManagement : M/s . G. Dhamodaran & J. Sathyavathi , Advocates

AWARD

1. Central Government, Ministry of Labour , vide Order No. L-44011 /3/2004- IR(B- II) dated 8-12-2004 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is -

"Whether the claim of the Tuticorin Port Employee's Trade Union against the management of Tuticorin PortTrust, Tuticorin over the issue of regularisation ofthe services of Shri S. Tamilarasan, in the Grade of Engine Driver Gr . II from the date of initial appointment is legal and justified? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as ID No. 8/2005 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.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows:-

4. The respondent in its Counter Statement alleged that the dispute is barred by limitation, patently the dispute has been raised after sixteen years from the date of issuing of order of appointment i.e. 13-8-84 . Therefore, as per well established principles, the question of limitation may be taken as preliminary issue before taking the dispute on merits . The order dated 13-8-84 issued to Mr. Tamilarasan is only for temporary employment and in the order itself it is categorically stated that at any time his appointment would be terminated . The concerned employee after the receipt of order dated 13-8-1984 has been attending his duties without any reservation or murmur. Based on that order, the Departmental Promotion Committee after a deep consideration of relevant factors for regularisation of driver Grade II inclusive of Sri Tamilarasan and they had been regularised the service in accordance with relevant regulations framed for the same and the said Committee has selected three promotees and three direct recruitees as regular engine driver Grade Il and fixed the seniority of the said persons namely I. A Jasiah, 2. R. Minilala, 3. S. Jesuraj , 4. Jones Missier, 5. S. Tamilarasan and 6. R. Sundar. The question of seniority is not a matter of right and this cannot be called upon for determination before this Tribunal . The list of seniority prepared by the II party/management is valid and legal besides as per statutory regulations of II Party/Management . Out of these persons A Jesiah, R. Minilala and S. Jesuraj are permanent employees of II Party/Management herein and they worked as greaser . Even prior to promoting them as engine driver grade II which is a feeder post to engine driver Grade II . Sri Jones Missier, R. Sundar and S. Tamilarasan are direct recruitees for the post of engine driver Grade II as per ad- hoc appointment dated 13-8-84 . These direct recruitees have not been similarly footed employees . The promotees have been given the rank of 1 , 2 and 3 which is in fact, in accordance with the regulations of the respondent . The temporary appointment made on 13-8-84 was superceded by an order dated 13-8-84 and issued to the concerned employee and two others and they have acted upon without any reservation or protest. The Il Party/ Management has power and jurisdiction to pass orders superceding the earlier order taking into account their administrative exigency. The ad -hoc appointment in Engine DriverGrade II w.e.f. 14-8-84 was given on 16-7-97 and the said order has been acted upon by Mr. Tamilarasan who has not raised any protest or reservation or murmur. The order of seniority fixed by the II Party/Management was asper regulations governing the preparation of seniority list . Hence , for all these reasons , the respondent prays to dismiss the claim made by the Petitioner with costs.

5. In such circumstances , the points for my determination are: ----

Prior to 1-4-79 there were two ports . On 11-4-74 the Central Govt. and the State Govt . decided to integrate both the minor port and major port and formed an integrated Major Port Trust under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 w.e.f. 1-4-79. By virtue of the extension of the provisions of the said Act w.e.f. 1-4-79, the employees of the Tuticorin Port Trust were tobe fitted suitably with wage revision committee pay structure as the case may be from their existing Central 3rd Pay Commission in scale of pay. The concerned employee Sri S. Tamilarasan was appointed as EngineDriver Grade II against a regular vacancy in the pay ofRs . 725-1287 bydirect recruitment method as per the recruitment rules by an order dated 3-8-1984. According to the rules, the said post is to be filled by transfer failing which by promotion , failing both by direct recruitment and after three years services, he will be made regular. Since there was no candidateopted for transfer or promotion, the vacancy was filled up by direct recruitment . Therefore , even if there is any ad - hoc appointment to the above candidates, they will not be placed above the said Tamilarasan . While so , on 13-8-84 the respondent authorities who have been appointed as ad -hoc appointments superceding earlier orders are appointed to as regular, therefore , they have regularised 36 employees . Sri Tamilarasan who was regularised w.e.f. 13-8-84. Since his date ofjoining duty is 7-8-84, he should begivenpriority. Further, he was fixed in fifth position in the seniority. Therefore, he has raised a dispute before the labour authorities and on the failure of conciliation, the matter was referred to this Tribunal . Hence, the Petitioner Union prays that regularisation of Sri Tamilarasan is tobe fixed from the date of appointment i.e. 7-8-1984 and his seniority is to be refixed as per rules .

(i) "Whether the claim of the petitioner Union against the Respondent/Management over the issue of regularisation of services of 1358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Sri Tamilarasan in the grade of Engine Driver Gr. II from the date of initial appointment is legal andjustified ?

(ii) To what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?"

Point No. 1 :

6. After filing of Claim Statement and Counter Statement the case was posted for filing of documents and enquiry . Even though the respondent has filed documents , the Petitioner has not appeared before this Tribunal for several hearings namely 20-9-05 , 4-10-05 , 18-10-05 and 3-11-05. Therefore , on 3-11-2005 the petitioner was called absent and set ex -parte. Even though the Petitioner Union espouses the cause of Mr. Tamilarasan neither the Petitioner Union or his counsel on record appeared before this Court to prosecute this dispute. The Petitioner has not produced any document to establish his claim. Since the Petitioner has not established their contention before this Tribunal , this Tribunal cannot give any relief to the member of the Petitioner Union . Hence , I find this point against the Petitioner Union.

Point No. 2 :

The next point to the decided in this case is to what reliefthe concerned employee is entitled?

7. In view of my above findings that the Petitioner Union has not established their claim before this Tribunal , I find the concerned workman is not entitled to the relief as prayed for by the Petitioner Union but without any Costs.

8. The reference is disposed of accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 16th November, 2005 ) .

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined: --

: None

Oneither side

Documents Marked :

Nil.

Oneither side

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 602.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ गोहाटी के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 5 ( सी )/ 2002 ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12011 / 35/2002 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 602. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [Ref. 5 (C)/ 2002 ) of the Industrial Tribunal Guwahati as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-1-2006 .

[No. L - 12011/35/ 2002- IR (B - II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI, ASSAM Reference No. 5 (C) of 2002

PRESENT :

Shri B. Bora, Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati .

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between :

The Management of Central Bank of India .

Vs.

Their workman rep . by the General Secretary , Central Bank Canteen Boys , Association , Panbazar.

APPEARANCE :

Shri A. N. Sarma , Advocate : For the Management Shri U. Dass , Advocate : For the Workman Date of Award: 17-12-2005.

AWARD

The Govt. of India Ministry of Labour, New Delhi by a notification No. 2012/ 35 /2002 /IR( B - 11 ) dt. 28-3-02 referred an Industrial Dispute between the Management of Central Bank of India and their workman represented by the General Secretary , Central Bank Canteen Boys Association , Panbazar on the following issue:

"Whether the claim of the Central Bank Canteen Boys Association for regularisation of Shri Akhil Barman and 23 others ( as per list attached ) in service of the Central Bank of India in sub - staff cadre as also payment of appropriate scale of pay from the date of their initial appointment is justified and legal ? If not. what relief the disputants concerned are entitled to ?"

On receipt of reference , a reference case was registered and notices were issued both parties calling upon them to file their written statements/addl . written statements [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

and documents if any. In response to the notices both parties appeared in this court and filed their written statements . Both parties also adduced evidences both oral and documentary in support of their respective cases .

'The case of the workmen is that :-

The petitioner No. 1 is the General Secy. ofthe Central Bank Canteen Boys' Association ( the association for short) which is a registered union under the Trade Union Act, 1926 with the registration number 1457. The said Association was registered on 4-6-94 represents the interests of about twenty four employees of the Central Bank of India who are presently working as Canteen Staff/Boys in various branches of the said bank throughout the North-East region.

The opposite party as writ petitioner approached the Hon'ble High Court vide a writ petition being registered as Civil Rule No. 4509/94 claiming regularisation and equal pay for 24 canteen boys who were working at various branches under the management of Central Bank of India. the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 23-8-99 . Thereafter, the management of Central Bank of India preferred an appeal vide Writ Appeal No.363 /2000. The said Writ Appeal was finally disposed of with a direction vide order dated 5-12-01 referring the matter to this tribunal foradjudication.

That the members of the Association have been serving as canteen boys under the respondent Bank for a number ofyears with the earliest memberjoining way back in 31-10-84 , and the last member joining the same capacity on 3-3-93 .

That as stated earlier, all the members of the Association are working as Canteen Boys , in the different Canteens set up by the Bank as a measure of staff welfare . These canteens are recognised canteens set up by the respondent Bank and are directly controlled and supervised by the respective canteen committees set up by the Bank. The Canteen committees are all manned by Bank officers working in the respective offices/ Branches who are responsible for the administrative control of these canteens . The Management having the sanction from the highest authority have complete and total control over the canteens and the workers therein with regard to their recruitment/ termination, payment of salaries etc , the duration or work is more than the banking hours .

That the members of the Association are being paid salaries ranging fromRs . 350/ -to a maximum of Rs.550/ -per month depending on the strength ofemployees working in theBank. The salaries while being paid by the respective canteen committees of individual branches are reimbursed by the management of the Bank by way of a subsidy. These Canteen Committees constitued to oversee/ supervise and manage the canteens comprised of Bank employees/ officers.

253 G1 /06--24

1359

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माघ 22, 1927

That there are no rules whatsoever governing the service conditions of the members of the Association relating to recruitment, supervision, termination etc. and thisbeing so , the members of the Association do not have any security of tenure and can be dismissed or thrown out from service on the flimsiest pretext . Service benefits like regularscales of pay, leave, medical allowances etc. which are enjoyed by regular employees are not extended to the members of the Association.

That the members of the Association besides discharging duties as Canteen staff, looking after the needs of the employees of the respective branches are called upon to undertake cleaning and conservancy services of thebank from time to time and while doing so are paiddaily wages for these additional services rendered by the respondent Bank . Vouchers are separately made out for the payments so made by the branches .

That in this connection , it may be stated that similar canteen Boys of the erstwhile Purbanchal Bank Ltd. have been absorbed as regular sub - staff of the Bank, after the Bankwas amalgamated with the Central Bank of India .Prior to its amalgamation with the Bank- first party, the Canteen boys of the Purbanchal Bank were also paid salaries through the Canteen Committee of the Bank while these amounts were reimbursed/ subsidised by the Bank. These recognised canteens were also provided with money to purchase utensils and meet other connected expenses of the canteens besides being provided space , electricityetc.

That it is stated that the member of the Association whose name appears at Serial . No. 12 of the list appended to this written statements have already completed over 16 years of temporary service and by virtue of the Banks own circular No.98.91 : 022 dated 12-3-1991 is entitled to be absorbed as regular employees without any test an interview. This is also the case of the other members ofthe Association and if an enquiry is done , it will be found that they are also entitled to be absorbed on a regular basis .

That it is stated that the Ministry of Finance , Govt . ofIndia, who are the controlling authority in respect ofthe bank has issued a circular for treating the staffs of non statutory canteen as Central Govt. employees entitling to all the benefits of regular employees. The bank being Central Govt. undertaking the canteen boys are therefore entitled to get regular pay and benefit from the date of their initial appointment.

Theworkmen has prayed for an award in their favour. onthe otherhand the case of the management in brief is as follows:

law. Thatthis case in not maintainable both in facts and That the Central Bank Canteen Boy's Association has raised this dispute on behalf of Shri Akhil Barman and others and obtained a reference for adjudi ion without 1360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

any valid ground only to harass the bank with the false hope of making wrongful gains. There is absolutely no cause of action for this reference .

That there are staff canteens in different branches of the bank in the N.E. Region . To run the canteens , Canteen Committees are formed and the bank has no control over the managemem and functioning of the canteens. The staff members of the bank are members of the Canteen Committees for managing the affairs of the same. Shri Akhil Barman and others are canteen employees or canteen boys engaged by the Canteen Conmmittees .

That the bank is under no obligation to provide for canteen service to the staff of the bank and it is the staff of the bank who have set up Canteen Committees for managing the affairs of the canteens . The bank is not required to supervise and control the management and working of the canteens . The bank has no business to direct the manner in which the canteens are to function. The bank has also no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any canteen employee to do a particular work and the managementement is under no statutory obligation to run the canteens . It is the Canteen Committees which engage the canteen boys and also terminate their services when needed . In absence of obligation statutory or otherwise regarding running of a canteen by the bank and in the absence of any effective or direct control of the bank to supervise and control the works of the canteen boys the canteen boys of the canteens run by Canteen Committees can never be said to be employees of the bank .

That it is the staff of the bank who themselves set up Canteen Committees for managing the canteens and those Canteen Committees employ the persons for running the Canteens and pay their salaries . The canteens are therefore , not the part of the bank . The canteens are solely established by the staff of their own and managed by the Canteen Committees formed by the staff members of the branch/ office in which there is a canteen .

That Shri Akhil Barman and 23 others were engaged by the Canteen Committees and not by the bank and their terms and conditions of engagement as canteen boys were fixed by the Canteen Committees . As stated above these Canteen Committecs are not under the administrative ccntrol of the bank . Shri Akhil Barman and 23 others are not entitled to claim equal status with that of sub - staff of the bank. Persons claiming equal status as that of sub- staffmust have minimum requisite qualification including qualification for being appointed as sub - staff apart from other conditions of appointment as sub - staff. The bank only provides certain subsidy for the purpose of the canteens and the salary paid to the canteen boys are never reimbursed by the bank. Shri Akhil Barman and 23 others were not discharging any function or duties similar to that ofsub- staff of the bank . The bank has its own service rules which must be adhered to for the purpose of recruitment to the post of sub - staff and the employment in the bank's

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] service being public employment , it can not deviate from the established norms for the purpose of recruitment to a postunder the bank and that too by back door.

That it will appear from above that the claim of the union for regularisation of Shri Akhil Barman and 23 others in service of the bank in sub - staff cadre is not justified and legal .

The management has prays for an award in its favour.

The main planks of the Canteen Boy's Association for regularisation of their services are: -

(1) The Association is an union registered under the Trade Union Act , 1926 .

(2) The Management as staff welfare measures and as per their own policy have maintained different canteens at their different branches .

(3) The said canteens are located inside the bank premises where no outsider , is allowed take meal.

(4) The bank provides all the facilities to the canteens including the rooms for canteens . the utensils , furniture , electricity, LPG connections etc.

(5) The canteens are being managed by a Canteen Committee constituted by the employees of each bank.

(6) The Canteen Committees supervise the activities of the canteens .

(7) The bank subsidies the salaries paid to the canteen employees .

(8) The Canteen boys are given 1.D Cards and they are engaged in some other works of the bank.

(9) The management has regularised the canteen boys of the earstwhile Purbanchal Bank after its merger with the Central Bank of India .

The evidence of MW 1 Dineswar Zha is no relevant as his evidence ( in -chief) is expunged for his non production for cross - examination. In his place the Management examined as MW1 Sri Utpal Boruah . Manager ( P ) Central Bank of India , Guwahati . He deposed that there are some canteens at different branches oftheir bank and these canteens are the parts of their bank. He further deposed that the bank management does not supervise the affairs of the canteens but he admitted that the Canteen Committees formed by the employees of the bank run the canteens . He admitted that the Canteen Committees look after the problems and affairs of the canteens' and the Canteen Committees appoint the canteen boys. Further he deposed that the canteens are not parts of the bank and there is no relation between the bank and the canteens. He further deposed that their bank pays some subsidies to the canteen but not for paying the canteen [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

boys. He ofcourse admitted that the electricity bills of the canteenis paidby the bank . He also proved the Exts. L&M which relate to canteen facilities in the bank . He also proved Ext. N relating to the canteens Ext . 0 is another circular regarding the running of the canteens Exts . P&Q are also two other circulars regarding canteens .

MW2 is Jaminimohan Rajbangshi a peon of the Central Bank, Bhangagarth . He deposed as to how a sub- staff is appointed by the bank,

WW No. 1 Sri Golak Ch . Das deposed that he is working in the canteen of the Regional Office of Central Bank since 1985. The management has issued I.D. Cardsto the Canteen Boys . Ext . C is his 1.D. Card . He deposed that the canteens are maintained for the bank staff.

The canteen is within the premises of the bank . No outsider is allowed to take meal in the canteen . The working hour of the canteen is from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. This witness also stated that the utensils and LPG cylinders are supplied by the Bank. Ext. D is a letter in this connection . Ext. E is LPG connection Card . Ext. Fis a letter written by the bank for purchasing utensils for the canteen . Ext . G isanother letter by which the DGM was requested to accord sanction for taking LPG connection and for purchasing GasStove. He further stated that the Bank pays his salary by crediting the amount in his Account . The functionings of the canteen are supervised by the Canteen Committee formed by the Bank. He furhter stated that the canteen boys are engaged by the bank for other works and the Bank pays for such work vide vouchers . Ext. His such a voucher. Ext. H ( 1 ) is his signature, Ext. 1 is a receipt . This witness also deposed that the canteen boys ofthe earstwhile Purbanchal Bank have been absorbed by the Bank after its merger. He futher deposed that the Bank issues subsidy to the canteen .

This witness in his cross -examination stated that he is not aware as to whether the Bank has any obligation to run the canteen. WM - 2 Sri Khanindra Kr. Sarma deposed that he is working in main branch of the Central Bank, Guwahati as a clerk . There is a canteen in the Branch which is situated within the building in the Main Branch where there are 2 employees . No outsider is allowed to take meal in the canteen . The Committee of the Bank runs the canteen. The committee is constituted with the employees of the Bank, The B.M. of the Branch is the President of the CanteenCommittee . The Bank provides the utensils , LPG cylinders. The Bank also supplies the electricity and water to the canteen . The canteen is a mendatory under staff welfare scheme and business development . Exts . J and K are two circulars in this regard. Exts . J( 1 ) and K( 1 ) are the signatures of the sigtnatures of Dy.G.M. and A.G.M. (P ) respectively. The canteen remains open during the office hours oftheBank. Ext . C is an I.D. Card . The canteen boys are engaged in other works and they are paid for these works . This witness in his cross -examinations admitted that to be absorbed as sub - staff the canteen boys require

1361

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

the minimum educational qualification and the Bank holds screening test for such absorption.

Now, from the evidence of the witnesses discussed above, it transpires that the canteens were established in the different branches of the Bank as part of its welfare scheme and as per policy decision . The Bank provided all the facilities to run such canteens . For proper functioning of these canteens the banks formed some committees of their employees and the committees were headed by the heads of the Banks at different levels . The outsiders were not allowed to avail the services of the canteens . The Bank subsidised the expenses of the canteens .

This being the position , the question poses for decision is:-Whether the canteens were the parts of the banks and the employees of the canteens were their employees and whether their claims for regularisation is justified or not?

The answer is : If the Bank has any obligation to maintain the canteen, the canteen becomes part of the banks and the employees of the canteen are the employees of the Bank . The obligation to provide a canteen has to be distinguished from the obligation to provide facilities to run a canteen .

From the documents proved by the union it is seen that the Bank has an obligation to provide a Canteen for its employees convinience , though such an obligation may not be a statutory, obligation and if the bank has any obligation to provide any maintain a canteen , it becomes a part ofthe establishment and the employees of the canteen become the employees of the establishment . Where . although , it is not statutorily obligatory to provide a canteen, it is otherwise an obligation on the employer to provide a canteen , the canteen becomes a part of the establishment and the workers working in the canteen, the employees of the Management ( AIR 1995 SC 1666 ) . The learned counsel for the Associtaion also relied strongly on another case law ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Courti.e . Indian Overseas Bank Vs. I.O.B. Staff Canteen Workers Union & Another (AIR 2000 SC 1508 ) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Court that when the bank provides all the facilities to run its canteen within its premises , provides subsidies , the working hours and days of the canteen are strictly as per bank's own working hours and days , outsider is allowed to take meal , subsidy@ Rs . 12.50 per member of the staff using the canteen were given , the canteen becomes a part of the Bank though the canteen is being runbypromoter .

The learned counsel for the Association also strongly relied on another case law in support of his arguments which is:-

"National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. Ps . Karri Pothurajee and Others (AIR 2003 SC 3647 ) . The learned counsel also relied on another case law of theHon'ble Supreme Court i.e. M.M. Khan and others Vs. Union of India and Others (AIR 1990 SC 937 ) . " 1362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workmen)

BETWEEN :

: I Party/Petitioners 1. A.Nagappan (deceased)

2. Smt. Indira

The learned counsel for the Management mainly argued that there is no jural relationship between the canteen boys and the Bank and therefore can not claim for regularisation . The learned counsel relied on the case law of State Bank of India and others Vs. State Bank of India Canteen Employees Union (Bengal Circle ) and Others (AIR 2000 SC 1518) .

Considering the materials available before me, I am constrained to hold that the claim of the Canteen Boys ' Association for regularisation of their service as sub- staff is justified . The Management is directed to regularise the services of the canteen boys from the dates of their respective appointments and to pay them appropriate pay scales from the dates of their regularisation . The reference is answered accordingly.

Given under my hand and seal on this the 17th day ofDecember , 2005 .

B. BORA, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 603.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/48/2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 603.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 60/ 2002) of the Central Govt . Indus . Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006.

[No. L - 12012 /48/2002 - IR (B- II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 3rd November, 2005

Present : K, JAYARAMAN ,

PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO . 60/2002 (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10

[impleaded as *

* Petitioners vide 3.Ms. N.I. Sahitya Lakshmi

4. N.I. Anilkumar ( minor)

* I.A. 18/2005 dt. 14-6-2005] AND

The Assistant General Manager : II Party/ Management Indian Overseas Bank , R.O.

Nagercoil.

APPEARANCES :

M/s . T. Fenn Walter & For the Petitioners :

Associates . Advocates For the Management : M/ s. NGR Prasad, Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide order No. L- 12012/48/2002 - IR (B - II ) dated 28-06-2002 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is - "Whether the compulsory retirement made by the Indian Overseas Bank to Shri A. Nagappan is legal and justified? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 60/2002 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through thier advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. This dispute was raised in the year 2002 . Subsequently it was disposed by me at the first instance on 14-1-2004 . Then it was restored and posted for several hearings for enquiry. Again , the Petitioner was set ex - parte on 29-6-2004 . Then again , the LRs of the first Petitioner have filed the petition to set aside the ex - parte order and it was allowed and again for the third time neither the Petitioners nor the counsel for the petitioners appeared before this Court and hence the Petitioners are called absent and set ex -parte .

4. From this , it is clear that the Petitioners are not interested to proceed with enquiry in this dispute . Thereforc. I find the Petitioners have not substantiated their claim and as such , they are not entitled to any relief. No Costs .

5. Thus, the reference is disposed of accordingly. (Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him. corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3rd November , 2005. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer : None

Witnesses Examined Oneither side

Documents Marked Oneither side Nil भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 13 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 604.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इण्डियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 107/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12011/49/ 2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

1363 during the period from 20-2-90 to 20-20-2000? If so, whether the action of the management in disengaging/discontinuing from services is justified and legal ? If not what relief is the disputant concerned entitled to ? Whether the demand of the Indian Bank Employees ' Association for regularisation of the service of Sri Palani , temporary sub- staffby the management of Indian Bank is legal andjustified? Ifnot what relief the workman is entitled to?

सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 13th January, 2006

S.O. 604. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 107/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Bank and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 9-1-2006 .

2. After the receipt of the reference , it was taken on file as I.D. No. 107/2003 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.

3. The allegations of the Petitioner Association in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

[No. L- 12011 /49/2003 - IR (B - II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 28th November, 2005

PRESENT : K. JAYARAMAN , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ΝΟ . 107/2003 [ 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 Indian Bank and their workmen]

BETWEEN

: IParty/Claimant

The General Secretary,

IndianBank Employees

Association , Chennai

AND

: II Party/Management

The Regional Manager , Indian Bank , Vellore

APPEARANCE :

For the Claiment

: M/ s. D. Hariparanthaman ,

Advocate

For the Management : M/ s. King & Partridge , Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 12011 /49/ 2003 - IR( B - II ) dated 9-6-2003 has referred this induistrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . The Schedule mentioned in that order is- "Whether it is a fact that Sri Palani, Temporary Sub- staffwas engaged by the management of Indian Bank Sri M. Palani , one of the member of Petitioner Association and the concerned employee in this dispute was engaged at Jolarpettai branch of erstwhile Bank of Thanjavur as a temporary sub - staff from 10-2-89 . The II Party/Management has taken over the said Bank, of Thanjavur including the Jolarpettai branch and the concerned employee was continued to be engaged as a temporary sub -staff and he has worked upto 29-2-2000. He was utilised as regular sub - staff including for cash remittance work. During February, 2000 he was stopped and he was not allowed to perform work without any notice or reason. Even though he has submitted application as called for by the Respondent/Bank, he was not empanelled as temporary sub- staff. During 1998 the permanent sub- staff of Jolarpettai branch has retired and the post was not filled up and the sub - staff deputed from a nearby branch did not join duty. In the said vacancy, the concerned workman was engaged on permanent basis and he was carrying out the work of permanent sub - staff till he was illegally terminated and disengaged from service on 20-2-2000 . The said permanent post was also continued to exist . Even though he has given representation to the management , there was no response from the Respondent and hence , the Petitioner union has raised the dispute before Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) . Since the conciliation ended in failure, the matter was referred to this Tribunal. The action of the Respondent/Bank in terminating the services of the concerned workman is illegal , unjust and arbitrary. Further, it amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of Section 2( r) ( a) read with item 10 ofV schedule to the I. D. Act . The action of the II Party/ Management in not including the name of workman concerned in the panel of temporary sub - staff is also arbitrary. The concerned employee who worked for more than ten years with artificial break so as to deny him continuous service and protection give under the provisions of I.D. Act . If the Sundays and holidays and artificial breaks are included, he has put in for more than 1364

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

240 days of service in many years. Hence, for all these reasons, the Petitioner union prays this Tribunal to pass an award reinstating the concerned employee as a permanent/regular sub- staff with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits.

High Courts have clearly stated that persons engaged on daily wages cannot claim regularisation and their disengagement cannot be termed as retrenchment under Section 25F of the I.D. Act . Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs.

5. Again, in the rejoinder, the Petitioner contended that the concerned employee Mr. Palani was already employed as temporary sub - staff by Bank of Tanjore at Jolarpet branch and he was continued to be employed as such even after the amalgamation and take over of the said branch. Therefore , it was not a fresh appointment or recruitment and hence , the contention that he was not appointed through employment exchange is in correct . Further, the appointment through employment exchange is not applicable in the case of sub- staff/peon . When large number of temporary sub- staff who were not appointed through employment exchange were regularised and made permanent , denying permanency to concerned workman andterminating his service is discriminatory and arbitrary. After 1998 on the retirement of sub - staff, he was paid wages in his own name and also in the name of Mr. Selvakumar@ Kumar with a mala fide intention to avoid continuous service . In fact, no such person by name Selvakumar ever worked in Jolarpet branch . Therefore , after 1998 , the concerned employee was employed continuously as sub- staff in the name of Palani , Selvakumar and Kumar and thus put together he has put in 240 days of continuous service .Hence , he prays an award in his favour.

6. Again, the Respondent in its reply contended that the Petitioner even before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) and also in Claim Statement has not stated that he has completed 240 days of continuous service in a period of 12 calendar months . Further, the permanent sub - staff posted from Karimangalam branch on transfer had already joined at Jolarpet branch and working there as such, there was no vacancy at Jolarpet branch. The new contentions put forth by the Petitioner in rejoinder are deliberate false statements to project a false case and it is abuse of process of law . Hence , the Respondent prays thatthe claim may be dismissed .

7. In such circumstances , the points for my determination are-

1. " Whether it is a fact that Mr. Palani , concerned employee was engaged by the Respondent/ Management during the period from 20-2-1990 to 20-2-2000?

2. Whether the action of the management in disengaging /discontinuing from service is justified& legal ?

3. Whether the demand of the Petitioner Union for regularisation of Sri Palani by the Respondent/ Management is legal and justified ?

4. To what relief the concerned employee is entitled ?"

4. In the Counter Statement, the Respondent alleged that the Respondent/Bank has got some prescribed procedure to employ temporary sub - staff. Firstly, the , Respondent/Bank has to call for list of eligible candidates. from the employment exchange ; the candidate sponsored by employment exchange fulfilling the eligibility criteria willbe called for interview; and after interview, the selection of candidates must be apporoved by the Zonal Manager ofrespective zone for the purpose ofkeeping them in panel. Empanelled sub - staff will be engaged whenever permanent sub -staff was on leave or any necessity arose . In this case , the concerned employee namely Sri P. Palani was not sponsored through employment exchange , not undergone usual selection process and was not empanelled in the list. In February, 1990 Bank of Tanjore was merged with Respondent/Bank . Upto February, 1990 the said Mr. Palani was engaged by the Bank of Tanjore for a period of 147 days and he was engaged by Jolarpet branch of Respondent/Bank in the year 1990 for 55 days, for the year 1991-110 days , for the year 1992-101 days , for the year 1993-104 days for the year 1994-137 days , for the year 1995-158 days , for the year 1996-170 days , for the year 1997--144 days , for the year 1998-140 days , for the year 1999-188 days and for the year 2000--18 days . Thus , the concerned employee has not worked for 240 days of continuous service in any period of 12 calendar months andtherefore, he is not entitled to any benefits under I. D. Act . The Branch Manager of the Respondent/Bank should only engage persons from empanelled list but contraryto the said circular, the said Palani was engaged directly by the Branch Manager on daily wage basis without any authority. In any event , since the concerned employee has not completed continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the I. D. Act , the question of retrenchment compensation, notice or notice pay does not arise at all. The allegation that he has completed 412 days upto 20-2-90 is not correct . Even though on the retirement of permanent staff, the concerned employee was engaged , it is not correct to say that he was the only person engaged as temporary sub - staff and one Mr. Selvakumar was also engaged and the concerned employee was not engaged continuously and it is not correct to say that he was engaged in permanent vacancy continuously. Thus , after the retirement of permanent sub- staff, the concerned employee was engaged along with casual labour one Mr. Selvakumar and the concerned employee was not engaged continuously and it is not correct to say that he was engaged in permanent vacancy continuously. Thus, after the retirement of permanent sub- staff the concerned employee was engaged along with casual labour depending upon their availability. Even the Supreme Court and other 1365 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

Point No. 1 :-

ofJolarpet branch to Central Office , Personnel department forwarding application of Mr. Palani . Ex . W12 is the copy ofcircular issued by Respondent/Bank on 20-3-1990 .

11. As against this , on the side of the Respondent . then Manager, Mr. Moorthy was examined as MW1 and inspecting staff Mr. D. Somasundaram was examined as MW2. On the side of the Respondent circular issued by the Respondent/Bank dated 30-9-98 is marked as Ex. Ml and copy of circular issued by Respondent dated 4-3-83 as Ex. M2 .

8. With regard to point No. 1 , it is an admitted fact that the concerned employee Sri Palani was engaged by Bank of Tanjore even in the year 1989 and as per circular issued by the Respondent/Bank , temporary employees engagedby Bank of Tanjore were also taken into service of the Respondent/Bank and further, even in the Counter Statement, it is admitted by the Respondent/Bank that Mr. Palani was engaged by the Respondent/Bank from the year 1990 to 2000. Though it is alleged that his appointment was only a casual and he has not completed 240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months , it is admitted that hehas worked from the year 1990 in the Respondent/ Bank at Jolarpet branch . Under such circumstances , I find thispoint in favour of the Petitioner.

Point Nos. 2 & 3 :-

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that from the documents produced by the Respondent namely Ex . W7 to W10 , it is clearly established that the Petitionerworked in Jolarpet branch from the year 1998 i.e. from the date of retirement of permanent sub- staff continuously. Though he had worked as sub - staff in the permanent vacancy he was given wages in his name as well as in the names of Selvakumar and Kumar . It is the case of the Petitioner union that there was no Selvakumar or Kumar by name worked in that branch and only with a mala fide intention to avoid continuous service of the concerned employee , wages were given in the names of Selvakumar and Kumar to the concerned employee and from Ex. W7 it is clear that no such person by name Mr. Selvakumar was ever worked in Jolarpet branch . Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that though MW2 was examined in this case namely supervising inspector, who has written a letter to the Regional Office stating that Mr. Palani has been paid wages for 18 days in his name and for rest of the days , wages were paid to Mr. Palani in the name of Selvakumar and Kumar and in his evidence before this Tribunal , he has stated that he has sent his inspection report only with oral statement given byMr. Palani and he has not examined anybody else in the bank.

9. Itiscontended on behalf of the Petitioner that the concerned employee was paid Rs . 30 per day as wages and he has worked for more than 1532 days from 20-2-1990. It is his further contention that during 1998 , permanent sub- staffofJolarpet branch retired from service and the vacancy caused due to his retirement was not filled up. A sub - staff deputed from nearby branch did not join duty in the said vacancy and the concerned employee was engaged on permanent basis and he has carried out the work till he was illegally terminated or disengaged from service on 20-2- 2000 and in the rejoinder, the Petitioner contended that after 1998 i.e. after retirement of permanent sub - staff, he was paid wages in his own name and in the name of Selvakumar and Kumar with mala fide intention to avoid continuous service and permanent status and also privileges available to permanent sub - staff and in fact , no such person by name Selvakumar ever worked in Jolarpet branch. Therefore, after 1998 he was continuously employed in the name of Palani , Selvakumar and Kumar and if they put together, he has put in more than 240 days of continuous service and therefore , he is entitled to the benefits.

13. But , I find only to nullify the documentary evidence , this witness was examined and he has failed in hisattempt because it is clearly established that under Ex . W7 Mr. Palani has been paid wages for 18 days in his name and for rest of the days , wages were paid to Palani in the names of Selvakumar and Kumar. For this explanation was called for from the concerned Manager, who was examined in this case as MWI . Though he has stated that he has given an explanation under Ex . W7 series , he has stated thatfrom 1-10-98 onwards there was no sub - staff in that branch and in these circumstances , he had to engage the said Mr. Palani for all these days . He has not denied inspecting report that Mr. Palani was paid wages after 18 days in the names of Selvakumar and Kumar . It is admitted .byMW1 that there was no regular sub - staff in the branch during that period. Under such circumstances, it is clearly established by the Petitioner that concerned employee namely Mr. Palani was regularly appointed from 1-10-98 to 2000 and he was paid wages in his name and in the names of Selvakumar and Kumar .

10. On behalf of the Petitioner 11 documents were marked, but the concerned employee has not examined himself. Ex . W1 is the copy of employment particulars of concerned employee from 1993 to 10-3-2000. Ex. W2 is the copy of dispute raised by the concerned employee before AssistantLabour Commissioner (Central ) . Ex . W3 is the copy of remarks filed by II Party/Management . Ex. W4 is the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner . Ex. W5 is the copy of reply given by II Party/Management . Ex . W6 is the copy of reference issued by Government of India. During the pendency of enquiry, the Petitioner filed an application for production of documents and the Respondent has produced certain documents which are marked as Ex . W7 to W10. Ex . 7 is the copy of letter sent by Respondent/ BanktoBranch Manager, Jolarpet . Ex . W8 to W10 are copies of vouchers of Respondent/Bank branch at Jolarpet for the year 1999. Ex. WII is the copy of letter from Manager [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] 1366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

substantiating such a non -existing contention by evidence . "Relying on this decision, learned counsel for the Respondent contended that all along the Petitioner before the labour authorities and before filing of rejoinder statement , he stated that he has not completed 240 days in acontinuous period of 12 calendar months and after filing of Counter Statement by the Respondent , he has filed rejoinder stating a new case that he has worked after October, 1998 in different names and he has completed more than 240 days and therefore , he is entitled to the benefits, but he has not come before this Tribunal to give such evidence and therefore , this Tribunal cannot look into the cantention of the Petitioner in the rejoinder statement .

14. In these circumstances , learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the rulings reported in 2002 4 LLN 1143 wherein the Madras High Court while considering the similar circumstances has held that the case of the Petitioner is that after 27-3-1985 , his employment was recorded by Respondent in the time cards under various names in order to avoid regularisation of his service. The Petitioner took several ' avatars ' as M. Sakthivel , M. Ajubudin , M. Mariappan , M. Kalaiselvan , M. N. Mohan , M. Mohanraj , S. Shanmugam , M. Kandaswamy, A. Anand, M. Chandran , M. Kumar , M. Singaram , M. Chandrasekaran etc. Accordingto the Petitioner his service was continous without any break except for an artificial break . Again he was issued time card under canvassor names and he produced vouchers from the department bearing signature ofBranch Manager or higher officials Insuch case, if it is not an unfair labour practice , it is difficult to assuinc what more can be the unfair labour practice . The Petitioner worked from 1984 and the Respondent Corporation shall consider his claim for conferment of permanent status in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations of this Court in this judgement . From this judgement , it is elear that in a like circumstances , the Respondent hasto consider the claim of regularisation of concerned employee and therefore , the concerned employee is entitled to the claim made by the Union .

16. Though . I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent in the Claim Statement he . has stated the concerned employee worked from October, 1998 continuously and he further stated that no regular sub - staff was employed in Jolarpet branch and be has worked continously in the regular vacancy. Though this statement of the Petitioner union has been denied by the Respondent , from the documents produced by Respondent side and also cvidence of MW 1. it is clear that there was no permanent sub - staff appointed after the retirement of regular sub - staff at Jolarpet branch from October , 1998. Under such circumstances . it is clearly established by the Petitioner that after 1998 he worked in regular vacancy continuously and he has completed morc than240 days in a continuous period of 12 calendar months and he has taken several avatars to receive wagcs .

17. Then again , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that even assuming that he was appointed as sub-staff in Respondent / Bank branch at Jolarpet his appointment itself is not valid since his appointment was irregular and his appointment was made in contravention ofcirculars issued by Respondent/Management . Thereforc. itcouldbe illegal and his services cannot be regularised by theRespondent and hence , he is not entitled to any relicf. Further, he relied on the rulings reported in ( 1 ) 2004 7 SCC 112 A. Umarani Vs. Registar. Co - Operative Societies and Others; (2 ) 20051 LLJ 343 Union of India and Vs, llango: (3) 1997 11 LLJ 381 Union of India and Others Vs. Bishamber Dutt; (4) 1997 4 SCC 88 State of U.P. and others Vs. Ajav Kumar and ( 5 ) AIR 1992 SC 789 Delhi Development Horticulture Employees ' Union vs. Delhi Administration andOthers . In the first judgement cited above , the Supreme Court has held that " when appointments were made in contravention of mandatory provisions of the Act and statutory rules framed thereunder and in ignorance of essential qualifications , the same would be illegal and cannot be regularised by the State . " In the second judgement , it is observed by the Madras High Court that when there were no existing posts or vacancies against which the workmen could claim to have been appointed 15. But, as against this , learned counsel for the Respondent contended that though the Petitioner has stated that he worked from 1990 to 2000 , all along his case was that he has not worked for more than 240 days in any one of the calendar years . By filing rejoinder, he has stated that he has worked under different names from 1998 and he hascompleted 240 days. But this kind of statement cannot be taken in a rejoinder and it is only to wriggle out the situation , he has taken this stand and therefore , this Tribunal cannot take cognisance of the contention of the Petitioner. Further, he has relied on the rulings reported in 1979 IILLJ 194 Shankar Chakravarti Vs. Britannia Biscuit Co. and Another wherein Three Members Bench ofSupreme Court has held that " Section 11C confer powers under Code ofCivilProcedure on Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal in respect of matters therein specified . Labour Court or Tribunal would then proceed to decide the lis between the parties . It has to decide the lis on the evidence adduced before it . It would not be open to it to decide the lis on any extraneous considerations . Justice , equity and good conscience will inform its adjudication . Therefore , Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal has all the trappings of a Court. Obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation . The test would be who would fail if no evidence is led. It must seek an opportunity to lead evidence and lead evidence. The contention to substantiate which evidence is necessary has to be pleaded. If there is no pleading raising a contention , there is no question of 1367 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

even assuming for argument sake that he has worked continuoulsy for long number of years , it cannot be taken into consideration and therefore , the concerned employee isnot entitled to any relief.

18. Though I find some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent all the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Respondent were not arising out of industrial law. They have arisen from Writ Jurisdiction of High Court . But, in this case , the Petitioner has clearly established that the concerned employee was employed by Bank of Tanjore even in the year 1989 and as per circular issued by Respondent/ Management , his appointment was continued even after amalgamation of Bank of Tanjore with the Respondent/ Bank. Under such circumstances , it cannot be said that his appointment is irregular. No doubt, the concerned employee wasnot in temporary sub - staffpanel . But, from the records producedby the Petitioner and also Respondent, it is clear that all the Managers of the Respondent/Bank had written to the Respondent/Management since there was no regular sub -staff in the Respondent/Bank branch at Jolarpet and since the concerned employee was engaged continuously in that branch, it was requested by all the Managers that the concerned employee's service should be regularised and he can be included in the said panel . But , the Respondent/Management has not taken anything in that direction . But, all of a sudden, he has been terminated from service. Under such circumstances, I find there is no point inthe contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that concerned employee's services should not be regularised in temporary sub - staff cadre . Under such circumstances , I find the point Nos. 2 and 3 against the Respondent/Management.

Point No. 4 :-

The next point to be decided in this case is to what reliefthe concerned employee is entitled ?

19. In view of my above findings that the termination of the concerned employee is illegal , I direct the Respondent/Management to reinstate the concerned employee into service with continuity of service and he is entitled to 50% back wages . No Costs .

20. 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 day the 28th November, 2005) .

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

: None

Forthe I Party/Claimant

Forthe II Party/Management : MWI Sri C. Moorthy MW 2 Sri V. Somasun- daram.

and further the Writ Petitioners (workmen) initial entrywas unauthorised, the question of termination of their service without notice or enquiry would not therefore arise..... In the above circumstances , survive for consideration cannot arise . " In the third judgement, the Supreme Court has held thatthe Respondents were not appointed to regular post after selection according to rules and they were appointed as part time employees de hors the rules . Pursuant to enquiry, whether temporary status should be granted to the part time employees , directions were issued by the Ministry of Personnel , Public Grievances and Pension, wherein, it is mentioned that such part time employees are not entitled to temporary status , since they were not appointed on regular basis in accordance with rules and the direction issued by Central Administrative Tribunal to regularise the service is obviously illegal . Unless a person is appointed on regular basis according to rules , after consideration of the claims on merits , there is no question ofregularisation of the services. " In the fourth judgement , the Supreme Court has held that " daily wage appointment will obviouslybe in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long asthe work exists. Under these circumstances , the Division Bench of the High Court was clearly in error in directing the appellant to regularise the service of the Respondent, who was working as nursing orderly on daily wages to the post as and when the vacancy arises and to continue him until then . " In the last judgement, the Supreme Court has held that " Although there is Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in Employment Exchange , it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchange and to employ or get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long awiting list in the employment register. The Courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal consideration including money. The employment is given first for temporary periods with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judgicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised . A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchange for years . Not all those who gain such back door entry in the employment are in need of the particularjobs" . Relying on these judgements , learned counsel for the Contended that in this case , the Petitioner is not appointed as per recruitment rules of the Respondent/Management and his appointment is irregular and against the circular issuedby the Central office and Under such circumstances ,

253 G1/ 06-25 1368

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Documents Mark :-

For the I Party/ Claimant :-

अधिकरण नं . II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 218/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को16-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Ex. N

Date

Description

1993-2000

[सं. एल-42012/159/1989- आई आर (डी यू) ] कुलदीप राय वर्मा, डेस्क अधिकारी Xerox copy of the employment particulars of Concerned employee

New Delhi , the 16th January, 2006 9-4-01

Xerox copy of the dispute raised before Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central)

W 3

30-11-01 Xeroxcopy ofthe remarks filed by Respondent/Bank

20-1-02

Xerox copy of the rejoinder filedby Petitioner

S.O. 605. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 218/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of All India Radio and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 16-1-2006.

28-1-02

Xerox copy ofthe reply given byRespondent

[No. L -42012/159/ 1989 - IR (DU) ] KULDIP RAI VERMA, Desk Officer W6

9-6-03

Xerox copy of the order of reference

ANNEXURE

Nil

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRUBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI Xerox copy of the internal correspondence regarding Regularinspection of Jolarpet branch

I. D. NO . 218/1998

Presiding Officer : R. N. RAI

W 8series Nil

In the matter of :-

Xerox copy of the voucher issued to sub - staff of Jolarpet branch

W 9series Nil

Xerox copy of the voucher issued to sub - staff of Jolarpet branch

W 10series Nil

Shri Chander Pal , C/o General Secretary, Delhi Labour Union , Aggarwal Bhawan , G. T. Road, Tis Hazari , NewDelhi .

Versus

Xerox copy of the voucher issuedto sub - staff of Jolarpet branch

W11

6-1-93

The ChiefEngineer ( R & D) , All IndiaRadio, Indraprastha Estate, NewDelhi .

AWARD

Xerox copy of the letter from Branch Manager, Jolarpet To Central Office forwarding application of Concerned employee

20-3-90

W12

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L -42012/ 159/ 89- IR (DU) Central Government Dt . 30-10-1998 has referred the following point for adjudication.

Xerox copy of the circular memo issued by Respondent To erstwhile Bank ofThanjore branches .

The point runs as hereunder :--

For the II Party/Management :-

Date

Ex. No.

Description

30-9-98

"Whether the action of the management of All India Radio , New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Chander Pal is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

Xerox copy of the circular issued by Ministry ofFinance

4-3-83

Xerox copy of the circular issued by Respondent/Bank .

नई दिल्ली, 16 जनवरी , 2006

Theworkman applicant has filed claim statement . In the claim statement it has been stated that Shri Chander Pal joined into the employment of the All India Radio w.e.f. 18-4-1986 as a Safai Karamchari at the office of the Chief Engineer (R & D ) , All India Radio , Indraprastha Estate , New Delhi . He was being treated as monthly paid/muster roll worker and was being paid his wages as fixed and revised from time to time under the Minimum Wages Act का.आ. 605.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ऑल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक

40 .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

bythe appropriate Government for unskilled casual workers . Hewas being paid wages monthly and not daily. He had to report for duty at proper time and after performing eight hours normal duties he was relieved every day. While his counter parts doing the identical work and the work of the same value but being treated as regular employees were being paid their salary in the pay scale ofRs . 750-940 with usual allowances admissible under the rules . The said pay scale allowances are admissible under the rules w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The said regular employees were also enjoying other benefits likeuniform , EL, CL, Gazetted/Festival/Restricted Holidays and Medical Leave etc. which were completely denied to the workman aforesaid. He has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit.

That the services of the aforesaid workman have been terminated w.e.f. 2-5-1987 is wholly illegal, bad, unjust and malafide for the following amongst other reasons : 一

1. That the job against which the aforesaid workman was working is of regular and permanent nature of job. He has worked for more than 240 days continuously, during the periodfrom 18-04-1986 to 01-05-1987.

2. That employing persons on regular nature of jobsand treating them as monthly paid/casual/ muster roll workers and paying them lesser remuneration than those doing the identical work and the work of same value amounts to unfair labour practice as provided in Section 2 (ra) readwith item No. 10 of Vth Schedule and read with Section 25 T punishable under Section 25 U of the ID Act, 1947 .

3. That it is violative of Article , 14 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India .

4. That it amounts to sheer exploitation oflabour.

5. That the management of All India Radio has not framed any rules or regulations nor get it passed by the UPSC and nor notified in the official Gazette for governing the service conditions of the monthly paid/muster roll/part- time/seasonal workers nor it has any certified standingOrders , governing service conditions of such workers and therefore , the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act, 1946 are applicable to the workman and the management ofthe All India Radio .

6. That the workman aforesaid has acquired the status ofapermanent employee from the initial date of his joining into the employment i.e. 18-04-1986 after completing 90 days of continuous employment as provided in the ModelStanding Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act,

1369

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

1946. Even otherwise , the workman has acquired the status of a permanent employee from the initial date of his joining into the employment after completing 240 days of continuous employment and is deemed tohave. been taken into the employment on regular basis as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Harish Kumar vs. Registrar, Delhi High Court.

7. That no memo or charge sheet was served and no domestic inquiry was conducted against him . He was not afforded any opportunity of being heard and was disallowed duties arbitrarily. The workman aforesaid has not committed any misconduct whatsoever.

8 That the workman aforesaid has been meted out with hostile discrimination as juniors to him have been retained in service and he has been thrown out of job . For example, Smt . Pushpa , Safai Karamchari was junior to the aforesaid workman who is still continuning in service.

9. That new fresh hands have also been employed after the termination of the services of the aforesaid workman.

10. That in case of retrenchment no seniority list was displayed, no notice was given , no notice pay was offered and no service compensation was either offered or paid to the workman at the time of termination of service . Even the earnedwages for the month ofApril , 1987 were paid to him much after the termination of the workman from services .

11. That the impugned termination of services is violative of section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act , 1954 and the rules made thereunder. It is also violative of Section 25 F, G and H ofthe ID Act, 1947 read with Rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 .

12. That even otherwise the action of the management amounts to unfair labour practice asprovided in Section 2 (ra) read with item No. 5 of the Vth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

13. That it is violative of Section 25 N of the ID Act, 1947 as the management has not obtained any permission from the appropriate Government for effecting the retrenchment of the aforesaid workman .

That the workman aforesaid is unemployed since 20-05-1987 despite his best efforts to get a job elsewhere. That the demand notice was served upon the Chief Engineer (R& D ) , All India Radio, Indraprashta Estate, [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 1370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

He was engaged on purely casual basis and as per scheme introduced by the management of All India Radio he does neither possess requisite educational qualification nor has completed requisite number of days of casual working to be eligible for consideration for regularization as safaiwala .

New Delhi by registered A/D post vide communication dated 25th February, 1989 duly received in his office. A reply dated 28-03-1989 was received from the management but the same was not satisfactory and, hence it was presumed that the demand has been rejected. Thereafter , the dispute was raised by filing a statement of claim before the conciliation officer , (C) New Delhi on 17th April, 1989. The Conciliation proceedings were initiated but resulted in failure because of the adamant and non - co - operative attitude of the management . Hence this reference .

Smt . Pushpa, reference of which has been made in the para was appointed on regular basis against a regular post, who has come through proper recruitment channel in accordance with the statutory recruitment rules . As she was never engaged on casual /daily basis , her case is not comparable with the applicant.

The management has filed reply to the claim statement . In the reply it is stated that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clear hands . He is not entitled to the reliefclaimed in the claim . Hence the present statement ofclaim is liable to be dismissed with cost .

That the petitioner was only a casual labourer engaged for specific job on daily wages basis. As All India Radio was not declared/held Industry at the time of dicontinuing the casual engagement of the applicant hence the provisions of ID Act , 1947 could not be applied to him. Ifthe applicant has not got any job even on daily wages since 1987 he could not have survived till date. Even it is admitted to be true it reflects that he was not found suitable/ qualified for any job even on daily wages .

That the petitioner at no point of time was liable to be considered for regularization since he was a casual labourer. He was engaged on need basis and his services dispensed with when there was no need of his services. Therefore, the present dispute has been rightly refused . Applicant cannot claim for regularization after 13 years of discontinuation of his engagement as casual basis .

The petitioner was engaged on purely casual basis for specific purposes i.e. for casual safai works which occurred due to repair and maintenance of room coolers / desert coolers and cleaning of stores , junk room etc. For this work his name was sponsored by the employment exchange, Kamala Market , New Delhi which deals with deployment of casual labourers only. It is pertinent to know that in order to consider the petitioner for regularization he has to fulfill the conditions as specified in the memo No. 11/58/86 . S.II , dated 4/ 9-7 /86 ( marked as Annexure R- II ) regarding engagement of casual labourers-appointment of casual labourers against regular group " D " posts in AIR. In accordance with the said Memorandum , the petitioner must have put in at least two year service i.e. 206 days in each year i.e. 412 days in two years continuously in the office observing 5 days week. For ready reference column viii of the memorandum is reproduced as under :-

The management has further stated that the petitioner was engaged as casual labourer with the office of Chief Engineer (R& D), Research Department, All India Radio and Doordarshan, I. P. Estate , Ring Road, New Delhi - 2 on 18-04-1986 and he actually worked for 168 days in the year 1986 and 60 days in the year 1987. He was engaged as casual labourer depended upon work necessity basis which was purely of casual nature . Once the job for which the labourer has been engaged, is over his services have to be dispensed with. So is the case of the petitioner. He was engaged on daily wages basis and not monthly wages basis . His daily wages were being paid to him after completion of the month on muster rolls . It is accordingly deniedthat he was paid fixed monthly wages . Being a daily wager he cannot be compared with regular appointed employees against the regular sanctioned posts of safaiwala.

"That in the organizations observing 5 days week , casual workers may be considered for regular appointment to group " D " posts , if otherwise eligible , if they have put in two years service as casual workers with 206 days of service during each year (asagainst the usual 240 days ) . Ministry of Home Affairs(DP&AR) ' s O.M. No. 49014/19/84- Estt . ( C) dated 26-10-1984.

His services were dispensed with when the job for which he was engaged , was over. ( i ) & ( ii ) of the petition is wrong and denied . It is specifically denied that the termination of services is illegal , bad, unjust and malafide. The petitioner was not working against the job of any regular or permanent nature . He was engaged on purely casual basis for casual safai works occurred due to repair and maintenance of room/desert coolers and cleaning of stores junk rooms etc. and discontinued when the said works were completed .

Asthe applicant had not completed requisite number of casual engagement he is /was not eligible for consideration for regularization or appointment on regular basis in the post of safaiwala . It is also brought out that in accordance with notified recruitment rules ( Annexure -R- III) only those persons who are within the age limit of 18-25 years and possess at least 5th standard pass educational qualification are eligible for appointment on regular basis in the post of Safaiwala. As the applicant did not furnish Assubmitted above in the brief facts , there already exists a Scheme ( Annexure R- I ) for the casual labourers working in the offices of All India Radio in Delhi for their deployment as and when necessity arises and also for their regularization if they fulfill the eligibility conditions laid down in the scheme.

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

any documents to possession of the aforesaid educational qualification he is considered not eligible and not suitable for regular appointment as Safaiwala. Accordingly when the work for which he was engaged on casual basis was over, his casual engagement was discontinued.

The applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement of the management .

Evidence of both the parties has been taken.

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

It is admitted case by both the parties that the workman was engaged on 28-04-1986 as casual labour . It is also admitted that his services were terminated on 03-05-1987 . He has worked continuously from 28-04-1986 to 02-05-1987 as such in a calendar year of 1986 he has worked for more than 240 days . The management has issued Identity Card to him dated 04-04-1986 and management has admitted in his reply before the Conciliation Officer that he was engaged on 18-04-1986 and his services were dis -continued w.e.f. 02-05-1987 as his services were no longer required . So it is established that the workman was removed from his service on 02-05-1987 as his services were no longer required.

The substantial question is whether his work was need based and he was employed as per exigencies of work . The management witness has admitted that the workman was working on the post of Safai Karamchari on regular basis in the management . The management witness has also admitted that there are workmen working on the post of Safai Karamchari in the management . Witnesses has also admitted that Smt . Pushpa is working on the post of Safai Karamchari in the management . He has further stated that he cannot say whether Smt . Pushpa joined her services after the termination of the services of the workman . He has also stated that there is no attendance register of casual workers . He has also stated that no compensation was paid to the workman at the time of termination of his services . So it becomes admitted case of the management that there is work of Safai Karamchari and workmen have beenworking on the post of Safai Karamchari . The case of the workman is that Smt . Pushpa was junior to the workman applicant and she has been retained and given regular appointment but discrimination has been made with this workman.

Itwas submitted from the side of the workman that he has completed 240 days as per the admission of the management and he has been paid retrenchment compensation . This fact has also been admitted by the management . As such in the circumstances of the case Section 25 F of the ID Act is attracted .

It was submitted from the side of the management that as per Statutory Rules and Guidlines of the DOP & T OM dated 26-10-1984 Group " D " employees cannot be

1371 appointed without being sponsored by Employment Exchange and they should have minimum of two years experience . They should have worked for two consecutive years for 240 days .

Itwas further submitted from the side of the management that it has been held in Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & State of Bihar, JT 1997 (4 ) SC 560 that every department of the Government cannot be treated to be Industry. When the appointments are regulated by the Statutory Rules the concept of the Industry to that extent stand expanded. It has been also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the temporary employees are engaged on the basis of need of work .

In the instant case the workman was not engaged on the basis of need of work . He has worked continuously from 18-04-1986 to 02-05-1987 and the management witness has admitted that there is work of Safai Karamchari and other workmen were also engaged along with this workman so in the premises of All India Radio there is regular nature ofwork of Safai Karamchari as has been explicitly admitted by the management witness so the law cited by the management ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case . The management has pointed out to the OM of 26-10-1984 . OM cannot be over ride the express provisions of the ID Act. It has been specifically provided in Section 25 F of the ID Act that in case a workman has worked for 240 days he should be given retrenchment compensation . The OM of DOP&T cannot over ride this expressed provision of the ID Act . The workman has worked for 240 days in 1986 preceding the year of his termination i.e. 1987. So his case attracts Section 25 F of the ID Act.

My attention was also drawn to SC SLJ 2005 ( 1 ) page 441 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the workman in order to attract Section 25 F and 25 B should have worked continuously for 240 days . In the present casethe workman has worked for 240 days in the year 1986 andhis services have been terminated in the year 1987. My attention was also drawn to 1997 (4) SCC 88 that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that Daily Wages appointment will obviously be in relation to contingent establishment in which there cannot exist any post and it continues so long as the work exists . In the present case the management is not a contingent establishment. It is a permanent establishment and the management witness has admitted thatthere is regular nature of work for Safai Karamchari and Safai Karamcharis have been working and Smt. Pushpa has been regularized. Smt . Pushpa is junior to the workman applicant and she has been given regular appointment whereas a senior workman has been removed . The management has violated the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of first come last go . The management has violated the constitutional mandate of equality. It is not the case of the management that the workman was asked to file his registration certificate from Employment Exchange . On the pretext of non -registration in the Employment Exchange a workman cannot be removed 1372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

from his service . He was a senior workman and the management should have intimated him regarding the necesssity of the certificte of the Employment Exchange. There is no mention in Section 25 F of the ID Act that a workman who has completed 240 days service should be registered in Employment Exchange. The simple rule is that aworkman should have completed 240 days work and in that case he becomes entitled to retrenchment compensation . Retrenchment compensation has not been paid admittedly by the management in the instant case.

It has been held in 1981 SC page 478 that if immediately before the date of termination of service , a workman actually worked for 240 days within a period of calendar month under the employment he will be deemed to be in continuous service for one year under Section 25 B ( II ) and therefore , would be entitled to retrenchment compensation under Section 25F ofthe ID Act. Termination ofhis service without complying with Section 25 F of the IDAct would render the order of termination void.ab initio entitling him to declaration for continuous service with full backwages. In the facts and circumstances of the case the workman has completed 240 days work preceding his termination . He has worked continuously so he is entitled to the benefit of Section 25 F and 25 B (2 ) . Termination of his service is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and discriminatory also .

The workman shall be deemed to be in continuous service. He is manual worker. The is no evidence regarding his source of livelihood . He is not employed in any establishment but he must be doing some casual work for his bare subsistence . In the facts and circumstances of the case he is entitled to 50 % back wages .

The management of All India Radio is an Industry as systematic activities are carried on in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply.

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of All India Radio, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Chander Pal is neither legal nor justifed. The workman deserves to be reinstated treating his service as continuous service with 50% back wages . The management should reinstate him within two months from the date ofpublication of the award . In case of default the management will have to pay 10% interest over the entire back wages .

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 9-1-2006

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 606.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्टके प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. I, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 3/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-31011 /12/ 2000- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 606. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 3/2001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court No. I , Mumbai , as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2006,

[No. L-31011/ 12/2000- IR (B- II) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy. ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRUBUNAL NO. 1, MUMBAI

PRESENT :

JUSTICE GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer .

Reference No. CGIT-03 of 2001

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust And Their workmen

Mumbai Port Trust Dock & Genl . Employees Union

APPEARANCES :

For theManagement : Shri . Umesh Nabar, Adv.

For the Union

: Shri J. Sawant, Adv.

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai , dated, the 04th day of January, 2006 AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 and sub- section 2A of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( the Act for short ) . Vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi . Order No. L-31011/ 12/2000/ IR (M) dated08-1-2001 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

"Whether the action of the management ofMumbai PortTrust in denying the payment of HRA to Port Trust employees sharing Port Trust quarters either with family members who is also a Port Trust Employee or any other Port Trust employees is justified ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled to in this regard ?

) 2. The Statement ofClaim filed by the Mumbai Port Trust Dock and General Employees Union representing the workmen employed with the Management ofMumbai Port Trust goes to show that the present dispute pertains to the workmen employed with the Mumbai Port Trust who have been denied the payment of House Rent Allowance [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

in view of Notice of Change of Service conditions dated 19-8-1999 whereby the refusal of House Rent Allowance is there to the employees who share the allotted accommodation with other employees including the spouse. The Industrial dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer(C) IVbut despite several hearings , the Conciliation failed vide its failure report dated 14-8-2000 . The matter was referredto the Central Government who referred the dispute to this Tribunal on 08-1-2001.

3. The contention of the Union is that payment of House Rent Allowance to the Port Trust Employees sharing Portaccommodation is in existence since long which forms part of service conditions and also under the terms of Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under the provisions of Section 12 (3 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The Mumbai Port Trust has curtailed this facility by issuing the Notice of change of service condition under Section 9 of the Act. This action of the Mumbai Port Trust is illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice whithin the meaning of Section 13 and 14 of the Vth Schedule of the Industrial Dispute Act. It also amounts to violation of Section 33 ( 1 ) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act.

4. The contention of the Management of Mumbai Port Trust is that Notice of Change of Service condition as required under Section 9 of the Act was issued to the Union whereupon the Industrial dispute arose and the matter was placedbefore the Conciliation Officer. The failure report of the Conciliation Officer dated 14-8-2000 was sent to the Government. Consequent upon the receipt of the failure report a Circular letter dtd. 10-10-2000 was issued to the Mumbai Port Trust for discontinuing payment of House Rent Allowance to those employees sharing Port Trust Quartersto other Port Trust Employees and was made effective from 04-9-2000 which is a date much prior to the date of reference by the Central Govt , to this Tribunal . It is contended that there is no viblation of any provision of the Industrial Dispute Act and in fact , the House Rent has beenwithdrawn legally with effect from 04-9-2000 which is a date when no proceedings were pending in between the parties for its settlement.

5. The justification for curtailing the long live facility of payment of House Rent Allowance is shown and it is alleged that it has been withdrawn keeping in mind the cost to exchequer and denial of principles of social justice to one and all concerned employees of the Trust . The employees who shared the accommodation with their spouse or other employee of the Mumbai Port Trust are not thus entitled to the payment of House Rent Allowance .

6. In view of the respective claim put forth by the parties, the only question for determination is as to whether the action of the Management of Mumbai Port Trust in withdrawing the House Rent Allowance is justifiable and if not to what relief the workmen are entitled .

1373

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

7. The Union of the employees lias filed the affidavit ofShri . Sudhakar Ramchandra Apraj , General Secretary of the Union in lieu of his examination in chief. The Management of Mumbai Port Trust has filed the affidavit ofShri S. M. Yadwadkar , Dy. ChiefAccounts Officer in lieu ofexamination in chief.

8.Both the parties have cross examined the witness ofeach other.

9. The management has filed the documents as per list dated 19-5-2002 . These documents are M- 1 to M-7 .

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record . The parties have also filed written submissions .

11. The facts are not in dispute. It is the admitted position that House Rent Allowance payment had been there since long. The necessity for withdrawal to certain employees was felt by the Management for the first time in the year 1999 and consequently, it decided to issue a Notice of Change as required under Section 9 of the Act on 19-8-99. It naturally resulted in raising of Industrial dispute and the matter was placed before the Conciliation Officer for talks . As a natural consequence the efforts of the Conciliation Officer failed and the failure report was submitted on 14-8-2000 to the Secretary, Ministry ofLabour, Govt. of India, New Delhi . The Central Government took some time to make the reference to this Tribunal and finally referred the dispute vide Notification dated 08-1-2001 (correct date although wrongly typed as 8-1-2000) .

12. It is also the admitted position that the Management of the Port Trust took the benefit of the time gap from the date of submission of failure report till the date of the reference made by the Central Government to this Tribunal . The management came into quick action and showed quickness by implementing the curtailment of facilityw.e.f. 4-9-2000.

13. It is the admitted position that no change in service could be effected without a proper Notice of Change asrequired under Section 9 of the Industrial Dispute Act . Hence, I need not to quote the relevant provisions in this aspect.

14. The existence of payment of House Rent Allowance facility to the employees since long is admittedly there and it could not be withdrawn without following due procedure of law. Since the facility had been there since long, I need not to refer to the provisions under which this facility had been there. The protection of this facility had been there vide Section 36 of the Wage Settlement dated 2-8-2000 which reads as below:

PROTECTION OF EXISTING BENEFITS:

Merely, as a consequence of the implementation of this settlement, any facility, privilege, amenity, right, benefit, 1374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

monetary or otherwise or concession to which an employee or a category of employees might be entitled to by way of any award, practice , or usage , shall not be withdrawn , reduced or curtailed, except to the extent and manner as explicity provided for in this settlement . Provided, however, that this protection clause shall not be used by the Federation and their affiliated unions and any person/ persons enjoying benefits under this Settlement for preventing Port/ DLB managements from taking steps for the implementation of the provisions of this Settlement for improving productivity.

15. Regulation 6 of the Mumbai Port Trust Employees (HRA) Regulation 1975 provides as under:

Allowance admissible when permitted to share residence allotted to another employee - When an employee is permitted by the Administrative Authority under regulation 17 of the B.P.T. Employees (Allotment and Occupancy ofResidence ) Regulations , 1975 , to share a residence allotted, otherwise than on a rent- free basis , to another employee , he , but not the allottee may be granted house rent allowance , if it is otherwise admissible . " 16. The main argument of the learned counsel for the Management which was put before me during the course of submissions is that the Management is empowered to effect the curtailment of House Rent during the period when no proceedings were pending regarding the Industrial dispute .He submitted that no doubt , the proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer but that came to an end automatically on the date when the failure report dtd . 14-8-2000 was submitted by the Conciliation Officer. The Central Government took a period of four months in taking the decision for making reference to this Tribunal . Thus , during this period , the management implemented the Change/Curtailment in House Rent payment.

17. I feel that this submission is not acceptable to my mind. The proceedings cannot be deemed to come to an end since the Central Government chose to make the reference to this Tribunal although it took about four months to take thedecision. I feel that any action taken by the Management ofMumbai Port Trust during the aforesaid period of four months cannot be justified under the law. That being so, the action of the Management is certainly illegal and improper. The workmen are entitled to claim the House Rent Allowance as per long existing term and conditions of service , Memorandum of Settlement and long usage .

18. During the pendency of the instant reference one development took place that the Central Government has issued Gazette Notification dated 26-3-2004 whereby the amendment has been made to the existing provisions and now the Regulation 16 as substituted reads as under :

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] MINISTRY OF SHIPPING

(PORTS WING)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi , the 26th March, 2004

4 G.S.R. 222 ( E) : In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub - section ( I ) of Section 123 , read with Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 132 of the Major Port Trusts Act , 1963 ( 38 of 1963) the Central Government hereby approves the Mumbai Prot Trust Employees ( Allotment and Occupancy of Residence) Amendment Regulations , 2004 made by the Board ofTrustees of Mumbai Port Trust as set out in the Schedule annexed to this Notification .

The said Regulations shall come into force from the date ofpublication of the Notification in the Official Gazette.

Regulation 16 shall be substituted by the following :

" 16, No House Rent Allowance shall be granted to:

(1) Anemployee to whom a residence is allotted.

(ii) An employee / s who is / are sharing the residence alongwith the allottee;

(iii) An employee whose spouse is an employee to whom a residence is allotted; and

(iv) Two or more employees when they are jointly allotted the same residence . "

The aforesaid Gezette notification issued by the Central Government sets at rest the controversy since this Tribunal cannot struck down the Notification issued by the Central Government , duly conceded by the learned counsel for the employees Union . In this background, the non -payment of House Rent Allowance to the employees during the period with effect from 4-9-2000 till 26-3-2004 is unjustified and illegal and the workmen are entitled to the payment of House Rent Allowance . The workmen who have been denied the House Rent Allowance are entitled tothe payment ofaforesaid allowance from the Management immediately.

19. In view of the above , I conclude that the action of the Management of Mumbai Port Trust in denying the payment ofHouse Rent Allowance to Port Trust employees sharing Port Trust Quarters either with family members who is also a Port Trust employee or any other Port Trust employee for the period w.e.f. 4-9-2000 till 26-3-2004 is not justified and the workmen as such are entitled to House Rent Allowance for the aforesaid period.

The reference is accordingly answered.

Justice GHANSHYAM DASS, Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 607.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/51/2001- आई आर ( बी-11 ) ] सी. गंगाधरण , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006 S.O. 607.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 121/2001 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006.

[No. L- 12012/51/2001 - IR (B - II) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 121 /01

PresidingOfficer: SHRI C.M. SINGH

Shri Chhatrapal Shakya, S/o Shri KeshariaRam,

1375 2. After the reference order was received , it was duly registered on 4-7-2001 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statements of claim . Inspite of sufficient service of notice , workman Shri Chhatrapal Shakya failed to put in appearance and file his statement of claim and therefore the reference proceeded exparte against him.

Workman

R/ o Behind Ramjiwan Goyal Middle School , Raispura, Shivpuri

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Zonal Office , MP Zone ,

3. Management filed their Written Statement their case in brief is as follows . Applicant Shri Chhatrapal Shakya was never appointed by the management . He was engaged by the Branch Manager in order to ensure smooth customer's service when there was a temporary increase in the casual nature of work and/or when the subordinate staff was on leave . He was duly compensated by fair amount . The payment of wages was made to him by the then Manager of the Branch , in cash from his own pocket for the actual days ofwork done . Subsequently the same was reimbursed to the Manager as per Bank's rules . The payment of wages was not made by the management directly to the applicant as is done in the case of permanent employee of the Bank. The applicant was engaged temporarily on dailywages todo the casual nature of work on as and when required basis. He was never appointed by the Bank . The applicant never worked for 240 days in any of the calendar year and there was no employer- employee relationship between the parties. In the present case provisions of Sec- 25-F, 25 -G and 25 -H of the I.D. Act donot apply. The applicant is not a workman in terms of sub section(s ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. this reference shows that the Central Government usurped the authority by deciding the material fact which is beyond theirjurisdiction .

4. The management in order to prove its case filed affidavit of Shri Tulasi Das Pandey, the then working as Sr. Branch Manager in Bank of India. Shivpuri.

Management

Bank of India Bhawan, JailRoad, Arera Hills , Bhopal

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of January, 2006 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 12012/51/2001 - IR(B- II) dated 18-22/6/2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager , Bank of India, Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Chhatrapal Shakya S/o Shri Kesharia Ram w.e.f. 2-11-1999 is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled for ? " 253 GI/ 06-26

5. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for management . I have very carefully perused the entire evidence on record .

6. There is no evidence on record for proving the case of the workman whereas the case of the management stands fully proved by unrebutted and uncontroverted affidavit of Shri Tulsidass Pandey, the management's witness . The reference is, therefore , answered in favour of the management and against the workman .

7. It is hereby held that the action of the management of Zonal Manager . Bank of India , Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Chhatrapal 1376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Shakya , S /o . Kesharia Ram w.e.f. 2-11-99 is justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , the parties are directed to bear their own cost of this reference. The reference is answered accordingly.

8. The copy of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour as per rules . C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 608.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इण्डिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय न -2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 100/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/167/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 608.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 100/2003 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Dhanbad No - 2 as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006 .

[No. L- 12011/167/ 2003 - IR (B- II ) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRUBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, (NO.2) DHANBAD

PRESENT (LOK ADALAT) SHRI B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 Reference No. 100 of 2003

Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofBank of India and their workman.

Appearances:

Onbehalf of the employers:

Mr. Vikram Sinha, StaffOfficer.

Onbehalf of the workman:

Mr. Sabbir Ahamd, The concerned workman himself.

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Banking .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 23rd December, 2004

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )]

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L- 12011 / 167 / 2003- ( IR (B - II )) , dated, the 16th September, 2003 .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management ofBank of India to impose punishment of removal from service to Sabbir Ahmad vide Order dated 9-7-2003 is legal , and justified ? If not, what relief Shri Sabbir Ahmed is entitled to:

2. In response to appeal made by this Tribunal for disposing of this case through Lok Adalat management and representative of the workman filed a settlement petition for settling the dispute through Lok Adalat as per terms and conditions stated therein. Perused the petition of settlement. Terms and conditions incorporated in the said settlement petition appears to be fair, proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice . Accordingly the same is accepted . In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above instant case is disposed of through Lok Adalat as per sattlement and an Award is passed in terms of settlement entered into between the parties . The settlement petition forms part of the Award as Annexure .

B. BISWAS , Presiding Officer FormH

( See Rule 58)

Form ofMemorandum of Settlement Representing Employers The Assistant General

Manager /The Chief Manager Bank of India , Zonal Office Pankaj Market . Saraiya Ganj . Muzaffarpur.

Representing Workmen The General Secretary Bank of India Employees ' Union C / o bank of India , Fraser Road . patna(Bihar)

SHORT RECITAL OF THE CASE Mr. Sabbir Ahmed, Ex- staff Agriculture Assistant , was issued a Memorandum along with Chargesheet dated 17-6-2002 for certain acts of gross misconduct committed byhim during his tenure at Bank's Habibpur Branch . The Enquiry Officer conducted domestic enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and submitted his [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1377

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22, 1927

report holding therein that the workman concerned as guilty ofcharges levelled against him. The disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a Show Cause Punishment Notice No. ZO:MUZ: VIG -2:733 dated 18-2-2003 along with report of theEnquiry Officer, proposing to impose the punishment of Removal from service with superannuation benefite for the acts of gross misconduct proved against him. After receipt of the said Notice the Bank of India Employees Union raised an Industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna and the said dispute was ultimately referred to CGIT No. 2, Dhanbad, vide Notificaiton No. L - 12011 / 167/ 2003 - IR (B - II ) dated 16-9-2003 . The said dispute is registered as reference case No. 100 of2003 by the Hon'ble Tribunal . The said reference ispending for adjudication . In the meanwhile , the management passed Order ofPunishment of Removal from Bank's services with superannuation benefits vide Punishment Order No. ZO: MUZ : IR: 110 dated 9-7-2003 .

After prolonged discussions between the parties the Management as well as Workmen agreed to settle their disputes with following terms and conditions:

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT 1. The Management agreed to modify the punishment ofRemoval from Bank's services with superannuation benefits in terms of Para 6 (b) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-4-2002 imposed upon the workman vide Order of Punishment dated 9-7-2003 to the punishment on "Reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay fora period of four years " in terms of para 6 ( e) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-4-2002;

2. That, the Management will reinstate the workman in the services of the Bank without back wages;

3. That, the Workman would not claim any wages and other monetary/non - monetary benefit for the period from the date of his removal till the date he resumes his duty after publication of the settlement award;

4. That, the Workman would not raise any dispute atany forum pertaining to this aspect in future;

5. That , the punishment of reduction by two stages in the time scale of pay for period of four years will be effective from the date ofjoining ofduty of theWorkman,

(Signature of the Parties representingboth) 1. Employer : P.K. DHAR

Zonal Manager Muzaffarpur- zone 2. Workman:

Two Witness:

1. A.K. SAHU

2. DEVASHIS CHAKRAVORTY

नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 609.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ओरिएण्टल बैंक ऑफ कामर्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं . 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/147/2001- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 609.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. 45/2002 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, No-2 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on18-01-2006.

[No. L - 12012/ 147/2001 - IR (B- II )] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRUBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N.RAI. I.D. NO . 45/2002 In the Matter of Shri Sharwan Kumar, C/o. Shri Pramod Kumar, LIG, Flats, Flat No. 454 , Pocket No. 6/2 , Sector : 2 , Rohini, Delhi -85

Verses

The General Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce , HarshaBhawan , E- Block, Connought Place, NewDelhi - 110001 .

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L- 12012/ 147/2001 IR (B - II ) Central Government dt . 19-6-2002 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder:

"Whether the action of the management of Oriental Bank ofCommerce in terminating the services of Shri Sharwan 1378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

Kumar, Ex. Driver, w.e.f. 16-1-2001 is just , fair and legal ? If not, what relief he is entitled to and from which date. " The workman applicant has filed statement of claim. In the statement of claim it has been stated that the applicant was employed by the management of the Bank as Driver on consolidated salary per month and was attached with Shri S.K. Bhatia. Dy. General Manager (I& C) H.O. Oriental Bank of Commerce , New Delhi as a personal Driver to drive official vehicle provided to him by the bank. The copy of the letter dated 25-9-1999 is enclosed herewith as proof of employment which is Ex. W- 1/ 1 .

The workman/ applicant was employed by the bank/management on 22-2-1994 and was in the employment of the bank till 31-1-2001 after Shri S. K. Bhatia , Dy. General Manager, voluntarily retired, which is an illegal act on the part of the management , as during his service period, the workman was never given any chance of complaint to the management and worked with the management honestly.

That the workman was also doing the over time duties with the management , for which the management/ bank paid him the payments time to time by their own vouchers , and bank provided uniform time to time also .

That the applicant not only worked as driver but also discharged his duties as a peon in the bank which can be seen from the miscellaneous payment vouchers enclosed as Ex .WW- 1 /2 to WW- 1/ 18 . In fact the applicaant was treated to be the employee of the bank and not personal driver alone and called upon to perform all miscellaneous dutiesby the management from time to time.

Thatthe applicant was assured by the management at the time ofjoining the duties that he will be regularized by the bank as Driver- cum-peon after satisfactory. completion of 4 years services, but whenever the applicant requested to regularize him he was assured that his file has gone to higher authorities and in short time he will be regularized by the management .

That the bank had a policy duly approved by Board ofDirectors that drivers on consolidated salary were tobe absorbed in bank as Driver -cum - peon and under this policy they had absorbed Drivers on consolidated salary who had completed satisfactory 4 years service and had a valid driving license .

That under the policy of the bank the applicant became eligible for regular absorption as Driver/ peon on 22-2-1998 and Dy: General Manager ( I& C) H.O. O.B.C. , New Delhi had also certified completion of 4 years satisfactory service and copies of education certificate Driving License . Regn . Of Employment Exchange and proof of residence was also filed by the applicant in the office of management to complete the case for regularization.

Thatdespite repeated requests regularization orders were not issued and the management of bank vide letter dated 29-6-1998 stopped with immediate effect absorbing drivers on consolidated salary purportedly on

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Govt. instructions but as the applicant had completed 4 years satisfactory service the management proposed to recommend his case for permanent absorption .

That the applicant requested the management serveral times and also in writing to regularize him stating that as a driver the appplicant has been working since 1994 and also done the job of peon but the management has terminated the workman on 31-1-2001 without any fault on hispart.

That the workman is still unemployed and has not received any service after his best efforts . That the illegal termination of the workman caused him as well as his family members great loss and injury.

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that there never existed any employer - employee relationship between the applicant and the bank and therefore there can be no "industrial dispute" which can be referred for adjudication. The applicant himself admits that he was in the personal employment of shri S.K. Bhatia and Ex. Officer ofthe bank and such employment would not make him a " workman" of the bank , to raise the dispute . It is submitted that the reference is liable to be rejected and may be decided in favour of the management on this ground alone .

The claimant was never employed by the management bank as driver nor any salary was paid to him. Hewas a personal driver of Shri S.K. Bhatia, the then General Manager ( I &C) . Head Office to drive his vehicle Annexure "A" to the claim statement merely reveals that the claimant worked as Driver with Shri S.K. Bhatia in his personal employment from 22-2-1994 to 25-9-1999 and it does not indicate in any manner that the claimant was an employee of the management of the bank. The employment in the bank is made as per the settled recruitment policy. The employees are issued appointment letter /letters/ documents/identity cards etc. to show them as employees ofthe bannk .

Since claimant was not an employee of the bank , the question of his over time duties with the management doesnot arise. Ifthe claimant has ever been paid any a mount on vouchers , it would not create the master servant relationship . The concerned officer if allowed certain payments to the applicant would not mean that the bank has employed the claimant .

It is submitted that earlier there existed a policy that personal drivers engaged by the Executives of the bank , after completion of 4 years of service were made eligible for absorption as Peons in the bank's service. In a separate settlement with the employees Federation on 26-6-1996 , the peons who were recruited in the bank after working 4 years in personal employment of the bank's executives as Drivers were re- designated as Peon cum Driver . Thereafter the Government vide their letter dated 23-6-1997 advised that no personal drivers could be absored भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माष 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

in the employment of the bank as the same was against the policy of public employment. Further it was directed that recuitment should only be made through the regular recruitment channel and the case where appointments had alreadybeen done may not be re - opened. Accordingly the bank vide its office note dated 10-7-1997 decided to comply with the above said Government guidelines . It is also stated that after 10-7-1997 , no personal driver in the employment ofthe bank's executives was absorbed in the employment ofthe bank . Thus the claimant is not entitled to be absorbed in employment of the bank on this ground.

As stated in the foregoing paragraphs , no such policy exists in the bank after 10-7-1997 under which the claimant had become eligible for absorption in the employment of the bank after completion of 4 years of service inthe personal employment of the then Dy. General Manager ( I& C ) , Head Office . It is also denied that the claimant had submitted any requestto the management as stated in this para.

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder and has reiterated the averments of his rejoinder.

Evidence of both the parties has been taken .

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

It was submitted from the side of the workman applicant that he was employed by the management on the post ofDriver and he was in the employment of Shri S. K. Bhatia from 22-02-1994 till 31-01-2000. He has discharged his duties satisfactorily besides driving work . He has also performed other duties of the Bank . When the workman applicant requested for regularization he was assured of the same.

It is also submitted that as per the policy of the Bank the Drivers deputed on consolidated salary were absorbed in the Bank as Driver -cum - Peon who completed satisfactory service of 4 years and whose license was valid. The workman applicant has completed 4 years of satisfactory service and his name has also been registered in the employment exchange so he should be regularized by the management .

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the applicant has admitted that he was in the personal employment of Shri S. K. Bhatia and Ex. Officer ofthe Bank. There is no employee - employer relationship between the workman and the Bank. The claimant was not an employee ofthe management and he has not been made any payment by the Bank regarding his duty as Driver. It was further submitted that earlier there existed a policy that personal Drivers engaged by the Executives of the Bank wereeligible for absorption as Peon in the Bank's service as per the settlement dated 26-06-1996 with the Employees Federation. Thereafter the Government vide their letter dated 23-06-1997 advised that no personal Drivers should be absorbed in the employment of the Bank as the same was

1379 against the policy of public employment and against the principles of right to equality and recruitment should be made through regular process after these guidelines ofthe Government no Driver has been absorbed in the employment of the Bank.

Itwas a submitted from the side of the workman that the workman has been paid by Shri S. K. Bhatia. I have perused the photocopy ofthe Cheques of Rs . 2500/- which has been issued by the bank in the name of Shri S. K. Bhatia. The workman has not filed any cheque which has been issued in his name by the Bank Shri S. K. Bhatia was entitled for a vehicle and so allowance was paid to him for payment to his personal Driver. The workman was simply a personal Driver of Mr. S. K. Bhatia and he was at no point oftimeDriver of the management Bank.

It was further submitted from the side of the workman that some vouchers and Cheques have been issued to him for other miscellaneous work of the Bank . I have perused the Cheques and the vouchers . The payment has been made to the workman for purchases of the Bank and for sitting besides his duty hours . The workman applicant was engaged by Mr. S. K. Bhatia. It was his duty to remain inthe bank premises to take Mr. Bhatia home. Whenever there was additional work load the Driver remained with Shri S. K. Bhatia and an additional allowance has been paid to him. These payments cannot be said to be payment in employment of the Bank. The workman applicant discharged additional duties than the duty of the Driver and he was paid accordingly for that but he was not in the employment ofthe bank.

My attention was drawn to AIR 1978 SC 481- the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the personal Driver ofArea Manager of Nationalized Banks is not a person employed by the Bank . In view of this decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the workman does not fall in the category of workman under section 2 (s) of the ID Act , 1947. I find no merit in the case of the workman applicant .

The reference is replied thus :-

The action of the management of Oriental Bank of Commerce in terminating the services of Shri Sharwan. Kumar, Ex. Driver, w.e.f. 16-01-2001 is just, fair and legal . The workman applicant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

Award is given accordingly.

Dated: 10-01-2006.

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 610.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय नं. -2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1380

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

withdrawal ofRs . 21,000 from the said S. F. A/ c . 6859 among other alleged misconducts mentioned therein .

76/95) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

That the management had already made up its mind , [सं. एल-12012/ 54/1995- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

prior to the issuance of the said charge sheet , to hold the workman Shri Singh Ram Singh guilty of the charges and punish him to fulfill the main part of the aforesaid conspiracy, obviously designed to shield and protect the real culprits-certain officers of the bank- who had cffectively designed and connived in the alleged fraud of Rs . 21,000 which has been pinned, as a part of the said conspiracy, to the workman concerned Shri Singh Ram Singh , who has factually been made a " scapegoat" to safeguard the real culprit officers of the bank.

S.O. 610. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award Ref. No. 76/95 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No. 2 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Panjab National Bank their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006.

[No. L - 12012/54 / 1995 - IR (B- II ) ]

C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER : CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-

LABOUR COURT - II , NEW DELHI

I.D. NO. 76/1995

PRESIDING OFFICER : R.N.RAI .

In the matter of :-

The State President ,

That on certain matters, the opinions of different hand- writing experts were obtained by both , the management of bank and the charge sheeted employee (CSE), in that, the report of Shri C. K. Johri , hand - writing expert is a reasoned report based on the well established rules and laws envisaged in that behalf by the world's renowned eminent authorities on the subject and the recognized scientifice ethis (ethics) in regard therewith. It was/ is authoritatively opined by Shri Johri in his said report that the initials on the entry of Rs . 80,000 and that on the balance entry ofRs . 82,100 are not under the hand and in thewriting of the CSE Shri Singh Ram Singh . On the other hand the report of Pandit Ashok Kashyap, Hand -writing Expert , produced by the bank management is obviously a " non- speaking and unreasoned " report and is not manifestly based on the scientific ethics recognized by the eminent authorities on the subject .

PNB Employees ' Union , 14/123 , Krishnapur, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, Uttar Pradesh - 248009 .

Versus

The Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank, E.K. Road, Meerut(UP).

AWARD

TheMinistry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/54/ 95 IR(B - II ) Central Government Dt . 17-7-1995 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :-

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , Meerut in imposing the punishment of stoppage of four annual graded increment with cumuíative effect on Shri Singh Ram Singh , Cashier , vide their order dated 31-08-1992 is legal andjustified? If not, what relief is the said workman entitled to ?"

That the element of " bias" and the " ill -conceived designs " of the said conspiracy, had further travelled in its natural course from the seniors in management to the Junior i. e . to the mind of the Enquiry Officer who has also acted in a prejudicial manner showing partiality in favour of bank management. Though in his judicial wisdom, he has held charges Nos . 1 , 3 and 6 as not proved , while as a next step ofthe aforesaid conspiracy and under the natural influence of the " bias " transmitted to this mind from the seniors , the inquiry officer has held to hold charge No. 2 to be read in para 8 line 9 at the place marked " * " " which is " ex- facie " a concocted charge and not at all a charge in itself in view of the fact that the concerned workman Singh Ram Singh has confirmed, admitted and repeatedly stated that voucher dated 14-02-1991 for Rs . 23,000 was is a genuine voucher correctly released by him on 15-02-1991 for credit to S. F. A/c . No. 2881. " As proved and charges Nos. 4 and 5 as partly proved a novel precedence of its kind in the History ofLaw. A charge will either be proved as a whole or it will not be proved at all . The contention/ finding of the two charges as " partly proved " is indeed, ridiculous , which fact on record proves only the existence of the aforesaid conspiracy and the element of "bias " against the CSE Singh Ram Singh . The report/ findings of inquiry officer being based on doubts , suspicion , conjectures and surmises, is obviously " perverse" .

The union on behalf of the workman has filed claim statement. In the claim statement it is stated that under conspiracy hatched up and desigried in connivance with and at the behest of our rival union , the workman Shri Singh Ram Singh was falsely implicated into an alleged case of fraud , and was charge-sheeted vide charge- sheet dated 15-06-1991 for the alleged misconducts , mainly accusing of facilitating in the opening of a fake and fictitious S. F. A/c No. 6859 in the books of the bank , issuance of chequebook in that account , thus facilitating the fraudulent

The management has filed written statement . In the written statement it has been stated that the dispute has not been duly and properly espoused as envisaged under the provisions of the ID act, 1947. Accordingly, no valid [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

dispute canbe said to have arisen in the eye of the law. It is thus submitted that the Hon'ble Authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

Before giving reply on merits we would like to give the brief facts of the case for better appreciation of the matter. The service conditions of the workman staff in the banks are governed by Shastri Award , Desai Award and 1st to 6th Bipartite Settlement . Chapter 19 of the First Bipartite Settlement deals with disciplinary action and procedure therefore.

The workman committed acts of gross misconduct for which he was served with charge sheet dated 15-06-1991 wherein it was alleged that :-

While working as Clerk/Cashier, you have mis- conducted as hereunder : ----

You accepted cash of Rs . 100 from Shri Sohan Lal , Staff member for new SF A/ c . of Shri Sohan Lal Pralad Garhi , Ghaziabad as receiving cashier on 11-02-1991 , despite of having knowledge that the a/c does not relate to him, thereby facilitating opening of fictitious SF a/c No. 6859 in the books of the bank . You also failed to inform this fictitious opening of a/c to your higher authorities .

Whileofficiating as SF Incharge on 15-02-1991 you released a credit clearing voucher of Rs . 23,000 from SF No. 2881 of Shri Shivnadan Singh and Shail Kumari under your signature and later on , tampered the bank's records by tearing off the portion of aforesaid voucher containing the part of authorized signatory in order to conceal the fraudulent intentions.

You initiated the fictitious credit entry of Rs . 23,000 on 15-02-1991 and confirmed the balances in the ledger sheet of fictitious SF a/ c no . 6859 in absence of supporting credit voucher .

Whileofficiating as SF Incharge on 20-02-1991 a letter of request for issuing cheque book in the fictitious SF a/c No. 6859 was received by you duly signed by Shri Sohan Lal, Clerk/Godown Keeper of the branch . But despite of having knowledge that the a/c is a fictitious one , you verified the signatures on letter of request and , thereafter obtained the orders of the Manager without bringing the facts to the notice of the Manager . Thereafter , you delivered the cheque book No. 713661-680 to the above named employee of the branch after obtaining his signatures in cheque book issued register, with the result that an amount ofRs . 21,000 was fraudulently withdrawn on 21-02-1991 on the strength of cheque No. 713662 issued from the above cheque book .

You initialed the fictitious credit entry of Rs . 80,000 on 22-02-1991 and confirmed the balance in the ledger sheet ofaforesaid fictitious Saving Fund A/ c. No. 6859 in the absence of supporting credit voucher.

You misrepresented the facts to the Bank vide your letter dated 12-03-1991 , that the account holder of SF A/ c No. 2615 Shri Ram Baboo Singhal , is not personally know to you , whereas the facts are otherwise .

By your above actions you have thus willfully acted in connivance and in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank and involving the bank in a financial loss amount to Rs . 21,000 . The same is covered under gross misconduct

1381

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

in terms of para 19.5 (j ) of First Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 as amended.

The subject employee submitted reply , to the charge sheet, dated 29-06-1991 which was duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority who not being satisfied with the reply ordered Departmental Inquiry to enquire into the allegation levelled in the charge sheet vide order dated 10-09-1991 . The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice and afforded all reasonable opportunities to the charge sheeted employee to submit his defence . The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 09-07-1992 along with the complete inquiry records which was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and after accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer proposed punishment of stoppage of four annual graded increments with cumulative effect " for the proved misconduct vide its order dated 20-08-1992 .

The subject was granted personal hearing on 31-08-1992 . The contentions raised by the subject was duly considered by the disciplinary authority who decided to confirm upon the employee the proposed punishment of "stoppage of four annual graded increments with cumulative effect " for gross misconduct vide order dated 31-08-1992 . His appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority vide order 04-01-1993 .

The union on behalf of the workman has filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder the union has reiterated the averments of claim statement of the workman and has denied most of the paras of the written statement. The management has also denied most of the paras of the claim statement .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

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

It was submitted from the side of the union that a conspiracy was hatched up and it is in connivance and at the behest of the rival union that the workman was falsely implicated into the alleged case of fraud and he was charge sheeted vide charge sheet dated 15-06-1991 for the alleged mis-conduct.

It was further submitted that the management was pre-determined to held the workman guilty of false charges in order to fulfill the main part of the aforesaid conspiracy obviously to shield and protect the real culprit/certain officers of the Bank . They have effectively designed and connived in the alleged fraud of Rs. 21,000 and the workman has been made a escape goat to safeguard the real culprit/ certain officers of the Bank . The workman was not involved in any of the charges .

Itwas further submitted that report of Shri C.K. Johri . the hand-writing expert is a correct report based on well established rules and laws envisage in that behalf of the eminent authorities and recognized scientific ethics . The InquiryOfficer relied on the report of Shri Ashok Kashyap whose report itself is non - speaking and non - reasoned manifestly on the scientific ethics recognized by the eminent authorities on the same subject . The Inquiry Offieer was baised and he was also pre - determined to find the charges proved. But his conscience did not permit him to hold the [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

1382

workman guilty of all the charges . He found him guilty of charge No.2 only and he found other one partly proved. The findings are ridiculous and perverse and based on no evidence. The Inquiry Officer was also in collusion with the officers of the Bank .

It was further submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not find charge No. 1 proved which is regarding opening of fictitious account . He found charge no.2 proved regarding clearance vouchers of Rs . 23,000 . The Inquiry Officer did not find charge no . 3 proved regarding the fictitious voucher of Rs.23,000 on 15-2-1991 . The fictitious credit entry of Rs.23,000 is alleged to have done on 15-2-1991 but the charge of credit clearing of the same voucher of Rs.23,000 has not been found proved by the Inquiry Officer. Charge No.2 & 3 relate to the same transaction . The Inquiry Officer has found charge no.3 not proved and charge No.2 proved.

It was further submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not find the charge of fraudulently withdrawing an amount ofRs.21,000 on the strength of cheque No. 713662 issued from the above cheque book .

land that suspicion and doubt however , strong cannot take the place of evidence . The witness MW - 2 , has only expressed his doubt regarding tearing a part of the voucher having the signature of the CSE. So findings based on doubts and suspicious are no findings in the eye of law. The InquiryOfficer was determined to find the CSE guilty of some charges or the other so he found charge No.2 proved on the doubt expressed by MW - 2 . There is no evidence worth the name to prove charge No.2 . Doubt of MW - 2 cannot take the place of evidence , hence the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer on charge No. 2 is perverse being not based on any evidence not to say of legal evidence . It appears that the Inquiry Officer took the side ofthe management in their mala fide intention to victimize the innocent CSE . It was further submitted that charge No.2 relates to signing of the voucher by the CSE, charge No.3 is also making entry of Rs . 23,000 fraudulently by the CSE. Ifthe charge regarding fraudulent entry of Rs . 23,000 is found not proved by the Inquiry Officer how can he prove the tearing of the portion containing the signature onvoucher ofRs. 23,000 . Charge No. 1 & 2 are interrelated. If one is not proved the other cannot be proved as I have mentioned earlier no charge can be proved on the basis of expression of doubt of MW- 2 . So there is no evidence evenfor finding the CSE guilty of charge No.2 .

It was further submitted that the workman has not initialed the fictitious credit entry of Rs.80,000 still the Inquiry Officer found charge No. 5 partly proved. It was further submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not find charge No.6 proved . The Inquiry Officer found only charge No.2 proved and charge No.3 partly proved.

It was further submitted from the side of the union thatthe vindictive attitude of the management is manifest from the bare fact that the management framed 6 charge against the CSE and made best effort to prove all the 6 charges and examined all the material witnesses but could not prove all the 6 charges . So the charges have been framed as a result of malicious intent and vindictive attitude of the management . Malicious attitude and bias can be inevitably inferred from the conduct of the management that 6 charges are framed and entire evidence is proved by the Inquiry Officer but the Inquiry Officer did not find almost 4 charges proved.

It was further submitted that the InquiryOfficer has found the CSE guilty ofcharge No.5 partly proved . Charge No. 5 is regarding the initial of Shri Singh Ram Singh on the fictitious voucher of Rs . 80,000 on 22-1-1991 MEX - 6 . He has relied on the opinion evidence of the expert . The contention of the Inquiry Officer is that the opinion evidence of Shri Ashok Kashyap is more detailed and contains in depth comparison of the disputed and admitted initials of Shri Singh Ram Singh . On the basis of the expert opinion charge No. 5 should be proved . The charge is can be proved if there are two parts of it. Charge No.5 is regarding the initials of Shri Singh Ram Singh on the fictitious voucher of Rs.80,000 . It may be found not proved. It cannot be found partly proved as there are no two aspects of this charge . The Inquiry Officer has held that it has not been established that the aforesaid posting was done in the absence of supporting voucher.

It was further submitted that the Inquiry Officer became a part of the malicious and devilish design of the management and the vindictive attitude ofthe management and to save his position he found charge No.2 proved and charge No.5 partly proved whereas there is no evidence for the same .

I have perused the expert report of Shri C.K. Johri which is on the record, the management deliberately concealed the expert opinion of Shri Ashok Kashyap and it is not on the record either of the inquiry or of this casc . So I cannot scrutinize the findings of Shri Ashok Kashyap . The expert report of Shri C.K. Johri is on record . I have perused and scrutinized the same . The opinion expressed by Shri C.K. Johri is quite correct.

Itwas submitted that the management has examined Shri Ashok Kashyap , the hand - writing expert on MEX - 1 . Hehas stated during the course of its cross examination in the inquiry that MEX- 20 contains initials of the same pattern with minor variation of natural type. Ifadmitted is compared with disputed there cannot be variation of natural type. There can be artificial variation so this witness has deposed against the scientific principles of hand - writing. The hand -writing expert . Shri Ashok Kashyap has itwas submitted that while proving charge No.2 the Inquiry Officer has held that MW - 2 page 41 of the proceedings register proceedings dated 28-1-1992 wherein he has categorically stated that his doubt goes on Shri Singh Ram Singh and that he must have put his signature on the voucher for having passed it from the ledger sheet and the motive of doing this was removing the record of having put signature on the voucher . The Inquiry Officer has based his findings on the statement of MW - 2 . MW- 2 has stated that his doubt goes on Shri Singh Ram Singh the CSE . MW- 2 has expressed his doubt . He has nowhere stated that Shri Singh Ram Singh was instrumental in tearing his signature on the voucher. It is settled law of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

concealed so many principles of hand - writing comparison. The expert witness has also proved the initials on MEX- 15 ofthe CSE but the Inquiry Officer has not found him guilty ofthis charge. The hand - writing expert has found the entry ofRs . 80,000 initialed by the CSE but the Inquiry Officer has not found the charge proved. Shri Ashok Kashyap , the hand -writing expert has maintained that the disputed and admitted initials of the disputed documents are ofthe CSE but the witnesses have deposed otherwise so this expert witness is highly interested and no reliance can be placed on his testimony.

ChargeNo. 1 is regarding fictitious opening ofaccount No. 6859. Charge No.5 is regarding initialing the ficitious credit entry ofRs. 23,000 in account No.6859. Charge No. 4 is regarding fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.21,000 . ChargeNo.1 was not found proved by the Inquiry Officer hence the opening of the account No.6859 is not fictitious. Charge No.3 was also found not proved by the Inquiry Officer so the CSE did not initial the fictitious entry of Rs.23,000 . The Inquiry Officer did not find charge No.4 proved. Charge No.4 isregarding fraudulent withdrawal ofRs.21,000.

It transpires that there was some employee behind fictitious opening of account No. 6859 initialing the fictitious credit entry of Rs.23,000 and fraudulently withdrawing Rs.21,000 . It appears that this act has been committed by some other employee and the management has shield him and the charges have been fictitiously framed against this innocent employee. The Bank has not as yet determined as to who was behind the fictitious opening account No.6859 and initialing credit voucher or Rs . 23,000 and fraudulently withdrawing an amount of Rs. 21,000 . The Bank has levelled the charges with mala fide intent against the CSE and the bank could not prove the charges in the inquiry.

The Inquiry Officer found charge No.2 proved. Charge No.2 is regarding releasing a credit clearing voucher ofRs.23,000 and tearing of the portion of aforesaid voucher containing the part of the signature . MW - 2 has expressed doubt that tearing of the portion was done by the CSE. There is no evidence on releasing credit clearing voucher of Rs.23,000. The CSE has allegedly torn the part of the voucher containing signature . Doubt of MW- 2 has been expressed on the tearing of the portion of the voucher. There is no evidence for releasing the credit clearing voucher of Rs . 23,000 . This charge is based on the suspicion ofMW- 2 . The CSE cannot be punished on the suspicion ofthe management witness who might have deposed falsely on the ground of his suspicion . So charge No.2 is also found proved.

1383

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/ माघ 22, 1927

asked to examine the disputed and admitted . There is no order in writing for examination of the disputed and admitted. I have myself perused the disputed and admitted initials. They are not of one and the same person. The statement of Shri Ashok Kashyap is not to be relied upon as he has found initials of the CSE on the other papers but the charges have not been found proved. So the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer that charge No. 5 is partly proved is absolutely perverse .

Charge No.6 has not been proved . It appears from the above discussions that the charges levelled against the CSE are an off - shoot of rivalry of the union . The CSE has not committed any misconduct.

Itwas submitted that this Court is not sitting in appeal over the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer has to rely on legal evidence. 4 charges relate to fictitious opening of account and doing fraudulent transaction. 3 charges have not been found proved and the Inquiry Officer has arbitrarily found charge No. 5 proved partly though charge No.5 also relates to account No.6859 as such the CSE was not involved even in charge No. 5. It is settled law that this Court can interfere in cases where mis- carriage of justice has been caused by relying on the evidence not admissible in evidence. Sophisticated and technical rule of evidence Act are not applicable in departmental inquiry but findings cannot be based on the suspicion of a management witness .

It was submitted from the side of the management that inquiry has been conducted according to the principles of natural justice and there was no rival union and there was no malicious design to victimize the innocent CSE . The inquiry proceedings and the evidence in the inquiry are sufficient proof of the charges . I have discussed in detail that none of the charges are proved. The Inquiry Officer was in collusion with the management . Six false charges has been levelled against the CSE . He was not involved in any ofthe charges. The substantial question is whether the management has a tight to harass and victimize aninnocent employee of the bank. Whether the authorities who are involved have a right to create false documents and false evidence with a malicious intent to punish the CSE?

The reference is replied thus:-

The action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Meerut in imposing the punishment of stoppage of four annual graded increment with cumulative effect on Shri Singh Ram Singh, Cashier , vide their order dated 31-8-1992 is neither legal nor justified. The workman applicant is entitled to get back all the arrears which has arisen on account of stoppage of four annual graded increments with cumulative effect. The management should pay the entire arrears of wages to the workman deducted as a result of order dated 31-8-1992 within two months of the publication of the award along with a cost of Rs.5,000 .

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 12-01-2006

Charge No. 5 is regarding initialing the fictitious credit entry ofRs.80,000 of22-2-1991 and confirming the balance in the ledger sheet of aforesaid fictitious saving fund account No.6859. Account No.6859 is involved in charge No. 1 , 3, & 4. It becomes manifest that there is some employee beyond opening fictitious account No.6859 initialing the ficititious credit entry of Rs.23,000 and fraudulently withdrawing Rs.21,000 . That employee should be behind making credit entry of Rs.80,000 . The evidence of Shri Ashok Kashyap is not trustworthy. He has been verbally 253 G1/ 06-27

R. N. RAI , Presiding Officer 1384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 611.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. - 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/17/1988 /डी- II ( ए) ]

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

सी. गंगाधरण, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 611.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 52/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No. 2 , New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Governmenton 18-1-2006.

[No. L - 12011 /17/ 1988 -D -II (A) ] C. GANGADHARAN, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI Presiding Officer : R. N. Rai

Industrial Dispute No. 52/1991

In the Matter of;-

The State President , Punjab National Bank Empl . Union , 28/10 , Kishanpur, Rajpur Road, Dehradun.

Versus

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, 18, New Road, Dehradun.

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12011/ 17/ 88/D - II (A) Central Government Dt . 06-09-1989 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in stopping the Hill and Fuel allowance to their employees posted at Srinagar-Garhwal w.e.f. July, 1987 without serving a notice of change in service conditions as required under Section 9 - A of the ID Act isjustified? If not , to what relief the said employees are entitled to ? "

The Union on behalf of the workmen has filed statement of claim . In the claim it is stated that the union made a representation to the Chief Personnel , Punjab National Bank , Head Office, New Delhi vide its letter No. 84-85/441 dated 22-10-1985 , thereby claiming payment of Hill allowance @ 8 % with a maximum ofRs . 75 per mensum w.e.f. 01-09-1978 to the employees posted/ working at B /O. Srinagar -Garhwal , enclosing in support a photo -stat copy of letter dated 23-08-1985 from the Surveyor General of India , Dehradun describing therein the height of the place "Kothar " as 1360 metres above sea level . A certificate from theMunicipality, Srinagar Garhwal to the effect that the said place " Kothar " is within Municipal limits of Srinagar- Garhwal was also enclosed therewith .

That the Bank authorities were pleased to sanction payment of Hill allowance to employees stationed at Srinagar-Garhwal but w.e.f. 01-10-1980 instead of 01-09-1978 . The Union made yet another representation to the Chief Personnel , Punjab National Bank, Head Office , New Delhi vide its letter No. 84-85/448 dated 14-11-1985 thereby inviting their attention to Union's earlier communication on the subject and requesting them for reconsideration of their decision in view thereof, but with no positive response on the subject, in corconsequence whereof the union had no other alternative except that of the espousal of an Industrial Dispute , as such an industrial dispute No. D -7 (39 ) /86 -ALC was preferred vide statement ofclaim dated 03 Nov. , 1986 by the union, which was seized into conciliation by the ALC (C ) , 117 , Chander Nagar, Dehradunand notice dated 15-12-1986 was issued in respect thereof, to which the management filed its written statement dated 19-01-1987, thereby clarifying that since the point of determination on the basis of " highest point within the Municipal limits of the Station " came into being by means ofMemorandum No. 11021/4 /76 -E(2 ) P dated 03 July, 1979 issued by the Government of India , Ministry of Finance, Department of expenditure , the Payment of Hill allowance w.e.f. 03 July, 1979 has been decided by the IBA and the same will be paid to the employees stationed at Srinagar- Garhwal only on their production of a certificate from the Municipal board, Srinagar - Garhwal to the effect that the highest place " Kothar " was included in the Municipal limits ofSrinagar-Garhwal on a date prior to 03 July, 1979, and the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( C) , Dehradun was pleased to close the said ID vide his letter No. D -7 (39 )/86- ALC dated 30-01-1987 thereby asking the union to make available the desired certificate .

Thatin due course of time the desired certificate was obtained from the Municipal authorities and furnished to the Bank authorities ; but the management , instead of paying the arrears w.e.f. 03 July 1979 till 30 Sep. , 1980, stopped payment of Hill allowance to the employees stationed at Srinagar -Garhwal in utter disregard and absolute violation of the mandatory provisions of the Bipartite Settlement , as well as of the Industrial Dispute [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Act, 1947 by not following the procedure laid down in Section 9 -A of the Act, 1947 read with the fourth schedule appended to the said Act , are mandatory provisions and the management is bound to act in accordance therewith and any violation thereof renders the action of the management void ab initio and non - est in the eyes of law, as such the action the management in stopping the Hill and Fuel allowance to employees posted at B/O. Srinagar- Garhwal is ab initio voidbecause notice of change in service conditions as required under Section 9 -A of the ID Act, 1947 had not been served hence the action is illegal and unjustified.

That in view ofthe foregoing the employees/workmen postedat Srinagar-Garhwal are legitimately entitled to get Hill and Fuel allowance in terms of Para 8 of the third bipartite settlement dated 31 Oct. , 1979 w.e.f. 01-09-1978 .

That the aforesaid employees /workmen posted at B/O Srinagar -Garhwal are also entitled for compensation for their sufferings on account of the illegal , arbitrary and malafide actions of the management and in addition thereto these workment are also entitled to reimbursement of the entire expenditure incurred in the conduct of the instant Industrial Dispute from conciliation stage till the publication oftheaward.

The management has filed written statement. Inthe written statement it has been stated that the service conditions of the workmen employees working in the banking industry are governed by Awards /Bipartite Settlements arrived at between the representative ofBank Management through Indian Banks Association and the Unions , in terms of Section 18 ( i) of the ID Act , 1947, It is provided in the settlement that ;

" If any doubt or difficulty arises regarding interpretation of the provisions of the settlement, the matter will be taken only at the level of the Indian Banks Association , all India Bank Employees Association and the National Confederation of Bank Employees for discussions and settlement. "

Since the payment of Hill and Fuel allowance involved interpretation as to whether it is admissible at Srinagar- Garhwal , as per the settlement , the above named union should have preferred the matter to Indian Banks Association or to be National Confederation of Bank Employees , to which the said union is affiliated, before invoking the jurisdiction of the authority.

That the dispute has not been validly and properly espoused as required in terms of provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act and as such the Hon'ble Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter .

The service of bank employees are governed by Shastri Award , Desai Award and settlements known as BPS I, II , III , IV and V signed at Industry level between the Banking Industry and the Employees Union on 19-10-1966, 12-10-1970, 01-08-1979, 17-08-1984 and 10-04-1985.

1385

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

That para 174 and 175 of Shastri Award and Para 6.32 ofDesai Award initially provided for the provisions ofHill Allowance and Fuel Allowance which were amended vide clause 9.3 to 9.5 of I Settlement dated 19-10-1966 and clause II ( C) , II ( d) ( i ) , II ( D) ( ii ) settlement on other issues dated 08-11-1973 vide clause 8 of settlement dated 31-10-1979 , Hill and Fuel allowance were combined and was to be paid throughout the year depending upon the height of the place . It was further laid down that it is payable at place which are specifically declared as " Hill station " by Central Government or State Government concerned irrespective oftheir height @ at which it is payable to the places situated ata height of over 1000 meters sea level but less than 1500 meters.

On15th and 16th April , 1980 discussions were held between Indian Banks Association and All India Banks Employees Association and National Confederation of Bank Employees wherein it was decided as follows :-

(1) Parties agree that Hill and Fuel allowance will bepaid at Dehradun in view of the Government Notification No. O. M. 11021/4/76-EII(B) dated 22-03-1979.

(ii) In cases where Hilk and Fuel allowance is payable to Government Employees by a Notification similar to the one issued in respect ofDehradun, Hill and Fuel Allowance will be payable under the BPS dated 31-10-1979 .

(iii)

(iv) For the purpose of determining whether a place is eligible for Hill and Fuel Allowance and the rate at which such allowance is payable , the height of the place as supplied by Survey of India will be taken into account- not - however, the highest point in the city or the town. However, hereafter , the payment of Hill Allowance will be determined on the principles laid above.

(A)

The personnel committed at its meeting held on 19th December, 1980 accepted the guidelines issued by the Government of India for determining the height of a hill station for the purpose of Hill Compensatory Allowance. The relevant portion of the Government Notification reads asunder :-

"Henceforth the criterion for the purpose of determining the height of a Hill Station should be the height ofthe highest point within the Municipal/ Statutory limits ofaHill Station.

That since Srinagar- Garhwal had neither been specifically declared as Hill Station by the State/Central Government not the same is situated at a height of 1000 meters , the provision of Hill and Fuel Allowance are not applicable there.

1386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

The workman applicant has filed rejoinder. In his rejoinder he has reiterated the averments of his claim statement and has denied most of the paras of the written statement .

Evidence ofboth the parties has been taken.

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

Itwas submitted from the side of the Union that Hill Allowance to the employees stationed at Srinagar-Garhwal weresanctioned w.e.f. 1-10-1980 instead of 1-9-1978 . The Union made representations for making payment from 1-9-1978 but the management stopped payment of Hill Allowance to the employees stationed at Srinagar- Garhwal inutter disregard and absolute violation of the mandatory provision of the BPS as well as the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 by not following the procedure laid down in Section 9( a) of the Act , 1947 read with IVth Schedule appended to said Act . These provisions are mandatory and the management is bound to act in accordance therewith and any violation renders the action of the management void ab initio and non - est in the eyes of law.

In was submitted that the management was bound to pay Hill and Fuel Allowance in terms of Para 8 of the third BPS dated 31 October, 1979 w.e.f. 1-9-1978 . The action ofthe management is illegal and arbitrary.

Itwas submitted from the side of the management that the Banking Industry is governed by the settlements arrived at between the representatives of the Bank Management through Indian Banks Association and the Union and it has been provided in the settlement that if any doubt or difficulty arises regarding interpretation of the provision of the settlement , the matter will be taken only at the level of Indian Banks Association , All India Banks Employees Association and the National Federation of the Bank Employees . The above named union should have referred the matter to IBA or to NCDE to which this union is affiliated before invoking the jurisdiction of the authority. So the dispute has not been validly and properly espoused .

It was further submitted that Paras 174 and 175 of Sastri Award and Para 6.32 of Desai Award initially provided for the provision of Hill and Fuel Allowance but the same was amended by Clause 8 of the settlement dated 31-10-1979 and Hill and Fuel Allowance was to be paid throughout the year depending upon the height of the place. The Hill Station Allowance was to be paid if there is any Central or State Governinent declaration irrespective ofthe height.

It was further submitted that the discussions were heldbetween the Indian Banks Association and All India Banks Employees Association and National Federation of

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] Bank Employees. It was decided that if Hill and Fuel Allowance is payable to Government employees by any notification the same will be paid to the bank employees also . The Government of India determined the height of Hill Station for the purpose ofHill Compensatory Allowance and the criteria was laid down for the purpose of determining height of Hill Station, the height ofthe highest point within the Municipal/ Statutory Limits of the Hill Station will be taken into account . Srinagar-Garhwal has not been specifically declared as a Hill Station by the State/ Central Government nor is the same situated at a height of 1000 mts . The provision of Hill and Fuel Allowance are not applicable to the employees .

It becomes quite obvious that Hill allowance to the employees concerned is to be paid if that particular Municipality or Statutory locality is declared as Hill Station and if the height is above 1000 mts . which is to be determined with the highest point of a particular place of the locality.

It was submitted from the side of the management thatSrinagar-Garhwal has not been declared a Hill Station by any State or Central Government so the allowance is not to be paid by the Bank . The second criteria for payment is the height of the place calculated in respect to the highest pointof thatHill Station . Srinagar - Garhwal is not a height ofmore than 1000 mts . Kotthar a place situated in Srinagar- Garhwal is at a height of 13600 mts . as per Survey of India report, Annexure -2 . The height of Srinagar - Garhwal is to be determined taking into consideration the highest point 13600 mts . Srinagar - Garhwal is not above 1000 mts.

It was further submitted by the Bank that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has declared Amethi , Nainital , Dehradun , Pouri Garhwal and Tehri Garhwal as Hill Station but Srinagar-Garhwal has not been declared to be a Hill Station. So Hill allowance is not to be paid. Srinagar- Garhwal has not been declared a Hill Station by the Government of UP. as per the report of Survey of India the height of Srinagar- Garhwalfrom the sea level is about 640 mts . The highest point in Srinagar -Garhwal is Kotthar soHill allowance can be paid to the employees of Kotthar as it is at a height of 1040 mts . which is above the height of 1000 mts . Hill and Fuel allowance cannot be paid to the employees of Srinagar - Garhwal on the basis that Kotthar is situated at a height of over 1000 mts . though situated in the same Municipality. The Municipality Srinagar- Garhwal is not situated at a height or more than 1000 mts . so according to the criteria and settlement of the Union Banks Association allowance is not payable .

The Indian Bank Association by its letter dated August 25 , 1989 has advised the Dy. GM, PNBto freeze the allowance in case of existing employees posted at their branches in question . The Indian Bank Association in April , 1988 informed the Asstt . GM that Hill and Fuel allowance 1387

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

NewDelhi , the 18th January, 2006 is not payable to the employees of Srinagar -Garhwal as it is not situated above 1000 mts .

S.O. 612.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 212/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelationtothe management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2006.

[No. L-22012/ 174/ 1996 -IR (C -II) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer Ittranspires from perusal of the criteria laid down for payment ofHill and Fuel allowance that the employees of Srinagar-Garhwal are not eligible for the same as that locality is not situated above 1000 mts . height . The employees are notentitled for Hill and Fuel allowance as that locality has not been declared as Hill Station by any State or Central Government . The IDA has also admitted that Hill allowance is not tobe paid to the employees of Srinagar -Garhwal as it is not at a height of more than 1000 mts . so the payment has been made by mistake and when it was brought into the knowledge of the authorities that payment has been wrongly made, the payment was stopped.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR

COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 212/97

Presiding Officer: Shri C.M. SINGH

Workman

Shri Shivcharan Singh, S/o Shri Balraj Singh, Ex. employee, Birsinghpur, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Versus

It was submitted from the side of the union that stoppage of payment is affected by section 9 ( a) of the ID Act, 1947. No notice has been given to the union u/s 9(a) and the service conditions of the employees has been changed. It has been held earlier that Srinagar - Garhwal is not situated at a height more than 1000 mts . so as per the settlement the employees are not entitled to Hill allowance. Sothere is no change of service conditions of the employees against the settlement . The payment has been stopped under the settlement and the employees were being paid Hill allowance by mistake so a mistake has been corrected and service conditions have not been changed so there is no question of notice u/s 9 (a) of the ID Act , 1947. There appears to be no merit in the case of the union and the concerned employees are not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The reference is replied thus :---

The General Manager, SECL, Johilla Area, PONowrozabad, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 4th day of January, 2006 The action of the management of Punjab National Bank in stopping the Hill and Fuel allowance to their employees posted at Srinagar - Garhwal w.e.f. July, 1987 without serving a notice of change in service conditions asrequiredunder section 9-A of the IDAct, 1947 isjustified. The workmen applicants are not entitled to get any relief as prayedfor.

TheGovernment of India , Ministry of labour vide its Notification No. L -22012/ 174/96 - IR (C -II ) dated 11-15-7/97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

Award is given accordingly.

Date: 10-1-2006

R. N. RAI , PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी, 2006

"Whether the action of the management of Johilla Area of SECL, Nowrozabad, Distt. Shahdol (MP) in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Charan Singh Ex-cook w.e.f. 28-11-95 is legal andjustified ? If not towhat relief is the workman entitled and from which date."

का.आ. 612.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एल.सी. / आर./212/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/174/1996- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

2. After the reference order was received, it was duly registered on 4-8-97 and notices were issued to the parties to file their respective statement of claim . But after sufficient service of notice an workman by registered AD post , he failed to put in appearance and file his statement of claim. It appears from the record that in the year 2005 , the workman filed the settlement deed in form- " H" . Thereafter the management moved application dated 22-9-2005 with the 1388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

prayer that the present dispute be decided and award be passed in terms of settlement in the interest of justice . With the aforesaid application , the settlement arrived at between the parties is attached as form " H " . Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for management on 3-1-2006 , submitted that the workman has been re- appointed as per terms of settlement arrived at betweenthe parties. He requested that the dispute be decided and award be passed in terms of settlement in the interest of justice . The following are the terms of settlement :-

(1) That Shri Sheo Charan, S/o Shri Balraj Singh is hereby re- appointed as cook in T & S Gr . " F " and he shall report for his duty at Vindhya Project canteen. His date of joining shall be taken from the date he joins at Vindhya Project .

(ii) That Shri Sheo Charan has been medically examined on 26-3-97 and found medically fit.

(iii) On the basis of principle of NO WORK NO PAY, Shri Sheo Charan shall not claim any wages for the period from the date of his dismissal from the service to the date of re- appointment.

(iv) Shri Sheo Charan shall not raise any dispute in connection with this case before any court of law or forum whatsoever either individually or through any Union .

(v) Shri Sheo Charan shall withdraw the cases pending before in the court of law, RLC ( C) , Jabalpur /Ministry of Labour in connection with this case .

(vi) This is full and final settlement and shall be binding upon both the parties . A copy of this settlement shall be sent to ALC ( C) Shahdol for his office record within one month .

3. The terms of settlement arrived at between the parties arejust and fair . Therefore the award is passed in terms of settlement without any order as to costs .

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

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 613.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एल.सी./ आर. /99/ 89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/176/1988 - डी4 ( बी ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 613. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 99 /89 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2006 .

[No. L- 22012/ 176/1988 -D4 (B) ]

N.P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/ R/ 99/ 89

Presiding Officer : Shri C.M. Singh

AreaGeneral Secretary,

Workman/Union RKKMS ( INTUC ) , Korba Area Subhash Block and No. C/ 121 , PostKorba Colliery, Distt . Bilaspur. Versus

Management The General Manager, SECL, Korba (East ) , Korba Colliery, Distt . Bilaspur (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January, 2006 The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 22012/ 176/88 -D- 4 (B ) dated 5th May, 1989 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the date of birth of Shri Palakdhari was correctly entered by the Sub Area Manager , SECL, Korba in his service record ? If not, to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

2. The case of workman Shri Palakdhari in brief is as follows . That he had got employment as loader in Ex- Ramsagar, Incline No. 3 & 4 , Korba of the Ex - NCDC Ltd. in March 1959. After being employed , he was physically examined by the Medical Officer of the Colliery. The workman was illiterate. As per provisions of Mines Rules 1955, the Medical Officer had ascertained by examination his age as 24 years and had issued certificate of fitness for employment . As per the certificate of fitness so issued, his agewas thereafter recorded as 24 years in 1959 in Form " B " Register. The workman was thereafter transferred to Ex- 1389 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006 /माघ 22, 1927

service record . Thereafter the workman did not raise any objection. In the year 1979 , he represented about his age recorded in the service book and therefore the management referred his case once again to the medical board for assessment of his age. The workman appeared before medical board and the medical board assessed his age as 58 years as on 24-11-1979 . His age was recorded by the Medical Board. This age recorded by the Medical Board wasagain recorded in service book of the workman . After the age was assessed by the Medical Board , workman Shri Palakdhari did not make any representation and kept quite. On the basis of age recorded as 58 years as on 24-11-79 workman Shri Palakdhari was retired from service on attaining age of 60 years on 24-11-1981 . The date of birth ofworkman Shri Palakdhari has been correctly entered in the service record and therefore the workman is not entitled to any reliefwhatsoever.

4. The ordersheet dated 20-2-2001 of reference No. R/ 76/89 reveals that my learned predecessor in office passed order that this case and 4 other cases mentioned therein shall be put with reference No. R/ 76/ 89 . The ordersheet dated 22-8-2001 of the above reference case reveals that the order passed therein on 22-8-2001 shall govern this reference as well as 4 other reference cases . It appears that this reference case and 4 other reference cases mentioned above were put up along with Reference No. 76/89 on every dates fixed till 3-2-2004 whereby all the cases proceeded exparte against the workman and 7-5-2004 was fixed ofevidence of management and in this way this reference proceeded exparte against the workman.

5. For proving their case , the management filed affidavit Shri K.N. Dubey, the then Personal Manager at AHQ of SECL, Korba Area.

Ramsagar Incline No. 1 & 2, Korba w.e.f. 18-1-1960 as loader . In Form "B" Register maintained at Ex - Ramsagar Incline No. 1 & 2, Korba his age was recorded as 25 years in 1960 and subsequently 26 years in 1961 , 27 years in 1962, 28 years in 1963 and so on . That his age was also recorded as 25 years in his CMPF Declaration Form " A" when he was qualified for the membership of CMPF in 1960. His CMPF Account Number was A/ 216262 . He was issued Identity Card bearing No. 4003 by the Company and in the said Identity Card, his date of birth was recorded as 1-7-35 . The said date of birth aught had to be recorded in his service book but it was not done so till the year 1972 and the column ofdate of birth in his service book was left blank. In the year 1972, his date ofbirth was disputedly recorded as 1-7-1921 without any reasonable ground making 14 years of difference in his service book . This fact was then not known to the workman and even he was not communicated about it by the authorities concerned. The workman came to know about the fact of wrong entry of his date ofbirth as 1-7-1921 just after a few months of his transfer to security section, Korba w.e.f. 1-9-1978. He then made representation to the Sub Area Manager, Korba and Rajgamar vide his application dated 10-7-1979 for rectification ofhis date ofbirth as per records. The workman and the Union had been continuously approaching and submitting representations to the management by submitting his Identity Card as a proof for the rectification ofhis age but the workman was illegally and improperly retired from service w.e. f. 25-11-1981 about 14 years earlier ofhis age of superannuation . It is therefore prayed that the Honourable tribunal be pleased to nullify the wrong entry ofthe date ofbirth made as 11-7-1921 in the service book of workman and be pleased to order the reinstatement of workman from the very date of his illegal and premature retirement with full back wages .

6. It appears from the record that both the parties filed some documents also . But those documents cannot be read in evidence as they have not been proved in accordance with the law of evidence .

7. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate for the management . I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record .

8. As the case proceeded exparte against the workman, there is no evidence on record in support ofthe case of workman . The case of management stands fully provedby the unrebutted affidavit of Shri K.N. Dubey, the then Personal Manager. The reference is therefore answered infavour of the management and against the workman , 3. The management contested the reference and filed their Written statement . Their case in brief is as follows . Workman Shri Palakdhari was working as GeneralMazdoor in the Security Section. He entered the service prior to nationalization in the year 1960 , the then National Coal Development Corporation. At the time of his initial appointment , there was some confusion regarding his date ofbirth . Therefore the case of workman Shri Palakdhari along with many other persons whose correct date ofbirth was not available in the service record was referred to the Age Determination Committee in the year 1972 . The Age Determination Committee met on 11-11-1972 . Workman Shri Palakdhari appeared before the Age Determination Committee . On the basis of material produced, the Age Determination Committee determined the date of birth of Shri Palakdhari as 11-7-21 . The said date ofbirth was therefore entered into the service book of the workman. The workman did not make any objection when his date of birth was recorded in the service record as 11-7-1921 . He also affixed his thump impression on the

9. It is hereby held that the date of birth of Shri Palakdhari was correctly entered by the Sub Manager, SECL, Korba in his service record and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. Keeping into consideration the circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own cost of this reference . The reference is answered accordingly.

1390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

adjudication by this tribunal:-

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager , Rajgamar Colliery of M/ s SECL, in recording the date ofbirth of Shri Rampal as 1-10-36 isjustified? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

5 का.आ. 614.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एल.सी. / आर ./118/90 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/180/ 1988 डी4 ( बी ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 614. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/ R/ 118/ 90 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2006.

[No. L- 22012/ 180/ 1988 -D4 (B) ]

N. P. KESAVAN , Desk Officer

2. The case of workman Shri Rampal in brief is as follows. That he was employed in Ex - NCDC Ltd. Korba Colliery as piece rated loader on 5-9-62. His age was recorded as 20 years on the date ofhis initial appointment in Form " B " Register maintained by the management . The age/ date of birth recorded in form "B " register is treated most authentic and reliable and the same cannot be altered or changed without any sufficient reasons and grounds and without giving notices to the workman . The age/date ofbirth ofthe workman once recorded in Form " B" register and other concerned records should have been recorded in his service sheet . The management did not act sincerely and recorded disputed date of birth as 1-10-36 , at random and without any base in service sheet , which made a difference of age for about 6 years more . The workman when came to know the facts of wrong entry of date of birth inhis service sheet, he represented to the management vide his application dated 27-11-87 supported by certified copyofbirth record issued from the Collectorate, Fatehpur , UP along with affidavit . That as per Birth Record Certificate, the date ofbirth of workman is 15-12-1942 . It is prayed that this tribunal be leased to order for correction of date of birth as 15-12-1942 in service sheet of the workman on the basis of certified copy of Birth Record Certificate issued fromthe Collectorate , Fatehpur, UP.

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC / R/ 118 /90

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRIC.M. SINGH

TheArea General Manager ,

Workman/Union

R.K.K.M.S ( INTUC) , Korba Area, C/ 121, Post Korba Colliery, Distt. Bilaspur .

Versus

The General Manager,

SECL, Korba (East) , Korba Colliery,

Management

Distt. Bilaspur

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of January, 2006

3. The management contested the reference and filed their written statement. Their case in brief is as follows . The workman Shri Rampal was working as Haulage Khalasi in Rajgamar Colliery. As per his service record available with the management, the date of birth of workman Shri Rampal is recorded as 7-10-36 in the service record . The aforesaid entry has been made on the basis of the declaration in form " A " given by the workman himself. The service records bear the thumb impression of workman Shri Rampal . The service record was mainatained by the then National Coal Development Corporation and is a very old record which was maintained by NCDC Ltd. According to Coal Mines Regulation , Registier of employment known as Form " B " Register is also maintained by the management. The details in form " B" register are entered on the basis of information given by the employee concerned . In the form " B" register maintained by the management, the date of birth of Shri Rampal is given as 1-10-36. The entries in the Form " B " Register have been countersigned by the workman. After coming into force of implementation of instruction No. 37 under NCWA- I11 , a notice was displayed on 23/ 24-4-82 in which details and date ofbirth ofemployees were displayed. In item No. 263 , The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012 ( 180 )/88 - D- IVB /IR(Coal - II ) dated 23-4-1990 has refered the following dispute for [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

thedate ofbirth of workman Shri Rampal was also displayed as back as in the year 1982. Inspite of the above notice workman Shri Rampal never raised any objection regarding his date ofbirth . After coming into force ofimplementation Instruction No. 76. of NCWA No. III, service excerpts were circulated to each and every employee . When the service excerpts ofworkman Shri Rampal were given to him, he did not raise any objection regarding his date ofbirth. Since in the case of workman Shri Rampal , there is no disparity in the age recorded and his physical appearance and the date ofbirth entered in different statutory registers is identical , there is no scope of reviewing or rectification of the age recorded as per the decision taken by the Managers of all the Central Trade Unions in JBCCI circulated vide implementation Instruction No. CIL/NCWA- III/ 76 /88/185 dated 25-4-88 of which INTUC is also a member . Looking into the facts and circumstances, it has been submitted on behalf of the management that the management is fully justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief whatsover.

4. The case proceeded exparte against the workman.

5. There appears to be a so -called affidavit of workman on record which is not a valid affidavit . It does not bear the proper stamp duty and it has not been sworn inaccordance with law and therefore it cannot be read in evidence .

6. The management in order to prove its case examined Shri O. P. Tamrakar , the then Personal Manager at RajgamarSub Area of SECL, KorbaArea.

7. The parties have also filed documents on record but the same have not been proved in accordance with law ofevidence and therefore they cannot be read in evidence .

8. There is no evidence to prove the case of workman on record. The case of the management stands fully proved by the uncontroverted and unrebutted affidavit of Shri O.P. Tamrakar, the management's witness . Consequently the reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman.

9. It is hereby held that the action of Sub Area Manager, Rajgamar Colliery of M/ s SECL in recording the date of birth of Shri Rampal as 1-10-36 is justified and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. Looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost of this reference . The reference is answered accordingly.

10. The copy of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour as per rules.

C.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer 253 G1/06-28.

1391

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 615. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी. /एल.सी. / आर. /76/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/177/1988 - डी4( बी ) ]

एन. पी. केशवन , डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 615. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/76/89) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of SECL and their workman, whichwas receivedby the Central Government on 18-1-2006.

[No. L - 22012/ 177/ 1988-D-4(B)] N. P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/76/89

PRESIDING OFFICER : Shri C.M. Singh

Workman/Union TheArea General Secretary; RKKMS ( INTUC) , Subhash Block, Qr.No. C/ 121 , P. O. Korba Colliery, Distt. Bilaspur(MP)

Versus

The Sub - Area Manager, SECL, Rajgamar Colliery P. D. Rajgamar Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January, 2006 TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/ 177/88 -D-4(B) dated 6-4-89 has refered the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the date of birth of Sri Rambharosh was correctly entered by Sub Area Manager, SECL [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

Rajgamar Colliery in service record ? If not , towhat relief the workman is entitled ?"

1960. The management of SECL has also got a Form " B " Register in which the date of birth of workman Shri Ram Bharosh is also recorded. In the said register, his date of birth is recorded as 28-3-38 . The said entry has also been attested by the workman by fixing his thumb impression . According to Implementation Instruction No. 76 of the NCWA , when the various records maintained by the management do not show any discrepancy, there is no necessity for dis-believing the records in the management . However, the case of workman was also referred to the Age Determination Committee . The Determination Committee after verifying the records and other details given by the workman recommended and held that the date of birth of workman Shri Ram Bharosh is 28-3-1928 and not 12-12-39 as claimed by him and he has been correctly retired w.e.f. 28-3-88 . It is , therefore, prayed that this tribunal be pleased to hold that the date of birth of Shri Ram Bharosh workman has been correctly entered by the management and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The order sheet dated 3-2-04 reveals that the case proceeded exparte against the workman .

5. It appears from the record that both the parties have filed certain decuments on record but those documents have not been proved in accordance with the law of evidence and therefore cannot be read as evidence .

6. The management filed affidavit of Shri O.P. Tamrakar, the then Personal Manager in support oftheir case .

7. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate , the leamed counsel for the management and perused the entire evidence on record.

2. The case of the workman Shri Ram Bharosh in brief is as follows . That he was originally appointed at Ex- Ramsagar Incline No. 1 & 2 of N.C.D.C. Limited, Korba w.e.f. 23-4-1959 . At the time of employment, he was aged about 19 years . After his employment he was medically examined by the Medical Officer of the Colliery and the Doctor had ascertained his age as 19 years and had issued certificate of Fitness . His age thereafter was recorded as 19 years in Form " B " register of the year 1959 and 20 years in Form " B " Register of the year 1960 and so on . The age recorded in Form " B" Register is most reliable and authentic and is not disputable. His age aught had to be recorded as 19 years in 1959 in his service record. But it was not done so and the column of date of birth in the service record was left blank till the year 1972. The office recorded his date of birth as 28-3-1928 in his service book in the year 1972 as per report of age committee . But the workman had never been called before the age committee and he was not even informed about the assessment of his age by the Age Committee . The workman was issued Service Excerpt Form in the year 1987 by which he came to know about the wrong entry of his date of birth as 28-3-1928. The workman represented his case vide his application dated 13-11-87 supported with the certified copy of the birth record issued by the Collectorate , Bilaspur with affidavit , claiming his actual date of birth as 12-12-1939 for correction of his date of birth as 12-12- 1939 instead wrongly recorded as 28-3-1928 . The management did not consider his case inspite of documentaryproof in support of date of birth and retired him illegally and arbitrarily w.e.f. 28-3-88 . It is therefore prayed that this tribunal be pleased to order to restore the age as 19 years in the year 1959 as per entry made in Form- "B" Register or order to rectify as 12-12-39 as per certified copy of birth record issued by Collector, Bilaspur . It is further prayed that the tribunal be pleased to order to reinstate the workman from the date of disputable retirement i.e. 28-3-88 and order for full back wages .

8. The case of the management is fully established from the unrebutted and unchallenged affidavit of Shri O.P. Tamrakar, the Personal Manager ofthe management . There is no evidence on record in support of the case of the workman.

9. In view of the above , it is hereby held that the date ofbirth of Shri Ram Bharosh was correctly entered by the Sub Area Manager , SECL. Rajgamar Colliery in service Record and consequently he is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. Under the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost of this reference .

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer 3. The management contested the reference and filed their written statement . The case of the management in brief is as follows . Workman Shri Ram Bharosh was working as mechanical fitter in Rajgamar Colliery. As per service record available with the management, the date of birth of shri Ram Bharosh is recorded as 28-3-1928 . The aforesaid entry in the service record is based on the declaration in Form-" A" given by the workman himself. In the service record, Shri Ram Bharosh has given his thumb impression as a token of having accepted the details entered in the service record maintainedby the management . The aforesaid entry in the service record was made by the management of National Coal Development Corporation at the time of initial appointment of the workman in the year 1393

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 616. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. 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 जीआई टी/एल सी/ आर/ 101 /89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/181 / 1988 - डी4 ( बी) ] एन.पी. केशवन , डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 616. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 101 /89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour. Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006.

[No. L-22012/ 181 /1988- D4 (B) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/101/89

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI C. M. SINGH

R.S. Incline No. 1 & 2 Korba w.e.f. 7-12-64. He was about 18 years old at the time of his appointment . He was illiterate, hence he had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his age at the time of appointment . He wasjust afterhis appointment, physically examined by the Medical Officer of the colliery who had ascertained his age as 18 years and had issued certificate of fitness. Thereafter the age ofworkman was recorded as 18 years in Form " B " Register. That his age was also recorded as 18 years in CMPF Declaration form " A" . The age of the workman aught hadto be recorded as 18 years on the day of his apointment in his service book also as per entry of his age made in certificate of fitness in Form -K, Form "B " Register and CMPF Declaration Form-" A" . But the office erred and overlooked to make correct entry of his date of birth in service book and without any basis recorded his date of birth as 1-7-1934. That in making wrong entry of his age/ date of birth in service book, the workman would suffer premature retirement 12 years earlier than the actual age of his superannuation . The workman has been issued certified copyofbirth record by the Collectorate , Bilaspur (MP ) in which his date of birth has been recorded as 10-3-1947 . Thatthe elder brother of the workman named Manmodh is also working in the same establishment. Manmodh is 7years older than the workman . The date of birth recorded in the service book ofManmodh is 15-3-40 . The workman could know about the wrong entry of his date of birth as 1-7-34 in his service book only after issuing to him the service excerpt bearing NO. 635 dated 11-8-87 . It is requested that the management be directed to review/ rectify the date ofbirth of workman as 10-3-47 as per birth record issued by the Collectorate, Bilaspur ( MP) or as per entry made in Form "B" Register maintained for the year 1964 , 1965 and 1966 .

Workman/Union

The Regional General Secretary, R.K.K.M.S. ( INTUC) , Korba Area, Suchash Block , Qr. No. C/ 121 , PostKorba Colliery, Distt.Bilaspur.

Versus

The Sub Area Manager , SECL, Korba (East) , KorbaColliery, Distt.Bilaspur.

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 5th day of January, 2006

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012/ 181 /88 - D - 4 dated 1-5-89 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the date of birth of Shri Makram was correctly entered by Sub Area Manager , SECL/ Rajgamar Colliery in his service record ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

3. The management contested the reference and filed their Written Statement . The case in brief is as follows : The workman Shri Makram was working in Rajgamar Colliery. According to his service record , the date of birth of Shri Makram as recorded is 1-7-1934. This entry has been made on the basis of Form -A, declaration given by workman Shri Makram. The date of birth has been entered in the service book as back from 7-12-1965 when the workman was initially appointed. The entries were made in hispresence and he had put his thump impression as token of its correctness . On the basis of form " A " declaration, his date ofbirth has also been entered in Form " B" Register which was counter signed by the applicant. In form -B register , the date of birth of the workman is shown as 1-7-34. The entries are made therein in the presence ofthe workman and after the entries were made , the same were explained to the workman and his signature was taken on it as a token of its correctness . The workman Shri Makram was aware of his date of birth and he never made any representation at any stage. After coming into force of implementation Instruction No. 34 , the date of birth was 2. The case of workman Shri Makram in brief is as follows. That he was originally appointed as Ex - NCDCLtd. , 1394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/ MAGHA 22 , 1927

notified for all concerned . The workman Shri Makram never made any objection. After the NCWA - III came into force and as per implementation of Instruction No. 76, details of the service records were circulated. This was also given to workman Shri Makram. There was no disparity in the various records maintained by the management and considering his physical appearance , there was no need to interfere in the case and the date of birth of workman Shri Makram was correctly recorded as 1-7-1934 and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The case proceeded ex -parte against the workman.

5. There appears to be a so- called affidavit of workman Shri Makram but it is not a legally valid affidavit. It does not bear the proper stamp fee and has not been sworn in in accordance with law . Therefore , it cannot be read in evidence.

6. The management in order to prove its case examined Shri O.P. Tamrakar, the then posted as Personnel Manager in SECL , Korba Area .

7. I have heard Shri A.K. Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management and very cerefully perused the entire evidence on record.

8. There is no evidence on record for proving the case ofthe workman whereas the management's case stand fully proved by uncontroverted and unrebbuted affidavit ofmanagement's witness Shri O.P. Tamrakar . The reference is therefore answered in favour of the management and against the workman .

9. It is hereby held that the date of birth of Shri Makram was corretly entered by the Sub Area Manager , SECL Rajgamar Colliery in his service record and consequently the workman is not entitled to any relief. Keeping into consideration, the circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost of this reference . The reference is answered accordingly.

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 617.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. 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 CGIT/LC/R/ 100/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/174/1988 - डी4 ( बी ) ]

एन.सी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

S.O. 617.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 100/89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006 .

[No. L- 22012/174/ 1988- D4 (B) ]

N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC/R/ 100/89

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI C.M. SINGH The Area General Manager,

R.K.K.M.S. ( INTUC ) , Korba Area,

C/121, Post Korba Colliery,

Workman/Union Distt .Bilaspur.

VERSUS

The Sub Area Manager, SECL , Kusmunda Project , PO Kusmunda, Distt. Bilaspur.

Management The General Manager, SECL , Korba (East ) , KorbaColliery, Distt . Bilaspur.

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of January, 2006

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/ 174 /88 - D- 4 dated 28-4-89 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the date of birth of Shri Jhunuram was correctly entered by Sub Area Manager , SECL , Rajgamar Colliery in his service record ? If not, to whatrelief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

4 2. The case of the workman Shri Jhunuram in briefis as follows . That he was originally appointed as Ex -NCDC Limited, Ram Sagar Incline No. 3 & 4 Korba w.e.f. 19-2-1958. At the time of his employment , he was aged about 18 years . He was just after appointment physically and medically examined by the Medical Officer of the Colliery who has ascertained his age as 18 years and had issued 1395

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

inaccordance with law and therefore it cannot be read in evidence.

6. The management in order to prove its case filed affidavit of Shri O.P. Tamrakar, the then working as Personnel Manager at Rajgamar Sub Area of SECL, Korba Area.

7. Both the parties have filed certain documents on record but they have not been proved in accordance with law of evidence and therefor cannot be read in evidence.

8. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate, the learned counsel for the management and perused the entire evidence on record .

9. There is no evidence on record for proving the case of workman whereas the case of the management is fully proved bythe unrebutted and unchallenged affidavit ofmanagement's witness Shri O.P. Tamrakar . Therefore , the reference is answered in favour of the management and against the workman .

him certificate of fitness . His age was recorded in Form "B" Register as 18 years . In CMPF declaration Form " A" his age was also recorded as 18 years . His age aught had to be recorded as 18 years on the date of his appointment in service book . That the workman could know about the wrong entry of his date of birth as 1-7-1932 in his service book when on 19-9-87, service excerpt form bearing No. 151 was issued to him. That the office erred and overlooked to make correct entry of his date of birth/age as 18 years in his service book and without any basis recorded his date ofbirth as 1-7-32. Due to wrong entry of date ofbirth in his service book, the workman will suffer from premature retirement about 7 years 9 months earlier than his due date of retirement. The date of birth of the workman as per School Leaving Certificate is 15-4-1940 . It is prayed that this tribunal be pleased to order to cancel the wrong entry of date of birth made as 1-7-32 in the Service book of the workman and to order to review and rectify the date ofbirth of the workman as 18 years on the dayofhis appointment , i.e. , on 19-2-1952 as per Form "B " Register maintained by the management or as 15-4-1940 as per his School Leaving Certificate.

10. It is hereby held that the date of birth of Shri Jhunuram was correctly entered by the Sub Area Manager , SECL Rajgamar Colliery in his service record and therefore the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own cost of this reference. The reference is answered accordingly.

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

C. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 618.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी. एल. 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 CGIT/LC/R/ 172/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-01-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/18 / 1989- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

एन.सी. केशवन, डैस्कअधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006 3. The management contested the reference and filed their Written Statement . Their case in brief is as follows . That the workman Shri Jhunuram was appointed in the year 1958 by the then National Development Corporation as general mazdoor, Category- I . His date of appointment was 19-2-58 . That at the time of appointment, he gave his date of birth as 1-7-32. The said date of birth was entered in the service record by the management of NCDC. The workman Shri Jhunuram signed the same as token of its correctness. Under the NCWA Implementation Instruction No. 76 was issued. In this implementation instruction , certainguidelines regarding determination of date ofbirth inrespect ofexisting employees were made . After the receipt ofthe above implementation instructions, the date ofbirth of the workman and other employees was published for their information . The date of birth of workman Shri Jhunuram was notified as 1-7-32 . Because of certain objections raised by the workman , his case was referred to theAge Determination Committee as per implementation instruction No. 76. The Age Determination Committee examined his case on 14-6-88. After examining the case, the AgeDetermination Committee confirmed the date ofbirth ofworkman Shri Jhunuram as 1-7-32 and primary school certificateproduced by Jhunuram could not be considered in view of the specific provisions of the implementation instruction No. 76. Now there is no justification for changing the date ofbirth . It has been submitted on behalf ofmanagement that the date ofbirth of workman Jhumuram has beencorrectly recorded in service record and he is not entitled to any relief what soever,

4.The case proceeded ex-parte against the workman.

S.O. 618.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT/LC/R/ 172/89) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006 .

5. There appears to be a so -called affidavit of workman Jhunuram on record . It is not a valid affidavit . It does not bear proper stamp duty and has not been sworn

[No. L-22012/ 18/ 1989 -IR (C - II) ] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22, 1927

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT /LC/R/ 172/89

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI C. M. SINGH

The Area General Manager ,

R.K.K.M.S. ( INTUC) , Korba Area,

C/ 121 , Post Korba Colliery,

Workman/Union

Distt. Bilaspur.

1 Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

along with affidavit supported by photocopies of his school leaving certificate and Birth Record Certificate . That the date ofbirth of the workman as per school leaving certificate is 7-3-1942 and as per birth record, 10-6-1942. But the management arbitrarily retired the workman w.e.f. 16-4-88 inspite of his submitting authentic and reliable proof in support of his age and thus the management retired the workman prematurely about 14 years earlier than his due retirement . It is prayed that this tribunal be pleased to order to cancel the wrong entry made as 16-4-28, to order to restore the date of birth/ age as recorded in original Form -B register or as per School Leaving Certificate or Birth Record issued by the Collectorate , Bilapur, MP and be pleased to reinstate the workman in service from the date of his illegal retirement i.e. 16-4-88 with full back wages .

SECL, Kusmunda Project,

P.O. Kusmunda ,

Management

Distt. Bilaspur.

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of January, 2006

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012 ( 18)/89 - IR (Coal -II ) dated 19th September, 1989 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

"Whether the date of birth of Shri Mansa was correctly entered by the Sub Area Manager , SECL , Korba in his service record ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?"

3. The management contested the reference and filed their Written Statement . The case of the management in brief is as follows . That the workman Shri Mansa was working in Kusmunda Project of SECL. In the coal Mining Industry, a statutory register known as Form " B " register is maintained. That in this register various particulars of the workman i.e. name , address , father's name , age , etc. are given. Apart from the above , service sheet of every employee is also maintained . That as per service sheet maintained by the management , the date of birth of the workman has been recorded as 16-4-1928 . Workman Shri Mansa was appointed on 16-4-57 and the date ofbirth in his service sheet and Form " B " register has been reocrded as 16-4-1928. He was served with a notice of superannuation on 24-10-87 by way of pre - intimation and final notice of retirement was served on him on 13-3-88 . No objection was raised prior to raising the present dispute . After receipt of notice of retirement, the workman through his Union raised an Industrial Dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner . As per implementation Instruction No. 37 , the case ofworkman Shri Mansa was reviewed. In terms of para B - 1 - A of the Implementation Instruction No. 37 , it is agreed that the Matriculation or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by a recognized Board or University or MiddlePass Certificate issued by a recognized Board or University shalbe relied upon for the purpose of assessing the age ofan employee . The case of the workman Sri Mansa was reviewed and the date of birth was found to be correctly enteredby the management . The School Leaving Certificate onthe basis ofwhich the workman is basing his claim is a class- III Certificate which is not issued by any Board. Other certificate, i.e. extract of date of birth register issued on 1-12-86 cannot be relied upon as per implementation instruction No. 37. In Form -B register, the date of birth of the workman is recorded as 16-4-1928 . In the service sheet also, his date of birth is recorded as 16-4-28 . In the LPC issued to him at the time of transfer also his date ofbirth is recorded as 16-4-28 . The Form " B " register and service sheetbear the signature of the workman. If the contention oftheworkman is accepted, then at the time ofemployment, 2. The case of workman Shri Mansa in brief is as follows . That he was originally appointed in Ex . NCDC Ltd. , Korba Store w.e.f. 16-4-57 in Surface. His actual age at the time of his appointment was about 16 years and was given employment on humanitarian and compassionate ground in lieu of his deceased elder brother named Umend Daswho expired in April 1957. The age of workman was then recorded in form " B " Register, CMPF records as 18 years on the basis of medical examination report of the colliery doctor. The age/date ofbirth recorded in Form " B ", Register is reliable and most authentic documents and also is not disputable . The management prepared the service book of the workman much later than the date of his émployment and left the column of date of birth therein as blank. The management aught had to record his date of birth in service book as per entry made in Form " B " register, Form " K " and CMPF records in respect of his age and without any basis recorded his date ofbirth as 16-4-1928 in his service book . The management had issued the workman the service excerpts form bearing No. Nil dated 30-10-87 in which his date ofbirth was mentioned as 16-4-1928 which is in dispute . The workman had objected about the wrong entry made as 16-4-28 in his service book and claimed for verification and rectification as per entry made in his school leaving certificate or the birth record issued by the Collectorate, Bilaspur. He had submitted the representation [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

he would have been less than 15 years of age. No person would have been employed in the coal industry if he is below 18 years of age . Apart from the above , there being no discrepancy in the date of birth entered by the management in its various records, there is no justification ofreopening the case . It has been submitted on behalf of themanagement that the date of birth of the workman has beencorrectlyentered by the management and the workman isnot entitled to any relief whatsoever .

4. The reference proceeded exparte against the workman.

5. There appears a so -called affidavit filed by the workman on record . It does not bear proper stamp fee and is not sworn in accordance with law. Therefore it cannot be considered as evidence .

6. The management in order to prove its case filed affidavit of Shri Jose Mathew, the then Personnel Manager atKusmunda Project of SECL at District Bilaspur.

7.Both the parties have filed a few documents on record but they cannot be read in evidence as they have not been proved in accordance with law of evidence.

8. I have heard Shri A. K. Shashi , Advocate the learned counsel for the management and I have very carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.

9. There is no evidence on record for proving the case of the workman whereas the case of management stands fully proved by uncontroverted and unrebutted affidavit of management's witness Jose Mathew. The reference is therefore answered in favour of the management and against the workman .

1397

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22 , 1927

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006 S.O. 619. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 66/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of National Instruments Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-1-2006 .

[No. L-42012/187/2004 - IR (C - II )] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 21st November, 2005

Present : K, JAYARAMAN , PresidingOfficer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE NO .66/2005 (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 National Instruments Ltd. and their workmen)

BEETWEEN

I Party/Petitioner Sri Golak Nath Gangopadhyay :

AND

: II Party/Management The Chairman & Managing Director, National Instruments Ltd. Kolkata.

Apperance:

Forthe Petitioner

10. It is hereby held that the date of birth of ShriMansawas correctly entered by the Sub Area Manager, SECL , Korba in his service record and consequently the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief. Considering the facts and circumstances of this reference, the parties are directed to bear their own cost of this reference . The reference is answered accordingly.

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

C.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

का. आ. 619.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इन्स्ट्रूमेन्टस लिमिटेड 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 66/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/187/2004- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

: Mr. V. Bhiman, Advocate

: None

For the Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L-42012/187/2004-IR(C - II ) dated 10-8-2005 has referred this industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. The Schedule mentioned in that order is- "Whether the action of the management of National Instruments Limited in withholding the payment of leave salary and other terminal benefits i.r.o. Shri Golak Nath Gangopadhyay is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. After the receipt of time reference, it was taken on file as I.D. No. 66/2005 and notices were issued to both the parties and the I Party entered appearance through his advocate and filed the Claim Statement . In spite of notice 1398

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

and several adjournments , none appeared on behalf of the II Party/Management , therefore , the Respondent is called absent and set ex -parte.

3. The allegations in the Claim Statement filed by the Petitioner are briefly as follows :-

D.A. and he is entitled for eight months salary as leave salary. As I have already stated that the Respondent/ Management has not appeared before this Court even after notice, therefore , I find the allegations of the Petitioner are true and he is entitled to the claim made in the Claim Statement. Though the Petitioner claimed 18% interest from the date ofrelieving i.e. 29-4-97, he has not mentioned how he is entitled to 18% interest . Therefore , I find only 12% interest is justifiable in the facts and circumstances shown before this Tribunal . Ordered accordingly.

Point No. 2 :

The next point to be decided in this case is to what relief the Petitioner is entitled ?

7. In view of my foregoing findings that the Petitioner is entitled to eight months salary as leave salary and since the Petitioner has alleged that he was getting Rs. 5,853/ - per month at the time of his relieving , I find the Petitioner is entitled to Rs . 46,824/- with interest @ 12% from 29-4-97, but without any costs.

8. 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 day the 2 Ist November , 2005. )

K. JAYARAMAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

On either side

: None : Nil

Documents Marked:

On either side

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2006

The Petitioner was employed by the II Party/ Management for well over of 25 years . He was appointed as instrument mechanic from 27-9-1972 and he was promoted as Sales Supervisor (Jr. ) SSC Hyderabad during 1983 and then he was re -transferred to Regional Sales Office, Madras by an order dated 4-3-1992 . While so , he was not getting his monthly salary in time . Even after several representations the Respondent/ Management has not set right the same and therefore , the Petitioner has submitted his resignation to the II Party/Management and asked them to relieve on or before 11-4-1997 . But the Respondent has informed the Regional Marketing incharge to relieve him on 29-4-97. As such , the Petitioner has handed over the charge to Regional Marketing Incharge on 29-4-97 and requested to relieve him on 30-4-97. But the Respondent has not relieved the Petitioner stating that there was discrepancy in stock position and shortage of stock was amountingto Rs . 86 , 350 /- and hence asked the Petitioner to submit his explanation . Even though the Petitioner has submitted his explanation , the Respondent has not relieved him and also not paid the terminal benefits . After a long number of correspondence , the Respondent has settled the Petitioners ' gratuity alone and has not paid the leave salary for 240 days . The Petitioner's last drawn salary was Rs . 5,853 /- including D. A. and the Respondent has to pay eight months arrears which comes to Rs. 46,824/- . Since the said amount had not been paid from 29-4-97, the Petitioner claims interest @ 18%. Hence, he prays an award may be passed in his favour.

4. As I have already stated the Respondent has not appeared before this Court nor filed any Counter Statement , even after the receipt of notice , therefore , the Respondent is called absent and set ex -parte .

का. आ. 620.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार विदेश मंत्रालय के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं . 2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5. Under these circumstances , the points for my consideration are

[सं. एल-42012/166/2003- आई आर ( सी -11 ) ] एन.पी. केशवन, डैस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2006

(i) " Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management in withholding the payment of leave salary and other terminal benefits is legal andjustified ?"

(ii) " To what relief, the Petitioner is entitled ? "

Point No. 1 :-

S.O. 620. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award Ref. No. 122 / 2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 2, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Ministry of External Affairs , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-01-2006 .

[No. L-42012/ 166/2003 - IR(C- II )] N.P. KESAVAN, Desk Officer 6. In this case , the Petitioner has filed Claim Statement alleging that though he was relieved on 29-4-97, the Respondent/Management has not paid his eight months leave salary. He further alleged that Respondent has paid gratuity but not the leave salary. It is his further contention that his last pay drawn was Rs . 5853/- including 1399

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, NEW DELHI

PRESIDING OFFICER : R. N. RAI L. D. NO. 122/2004

IN THE MATTER OF :-

ThePresident,

Bhartiya General Mazdoor Congress (Regd. ) , PlotNo. 1, Aram Bagh, NearUdasin Mandir, Paharganj , NewDelhi .

Versus

TheDirector (Establishment) ,

Ministry of External Affairs , SouthBlock, New Delhi - 110001.

Shri Akhila Naik,

S/o. Biswanath Naik, At:Deulbera, P.O : Colliery, Angul .

AWARD

TheMinistry ofLabour by its letter No. L-42012/166/ 2003 IR (CM -II ) Central Government dt . 09-07-2004 has referred the following point for adjudication .

The point runs as hereunder:-

"Whether the contract awarded by Ministry of External Affairs to the contractor , M/s . Alert Decor is a sham contract ? If so , S/ Shri Satish Kumar and Ors., contract workmen ( list enclosed) are entitled for regularization in the establishment of Ministry of External Affairs and to what other relief they are entitled. "

Ittranspires from persual of the order sheet that notice to the workman was sent but he was not present on 10-11-2005 . The workman applicant has not even filed claim statement . The workman applicant did not turn up despite notice. Management was also not present . The workman applicant has not filed claim statement despite service of notice.

No dispute award is given.

Date: 12-01-2006.

R. N. RAI, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2006 का. आ. 621.- 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

253 GI/06-29

में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 'श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-8/ 2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जोकेन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-06 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/64/ 2002- आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

अजय कुमार, डैस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th January, 2006 S.O. 621. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( CGIT- 8 /2002. ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Jaipur 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 20-1-06.

[No. L- 12012/64/2002 - IR(B - 1) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR Case No. CGIT -8/2002 .

Reference No. L-12012/64/2002 IR(B- I)

Sh. Satish Kumar,

C/oPresident, All Bank Safai Karamchari Sangh, Raj . 50/238 , Rajat Path, Mansarovar,

Jaipur-302001.

...........Applicant

Versus

1. TheBranch Manager, The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. , Pareek CollegeRoad, Jaipur-302001.

2. The Dy. General Manager (PAD),

CentralOffice,

..........Non - applicants TheBank ofRajasthan Ltd. , Chomu House Circle, Sardar Patel Mar, Jaipur-302001.

Present :

Presiding Officer : Sh. R. C. Sharma,

Sh . R. C. Jain Fortheapplicant:

Sh. Alok

For the non applicant :

30-11-2005 Date of Award:

AWARD

1. The Central Government in exercise of the power conferred under clause ' D ' of sub- Section 1 , & 2 (A) to Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referredto as the ' Act ' ) has referred this industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under :-

1400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

" क्या श्री सतीश कुमार की सेवा समाप्ति दिनांक 19-5-2001 से दी बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान लि. प्रबन्धन द्वारा किया जाना न्यायसंगत एवं वैध है ? अगर नहीं तो कर्मकार किस लाभ का हकदार है और किस तिथिसे है ?"

2. The workman has pleaded in his claim statement that he joined the services of the bank as class 4 on daily wages w.e.f. 6-4-99 at its SG Pareek College Road , Jaipur Branch , who continuously worked till 18-5-2001 and his services were discontinued w.e.f. 19-5-2001 by the Branch Manager in violation of Section 25 -F of the Act . He has further stated that the payment of wages was made to him during this period through the pay orders /bankers cheque and about 20 pay orders were issued to him towards remuneration of the work performed by him in the said branch. While detailing the number of pay orders, the workman has stated that he had completed 286 days in total during this period but his service was terminated w.e.f. 19thMay, 2001 without following the legal requirements contained under Section 25 - F of the Act and Rule 77 of the ID Rules , 1957. He has urged that he be reinstated in the service with full backwages and with all others consequential benefits .

3. Resisting the claim , the non - applicants in their written-counter have averred that the workman was not regularly selected to the post of 4th Class, but he was engaged on requirement of work as a casual worker, who worked for a specified period and on the expiry of this period, his service automatically came to an end . They have pointed out that he had only worked from 11-12-99 to 9-3-2001 and he was never engaged after 9-3-2001 . Payment ofwages towards the work performed by him were paid to him for 138 working days. The non- applicants have disputed any kind of contravention on their part as alleged bytheworkman.

4. In the rejoinder, the workman has reiterated the facts as stated in the statement of claim.

5. In the evidence, the workman has examined himself as WW - 1 and on behalf of the non - applicants the counter -affidavit of MW - 1 Jaweri Lal , Sr. Manager was placed on the record . Both these witnesses were cross- examined by the respective opposite representative. The management has placed on record the relevant documents pursuant to the direction given by the Court on the urge made by the workman.

6. I have heard both the parties and have scanned therecord.

7. Now, the following questions emerge for determination :

(1) Whether the workman had completed 240 days in a calendar year during the period from 6-7-99 to 18-5-2001 and whose service was terminated in contravention of Section 25 -F of the Act ?

(II) Whether at the time of terminating the workman's service , the junior employees to him were retained by the bank ?

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Point No. I

1 8. The ld . representative for the workman contends that the workman had continuously worked during the whole period from 6-7-99 to 18-5-2001 . His next submission is that the workman in his affidavit has stated that he was paid in the names of other persons also and the bank has issued the banker's cheques mentioning the name of Kan Singh , who is an employee at the Pareek School and no question arises ofhis working as a daily wager in the branch , who had also signed on the other vouchers and that some bankers cheques were issued in the name of Hanuman Prasad , but the payment of wages was made to the workman . His submission is that these facts are clear from the cross-examination of the management witness and in reality the payment of wages was made to the workman. The next submission of the Id . representative on this point is that workman's evidence has stood unrebutted and while indicating towards the documents Ex. M- 19 , the bankers cheques and the application Ex. W- 20 , the ld. representative further contends that Hanuman Prasad is an employee of the bank then why the payment of wages was made to him , if the work was done by some other worker. He has also challenged that Ex . M - 19 does not say thatthe labourers were brought by Hanuman Prasad in the bank premises . Similarly, his contention is that vide bankers cheque Ex . M- 24 the workman had filled the water in the coolers and the payment was made to him but the cheque issued in favour of Hanuman Prasad . He has also assailed the genuineness of Ex . M-24 by arguing that it does not carry the signature of Hanuman Prasad and the handwriting on Ex. M -24 and M - 25 are different. According to his submission , vide bankers cheque Ex. M -24 the last payment ofwages was made to the workman on 5-5-2001 and his service was terminated from 19-5-2001 . The Id . representative has asserted that Ex. M- 24 and M - 25 are forged because Hanuman Prasad had not actually worked.

9. Then the ld. representative for the workman has also contended that the management witness has stated that the labourers used to come to bank from Chaukhati but on the another spot he has stated that Hanuman Prasad and Kan Singh brought them. He has also contended that according to his testimony the payment was made to the worker who did the work , then why the payment was made to Hanuman Prasad and Kan Singh . Therefore , the ld . representative contends that his testimony is contradictory. He has also assailed the evidence of management witness onthe count that he has admitted that M -24 does not carry his signature or the cashier or Hanuman Prasad who could not be produced to prove this background . It has also been contended on behalf of the workman that the non- applicants have stated in their written statement that the minimum wages was not Rs. 60/- or 70/ - and, therefore, the bank has not come with clean hands . He has contended that the non -applicants have not shown that the payment ofwages was made for how many days and there must have been some record with the bank to ascertain the number ofworking days for which the workman was paid. Therefore, the ld. representative contends that the bank has withheld the material documents with the intention that the number of days cannot be counted . Lastly, he has [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

contended that the workman has completed 240 days in thepreceding calendar year from 19-5-2000 to 18-5-2001 and even in the year 2000, he has completed 240 days and theworkman's evidence is uncontroverted which could be accepted.

10. Per contra, the ld, representative for the bank contends that all the documents which were summoned by the Court were filed by the bank accept one bankers cheque dated 19-11-99 worth Rs . 500/-bearing number 268738 andall the pleadings of the workman are outside the claim and the evidence led by him is also outside the purview of the pleadings . In the claim statement, the workman has mentioned 20 pay orders , out of them 19 have been filed by the management and there is no plea in the claim statement that the payment ofwages was made to him under the names of other persons, which is an afterthought pleading and has beendeveloped later on. The Id. representative then contends that on the basis of 19 pay orders the total amount of Rs. 8250/-was paid to the workman and the first payment was made to him on 10-12-99 vide Ex . M- 1 . At that time, Rs . 60/- wastheminimum prevalent wages and if this amount is divided by60, then the total number of working days are calculated as 138 days in total during the period of two years.

11. The Id. representative then controverting the payment of wages to the workman under the fictitious names contends that Hanuman Prasad was a permanent employee of the branch who could not be produced because be has expired. His submission is that on the alleged vouchers no name of workman is mentioned and the pay order Ex . M- 19 by which a sum of Rs . 600/- was paid to Hanuman Prasad as wages is supported by the application Ex. M - 20 . According to his submission , Hanuman Prasad was a daftary and normally the cleaning ofrecord room was looked after by the daftary and to keep the record in good condition he was directed by the management to bring the workers . Then theId . representative has also contended that Ex . M -24 and the application Ex . M - 25 specifically state that the work was got done by Hanuman Prasad and no name of workman is mentioned thereon. He has further contended that the workman has admitted in his cross -examination that he has received all the payments of wages from the bank and has admitted that he was the only person who was working in the bank on daily wages , who had been paid the wages for thework done by him .

12. In the rejoinder, the ld. representative for the workman contends that no strict rules of pleadings are applicable to the industrial disputes , that the wages worth Rs . 60/- were paid to the workman per day is not supported by Ex , M - 1 which carries the amount of Rs . 400/- and Ex . M-20 which is of Rs . 250/- as both these amount cannot be divided by Rs . 60/-. He has then raised an objection that if the payment was made through the bankers cheque then there was no necessity for obtaining the application from Hanuman Prasad and his signature has not been verified by any other office of the bank than the management witness . He has also raised an objection that it is not possible that Kan Singh, a chowkidar in the Pareek School would also work in the bank.

1401

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

13. I have bestowed my thoughtfull consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully gone through thejudicial pronouncements referred to before me .

14. Now, the first question which requires determination is whether the workman had completed 240 days of actual service during the calendar years preceding to his termination . The workman's case is that he had completed 240 days of actual work in each calendar year albeit he has not pointed out as to how many days he has completed. Besides, it is also the workman's case that he was forced to receive the payment of wages under the fictitious names , whereas the work was performed and the payment ofwages was made to him . On the other hand, the plea set forth on behalf of the bank is that the workman had put in only 138 days of service on the basis of the bankers cheques Ex. M- 1 to M- 18 and dated 19-11-99 issued in his name and produced by the bank before the Court and that the contention of the workman that he had also worked under the fictitious names is an afterthought.

15. Thus , the claimant has claimed the completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year on two counts , firstly that the wages were paid to him though few of the bankers cheques under his own name, whereas on various occasions it was paid to him under the fictitious names of other persons for the work discharged by him. The factual background in this context sans unnecessary details is that the workman in his claim statement has only confined to the bankers cheque through which the payment was made to him under his own name. He has not produced any documentary evidence in support of the submission , whereas the non- applicants in support of their written- counter brought on record about 18 bankers cheque . On 8-10-2003 , this Court on workman's application dated 10-6-2003 directed the non - applicant bank to produce the vouchers /bankers cheques of the period in question through which the payment of wages was made to the workman or the petty cash books/ cashier payment scrolls of the relevant period , the bankers cheque thereof were not available with it . However , the workman's request to summon the vouchers through which the payment ofwages was made to other persons was not accepted in the absence ofdisclosure of the specific plea as to under whose names the payment of wages was made to him . Pursuantto this order, the bankers cheques issues by the bank in favour of the workman were placed by it on the record along with the affidavitofRam Prasad Bhutra dated 17-5-2004 . Thereafter, the bank was directed to place the relevant record i.e. the cashier payment scroll/cash book of the relevant period for workman's inspection on his request and in furtherance of the aforesaid direction , the aforestated relevant record was produced by the bank before the Court on 25-6-2004 for inspection by the ld. representative for the workman and it was inspected on the same date. Subsequent to it, onthe next date when the case was fixed for recording the workman's evidence, his affidavit was filed wherein at para 7 he narrated the names of certain persons under whose names the bankers cheques were issued for the work allegedly performed by him and the wages were also received by him and these bankers cheques were detailed at para 9 ofthe affidavit , which are 21 in total , On 3-9-2004, 1402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

the affidavit of MW - I Jaweri Lal was placed before the Court during the stage of rebuttal evidence and the case was adjourned for further proceedings . Meanwhile , on 29-9-2004 the workman moved an application for providing him all the copies of the documents which was disposed of vide order dated 25-11-2004 ofthis Court directing the bank to file the remaining 10 bankers cheques out of 21 exhibited at para 9 ofworkman's affidavit and to file the affidavit for the bankers cheques which were not available with it. On 18-2-2005 , the remaining bankers cheques , except the bankers cheque bearing number 268738 dated 19-11-99 worth Rs . 500- were filed with an affidavit ofArvind Khanna that the only said bankers cheque is not traccable with the bank.

16. Now, I proceed to examine whether on the strength of the bankers cheques Ex. M- 1 to M - 18, the workman has put in 240 days of actual work during any of the calendar years . Counting backward from the date of termination, the preceding calendar year is found to be from 19-5-2000 to 18-5-2001 and thereafter the another calendar year commences from 19-5-99 to 18-5-2000 . Ex . M- 1 to M - 18 pertain to the period commencing from-10-12- 99 to 9-3-2001 and the workman has admitted in his cross- examination that they bear his signatures respectively. The non -applicants in their written - counter have categorically stated that through 19 pay orders the total sum of wages worth Rs . 8250/- for a period of 16 months was paid to the workman for the work carried out by him and that he was engaged on exigencies of work. They have further clarified at the same para that the amount of wages was paid to him at the rate of minimum wages prevalent at that time , which has been disclosed as Rs . 60 /- by theId. representative for the bank during the course of the argument and when the working days are worked out in this manner then their number comes to 138 days only. Calculating the amount contained in Ex. M - 1 to M - 18 , it comes to Rs . 7720/ - and on adding the amount ofRs . 500 contained in the bankers cheque dated 19-11-99 , which could not be filed on the record and even though it is not covered during this preceding year, the total sum is calculated as Rs . 8220 , which when divided by 60, the number of working days are found to be 137 days only, which are undisputedly less than 240 days . As such, on the basis of the bankers cheque Ex.M - 1 to M - 18 , along with the bankers cheque dated 19-11-99 , the workman has not put in 2-40 days ' in any of the calendar years .

17. The Id . representative for the worknian has contended that since bankers cheque dated 19-11-99 has not been placed on the record by the bank despite the direction to it, the non - applicants have knowingly withheld it as it shows that even in October, 1999 the workman was under their employment and , therefore , the adverse inference should be drawn against the bank. But the particulars of this bankers cheque have been disclosed by the non - applicants which are similar to the description exhibited by the workman himself in his affidavit at para 9 and even after taking into account the number of days performed by the workman for the wages he received through it, the 240 days in a calendar year are not completed as discussed supra. His further ground of attack is that the affidavit of Ram Prakash Bhutra dated 17-5-2004 is unattested, which was knowingly not got attested just to

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] escape the accountability for not producing the all bankers cheques . But this submission can hardly be stated to have any merit in view of the subsequent affidavit filed by Amod Khanna dated 18-2-2005 which states that only banker's cheque dated 19-11-99 could not traced out. Moreover, all the relevant record was placed by the bank before the workman which was got inspected by him through his representative . As such , the submission made on behalf of the workman is devoid of merit and cannot be sustained . On this point , the submission advanced by the ld . representative for the bank is strengthened by the decision reported in (2004) 8 SCC 161. The Id. representative does not find any support form the decisions 2004 WLC ( UC ) 380; AIR 1968 SC 1413 and 2005 (4) RDD Raj . 1015 as their facts are not applicable to the case at hand.

18. Now, I am faced with the pertinent question as to whether the workman during the period in question was forced to assume the fictitious names for receiving the payment of wages for the work performed by him .

19. The workman in his affidavit has stated that he had continuously worked from6-7-99 to 19-5-2001 as a sub -staff and gardener and during this period he was paid the wages under the fictitious names of Ram Narayan , Kan Singh , Ram Dayal , Mohan Singh and Jawan Singh , the names which he knows . He has futher stated that Kan Singh and Swaroop Govind are the employees in the Pareek School and on most of the bankers cheques Kan Singh had signed under the fictitious names . Besides , he was also paid the wages under the fictitious name of Hanuman Prasad, who is working in the same branch. In his cross- examination , he has admitted that he has received all the payments ofwages , that Ex . M - 19 to M - 22 do not carry his signature and the payments through these instruments were made to him . He has denied that Ram Naravan . etc. had worked for the bank .

20. For convenience sake , these documents are precisely narrated here . Ex. M - 19 to Ex . M -25 pertain to Hanuman Prasad, who was a daftary in the bank and according to the testimony of MW_I Jaweri Lal he has expiredEx . M - 19 is a bankers cheque worth Rs. 600/ -issued in favour of Hanuman Prasad for paying the back- wages to safaiwala and for arranging stationery. It is accompanied with the application Ex. M - 20 dated 14-8-2000 presented by Hanuman Prasad to the manager stating that he had arranged the labourers on 12.8 and 13.8 for arranging the stationery and the old record and has prayed to pay him Rs . 600/- for disbursing them Ex. M - 21 dated 13-10-2000 is bankers cheque worth Rs . 750 in favour of Hanuman Prasad for the payment of stitching charges , which is supported by the bill Ex . M- 22 dated 12-10-2000 issued by Lawani and Tailors towards the stitching charges Rs . 750/- . Banker's cheque Ex . M- 23 dated 16-4-2001 worth Rs . 1200/-had also been issued in favour of Hanuman Prasad for the payment ofmiscellaneous -expenses for photocopying , etc. which is accompanied with the bill Ex . M- 24 issued by M/s. Ashoka Ex M - 24 dated 5-5-2001 is the bankers cheque worth Rs. 660/ - issued in favour of Hanuman Prasad for miscellaneous expendiure for filling the water in the coolers and issupported by Ex : M- 25 , the application dated 5-5- 2001 submitted by Hanuman Prasad before the Bank Manager praying for payment of Rs . 660 /-. Except bankers 1403 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

cheque Ex. M-24 dated 5-5-2001 , all these documents are signed by Hanuman Prasad.

23. Pondering over the assertion made on behalf of the workman that Ex. M- 24 , banker's cheque dated 5-5-2001 is a forged document as it has not been signedby Hanuman Prasad , it is to be observed that merely because the signature of Hanuman Prasad for acknowledging the amount is mission on it, its issuance cannot be doubted as ithas been duly signed by the Branch Manager Smt . Kokila whose signature has been identified by MW- 1 Jaweri Lal . Itis further fortified by the application Ex . M - 25 dated 5-5-2001 addressed by Hanuman Prasad himself to the Branch Manager and it contains the payment order made by the bank authority on the same date . As such, the contention that Ex . M - 24 banker's cheque and application Ex . M - 25 are forged cannot be accepted.

21. Another set of instruments is Ex. M -26 to M-32 . Ex. M -26 dated 7-12-99 , M - 27 dated 24-12-99 , M-28dated 4-1-2000, M- 29 dated 3-2-2000 , M-30 dated 2-3-2000,M-31 dated 6-6-2000 and M -32 dated 13-1-2001 are the bankers cheques through which the payment of wages for carrying out the work ofcleaning and gardening was paid to Mohan Singh which are signed by him on their back respectively. VideM-33 dated 26-7-99 Rs. 600/- were paid to Ram Narayan, vide M - 34 dated 14-8-99 the payment was made to Raj Kumar , through M-35 dated 23-10-99 the payment was made to Sh. Ram Dev. , through M -36 dated 30-3-2000 the payment was made to Kan Singh , through M - 37 dated 4-7-2000 the payment was made to Jaiwai Singh , vide M-38dated 10-4-2000 the payment was made to Mohan Singh,. through M-39 dated 26-4-2000 the payment was made to Mohan Lal and vide M-40 dated 25-10-2000 and M -41 dated 21-4-2001 the payment was made to Kan Singh . These are all signed by these persons respectively.

24. Thus, thefacts emerging from the deposition ofMW- 1 Javeri Lal are that Hanuman Prasad was a permanent daftary in the same branch to whom the payment was made for the work carried out by him in pursuancemance ofthe official directions and the payments were made to him for disbursing them amongst the labourers . Kan Singh was a watchman in the Pareek School, stated to have been situated in the same premises . who used to arrange the labourers for carrying out the work of the bank. The management witness has emphatically stated that the other persons to whom the payment was made were the labourers whom he can identify by the faces though they are not personally known to him .

25. It cannotbe disputed that in banking industry looking to its work load, on exigencies of the work the additional labourers are to be hired and daftary, being in the capacity of a 4th class of the bank , can be required to arrange the extra labourers to accomplish the additional work. Further, the probability to ask Kan Singh , a chowkidar in the same premises , to arrange for the labourers cannot be ruled out and on a careful scrutiny of the testimony of thiswitness, 1 find that he has stood unshaken in his cross- examination and has satisfactorily explained the transactions made through these instruments . No fact has surfaced on the record to discard or even to doubt his testimony. Thus the management has rendered a plausible explanation of the payments made through these instrumenis to the persons other than the workman .

26. It has been contended on behalf of the bank that the workman has not incorporated this plea in his claim statement. On the other hand, the Id. representative for the workman contends that strict rules of pleadings are not applicable to the industrial disputes and the Id. representative has placed his reliance upon 1964 ( 8 ) FLR SC 277. True it is, that the strict rules of evidence or pleadings are not applicable to the industrial disputes , but when the workman has based his claim on a material plea which he has belatedly raised , he is requiredto offer a satisfactory explanation thereof, especially under the present circumstances when the management has clarified that the payments through these instruments were paid to the persons other than the workman , who were entrusted the work on behalf of the bank . On this issue, on the aforestated narration of facts there is a total absence of linking evidence that the payments of wages pertainingto these instruments were made to the workman under the fictitious names . In his claim statement the workman has 22. MW- 1 Jaweri Lal is the relevant witness on this point who has stated in his affidavit that he was posted as Sr. Manager at the relevant time from 4-5-96 to 30-4-2001 and that the workman was employed on contractual basis for carrying out the works of cleaning and arranging the record. He has proved Ex . M - 19 to M - 24 by stating that they bear his signatures respectively and has clarified that the payment of wages was made to Hanuman Prasad Agrawal through Ex . M - 19 for aranging the labourers for cleaning the record and arranging the stationery. He has categorically stated that this payment was not made to the workman . In his cross -examination , he has pointed out that the payment was made to the labourer himself from whom the work was taken and if four persons carried out the entrusted work then the payment of wages was made to their group incharge. He has further clarified that since Hanuman Prasad had brought these four persons the payment was issued in his name and has categorically denied the suggestion that the work was carried out by the workman and who was paid for the same . He has admitted that Ex. M - 24 dated 5-5-2001 pertains to the branch , which does not bear his signature , but the payment thereof was made by the cashier and has proved the signature of Smt . Kokila, Manager between A to B. He has only pleaded ignorance about the signature of the bank authority between A to B on Ex . M-25 and has stated that Hanuman Prasad has expired and Smt . Kokila has retired . He has further pointed out in his cross -examination that Ex. M-26 to M-32 bear the signatures of Mohan Singh, who was labourer and the persons named in Ex. M- 33 to M -41 are not known to him , but they used to come as labourers whom he can identify by their faces . He has also stated in hiscross-examination that Kan Singh is a chowkidar in the Pareek Sr. Secondary School , who though never worked in the bank but he arranged the labourers for the bank and the payment was made to him . He has also denied that the signatures on the back of M - 26 to M -41 were put by Kan Singh and has further stated that there is a lot of difference amongst these signatures . He has categorically denied that Ex. M-25 is a forged document.

25361-30 1404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 11 , 2006 /MAGHA 22 , 1927

not embodied this plea that the payment of wages was made to him under fictitious names. On digging the facts , it is further revealed that in his application dated 10-6-2003 theworkman raised this plea for the first time that he was also paid the wages under the fictitious names without disclosing their names , but it was only after inspecting the relevant record ofthe bank that the workman has disclosed these names at para 7 of his affidavit . At para 7 of his affidavit, he has also stated that the payments of wages made to Kan Singh and Hanuman Prasad were in reality paid to him and that Hanuman Prasad is an employee ofthe bank and Kan Singh is an employee in the Pareek School . If it was so , then while he knew both these persons by name during his said employment with the bank, then he could have easily mentioned their names in his claim statement oreven in his application dated 10-6-2005. Why their names were not shown in the claim statement or in the application dated 10-6-2005 , the Ld . representative for the workman has failedto reason and no explanation of the absence of such pertinent fact could be rendered on behalf of the workman. I, therefore , find considerable force in the submission canvassed by the Ld . representative for the bank when he contends that it is an afterthought plea of the workman . On all these counts and on the depiction of the factual position supra, it is manifestly clear that the workman has improved his statement subsequently on this point that he was forced to assume the fictitious names and has cooked up this plea , to which no credence can be attached . The Ld . representative for the workman has placed his reliance in support of his submission on 2000 (3 ) SLR Gujarat 187. In this case , there was a clear cut case of the workmen that they were asked by the controlling officer that a contingent workman could not be kept in employment for more than 180 days and, therefore , they were forcedto assume the false names . They also specifically pointed out as to what false names they had assumed and their plea could not be shaken on behalf of the management . In this manner, the facts of the referred to case are wholly dissimilar with the present controversy and it is of no avail to the submission advanced on behalf of the workman .

27. On the factum of completion of 240 days ofactual service in a calendar year, the Ld. representative for the workman has referred to the following decision which are not applicable to the present controversy having distinguishable features : 2003 (99 ) FLR SC 331 and 2005 Lab 1C SC2279 .

28. To conclude , the workman has failed to satisfy that he had completed 240 days of continuous service during the calendar year preceding to his termination under the employment of the bank and all the submissions put forth on his behalf are devoid of substance and are repelled accordingly. As such , this point is answered against the workman and in favour of the non -applicants .

Point No. II

29. The Ld. representative for the workman contends that the management has not prepared the seniority list and has violated the provision under Section 25 -G of the Act. On the other hand, the Ld . representative for the bank contends that the workman was employed as a dailywager for a specified time and he was paid for the period he was engaged and no seniority list was required to be prepared.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] 30. In his claim statement , the workman has not named any junior person nor he has disclosed such names in his affidavit who were retained by the bank while terminating his service . Therefore , simply on account of not preparing the seniority list without establishing the fact thatanyjunior person to him was retained by the bank, the workman fails to discharge the onus on this point that the bankhad acted in contravention of the provision contained under Section 25-G ofthe Act. The Ld . representative for the workman in support of his submission has referred to the decisions reported in 1991 ( 1 ) RLR 577, 2004 III LLJ SC 555 and 1994 AIR SCW 694 , but their facts do not resemble with the present controversy and are of no avail to the workman . Assuch, this point, too , is decided against the workman. RELIEF

31. For the foregoing reasons, the workman is entitled to no relief and his claim deserves to be rejected .

32. In consequence, the reference is answered in the negative against the workman and in favour of non- applicant bank and it is held that the termination order dated 19-5-2001 passed against the workman is legal and justified and the claim of the workman is rejected. An award ispassed in these terms accordingly.

33. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act. R. C. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2006

का.आ. 622.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ए एन जैड ग्रिन्डलेज बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आईडी-218/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2006 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/254/ 1999- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डैस्कअधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th January, 2006

S.O. 622.-1n pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( ID 218/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court. No. 11 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ANZ Grindlays Bank Limited and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on20-1-2006.

[No. L- 12012/254/ 1999 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESIDING OFFICER: R.N. RAI Shri Ashok Kumar, 1.D. No. 218/1999 R/o C- 3 /26 , Yamuna Vihar, Delhi - 110053 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1405

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माघ 22, 1927

Versus

The Branch Manager,

ANZ Grindlays Bank Limited,

Karol Bagh Branch, NewDelhi .

AWARD

The Ministry of Labour by its letter No. L - 12012/ 254/ 99 /IR ( B - I ) Central Government Dt. 29-10-1999 has referred the following point for adjudication.

The point runs as hereunder :--

"Whether the action of the management of the General Manager , ANZ Grindlays Bank and the Branch Manager, Karol Bagh Branch, Delhi in stopping Shri AshokKumar from duty w.e.f. 10-10-1998 isjustified, legal and valid ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Boththe parties were persuaded to settle the matter and negotiations took place and the matter was settled in LokAdalat . On 18-01-2004 both the parties filed compromise entered intobetween them . The workman was paid a Draft ofRs. 2, 16,000/- (Rs . Two Lakhs Sixteen Thousand) in full and final settlement of the matter. The workman has also stated that his claim has been fully settled and nothing remainsdisputed.

No dispute award is given.

Dated : 19-01-2006

R.N. RAI , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 30 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 623.-केन्द्रीय सरकार संतुष्ट हो जाने पर किलोकहित में ऐसा करना अपेक्षित था, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप - खण्ड ( 6 ) के उपबंधों के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2792, दिनांक 20-7-2005 द्वारा ताम्बा खनन उद्योग जो कि औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की प्रथम अनुसूची की प्रविष्टि 13 में शामिल हैं , को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 5-8-2005 से छः मास की कालावधि के लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित किया था;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार की राय है कि लोकहित में उक्त कालावधि को छः मास की और कालावधि के लिए बढ़ाया जाना अपेक्षित है;

अतः अब, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( ढ़ ) के उप- खण्ड ( 6 ) के परन्तुक द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त उद्योग को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए दिनांक 5-2-2006 से छः मास की कालावधिके लिए लोक उपयोगी सेवा घोषित करती है ।

[फा. सं. एस -11017/ 11 / 97 - आई आर ( पीएल ) ]

जे.पी. पति, संयुक्त सचिव New Delhi , the 30th January, 2006

S.O. 623. Whereas the Central Government having been satisfied that the public interest so requires that in pursuance of the provisions of sub -clause (vi ) of the clause (n) of section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , declared by the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour S.O. No. 2792 dated 20-7-2005 the service in the Copper Mining Industry which iscovered by item 13 of the First Schedule to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) to be a public utility service for the purpose of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 5th August , 2005.

Andwhereas, the Central Government is of opinion that public interest requires the extension of the said period bya further period of six months .

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the provisoto sub -clause ( vi ) of clause ( n) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government hereby declares the said industry to be public utility service for the purposes of the said Act , for a period of six months from the 5th February, 2006.

[F. No. S- 11017/11/ 97 - IR (PL) ] J.P. PATI, Jt. Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 20 जनवरी, 2006

का.आ. 624.-केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्द्वारा , कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 91 - क के साथ पठित धारा 88 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निम्नलिखित प्रतिष्ठानों के नियमित कर्मचारियों को उक्त अधिनियम के प्रचालन से छूट प्रदान करती है : -

( i ) टायर कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि. , 1-1-1997 से 30-9-2006 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान की गई ।

( ii ) जियोड़िक एण्ड रिसर्च ब्रांच, वर्कशाप ( सी.एस.एम.डब्ल्यू. का मैके. डिवी. ) एस.ओ.आई. , देहरादून, 1-1-1991 से 30-9-2006 तक की अवधि के लिए छूट प्रदान की गई । 2. पूर्वोक्त छूट की शर्तें निम्नलिखित हैं, अर्थात्:-

(1 ) पूर्वोक्त छूट कारखाना जिसमें कर्मचारी नियोजित हैं, एक रजिस्टर रखेगा, जिसमें छूट प्राप्त कर्मचारियों के नाम और पदनाम दिखाये जायेंगे;

(2 ) इस छूट के होते हुए भी, कर्मचारी उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन ऐसी प्रसुविधाएं प्राप्त करते रहेंगे, जिनको पाने के लिए वे इस अधिसूचना द्वारा दी गई छूट के प्रवृत्त होने की तारीख से पूर्व संदत्त अभिदायों के आधार पर हकदार हो जाते हैं ;

(3 ) छूट प्राप्त अवधि के लिए यदि कोई अभिदाय पहले ही किए जाचुके हों, तो वे वापस नहीं किए जायेंगे ;

(4) उक्त कारखाने का नियोजक, उस अवधि की बाबत जिसके दौरान उस कारखाने पर उक्त अधिनियम प्रवर्तमान था, ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् " उक्त अवधि" कहा गया है ) ऐसी विवरणियाँ ऐसे प्रारूप में और ऐसी विशिष्टियों सहित देगा जो कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 के अधीन उसे उक्त अवधि की बाबत देती थी;

1406

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

(5) निगम द्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 45 की उपधारा ( 1 ) केअधीन नियुक्त किया गया कोई निरीक्षक या निगम का इस निमित्त प्राधिकृत कोई अन्य पदधारी:

( i ) धारा 44 की उक्त उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन, उक्त अवधि की बाबत दी गई किसी विवरण की विशिष्टियों को सत्यापित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ;

(iii ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा ( साधारण ) विनियम , 1950 द्वारा यथाअपेक्षित रजिस्टर और अभिलेख उक्त अवधि के लिए रखे गए थे या नहीं, या

( iii) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि कर्मचारी नियोजक द्वारा दिए गए उन हितलाभों को जिसके फलस्वरूप इस अधिसूचना के अधीन छूट दी जा रही है, नकद में और वस्तु रूप में पाने का हकदार बना हुआ है या नहीं, या

( iv ) यह अभिनिश्चित करने के प्रयोजनार्थ कि उस अवधि के दौरान जब उक्त कारखाने के संबंध में अधिनियम के उपबंध प्रवृत्त थे ऐसे किन्ही उपबंधों का अनुपालन किया गया था, या नहीं,

निम्नलिखित कार्य करने के लिए सशक्त होगा:

(क) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक से अपेक्षा करना कि वह उसे ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे उपरोक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी आवश्यक समझता है;

(ख ) ऐसे प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक के अधिभोगाधीन, किसी कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में किसी भी उचित समय पर प्रवेश करना और उसके प्रभारी से यह अपेक्षा करनाकि वह व्यक्तियों के नियोजन और मजदूरी के संदाय से संबंधित ऐसे लेखा, बहियां और अन्य दस्तावेज, ऐसे निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करें और उनकी परीक्षा करने दें या ऐसी जानकारी दे जिसे वे आवश्यक समझते हैं , या (ग) प्रधान या आसन्न नियोजक की, अभिकर्ता या सेवक की, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की, जो ऐसे कारखाने, स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में पाया जाए, या ऐसे किसी व्यक्ति की जिसके बारे में उक्त निरीक्षक या अन्य पदधारी के पास यह विश्वास करने का युक्तियुक्त कारण है कि वह कर्मचारी है , परीक्षा करना, या ( घ) ऐसे कारखाने , स्थापना, कार्यालय या अन्य परिसर में रखे गए किसी रजिस्टर, लेखा, बही या अन्य दस्तावेज की नकल तैयार करना या उद्धरण लेना ।

[सं. एस-38014/14/2004- एसएस -1 ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक व्याख्यात्मक ज्ञापन

इस मामले में छूट को पूर्वप्रभावी किया जाना आवश्यक हो गया हे क्योंकि छूट प्रदान करने के आवेदनों पर कार्रवाई करने में काफी समय लग गया। तथापि , यह प्रमाणित किया जाता है कि छूट के पूर्वप्रभावी करने से किसी के भी हितों पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा ।

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] New Delhi , the 20th February, 2006

S.O. 624. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 88 read with Section 91 -A of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby expempts from the operation of the said Act the regular employees of the following establishments :-

1 (i ) Tyre Corporation of India Ltd. , exempted for the period from 01-01-1997 to 30-09-2006.

(ii) Geodic & Research Branch, Workshop (Mech. Div. of C.S.M. W.) , S. O.L. , Dehradun exempted for the period from 01-10-1991 to 30-09-2006.

2. The above exemption is subject to the following conditions namely :-

( 1) The aforesaid establishment wherein the employers are employed shall maintain a register showing the name and designations of the exempted employees ' .

(2) Notwithstanding this exemption , the employees shall continue to receive such benefits under the said Act to which they might have become entitled to on the basis of the contirbutions paid prior to the date from which exemption granted by this notification operates;

(3) The contributions for the exempted period, if already paid, shall not be refundable;

(4) The employer of the said factory/establishment shall submit in respect ofthe period during which that factory was subject to the operation of the saidAct ( hereinafter referred as the said period) , such returns in such forms and containing such particulars as were due from it in respect of the said period under the Employees ' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950;

1 (5) Any inspector appointed by the Corporation under Sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 45 of the said ESI Act or other official of the Corporation authorized in this behalf, shall , for the prupose of:-

( i) Verifying the particulars contained in any return submitted under Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 44 for the said period; or

( ii) Ascertaining whether registers and records were maintained as required by the Employees State Insurance ( General ) Regulations , 1950 for the said period; or .

(iii) Ascertaining whether the employees continue to be entitled to benefits provided by the employer in cash and kind being benefits in consideration of which exemption is being granted under this notification; or 1407

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22 , 1927

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2006 (iv) Ascertaining whether any ofthe provisions of the Act had been complied with during the period when such provisions were in force in relation to the said factory to empoweredto:

(a) require the principal or immediate employer to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

S.O. 625. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 whichhave already been brought into force) and Chapter- VandVI [ except Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely :-

"Areas falling within the limits of Revenue Villages ofDIGWAL , KAVELLI and VENKATAPUR in Kohir Mandal ofMedak District in Andhra Pradesh . "

[No. S- 38013 /04/2006- SS -I ] K. C. JAIN , Director

नई दिल्ल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2006 (b) enter any factory, establishment, office or other premises occupied by such principal or immediate employer at any reasonable time and require any person found in charge thereofto produce to such inspector or other official and allow him to examine accounts, books and other documents relating to the employment of personal and payment of wages or to furnish to him such information as he may consider necessary; or

(c) examine the principal or immediate employer, his agent or servant, or any person found in such factory, establishment, office or other premises or any person whom the said inspector or other official has reasonable cause tobelieve to have been an employee, ог

का.आ. 626.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा , 01 मार्च , 2006 को उस तारीख केरूप 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 हरियाणा के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

जिला

क्रम सं. राजस्व ग्राम हदबस्त संख्या

बहोली

पानीपत (d) make copies of or take extracts from any register, account book or other document maintained in such factory, establishment , office or other premises.

पानीपत

ददलाना

पानीपत [No. S-38014/14/2004- SS-I ] K. C. JAIN , Director

गंजबड़

पानीपत ExplanatoryMemorandum

अली असगरपुर

[सं. एस-38013/05/2006- एस एस-1 ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2006 Ithas become necessary to give retrospective effect to the exemption in this case as processing of the applications for exemption took time. However, it is certified that the grant of exemption with retrospective effect will not affect the interest of any body adversely.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2006

S.O. 626. 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 March, 2006 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 whichhave already been brought into force ) and Chapter- VandVI [ 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 ofHaryana namely:-

Had Bast No. Distcict

Sl . No. Revenue Village

Bholi

Panipat का.आ. 625.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उपधारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा , 01 मार्च, 2006 को उस तारीख केरूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व45 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:-

Dadlana

Panipat

3. Ganjbarh

Panipat आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के मेदक जिले के कोहिर मण्डल के अन्तर्गत आने वाले राजस्व ग्राम " दिगवाल , कावेल्ली तथा वेंकटापुर" ।

Panipat

4. Ali-Asgarpur

[सं. एस -38013/04/2006-एस एस-1 ]

[No. S-38013/05/2006- SS-I ]

के. सी. जैन , निदेशक

K. C. JAIN, Director 1408

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 11 , 2006/MAGHA 22 , 1927

नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2006

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2006

का.आ. 628.- कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) की धारा 5क की उपधारा ( i ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार, एत‌द्वारा श्री एम. पी. मेहरोत्रा को केन्द्रीय न्यासी बोर्ड के एक सदस्य के रूप में नियुक्त करती है और दिनांक 17-03-2003 को भारत के राजपत्र , असाधारण के भाग II खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय का. आ. 295 ( अ ) दिनांक 13-03-2003 की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है ।

का.आ. 627.-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 मार्च, 2006 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय- IV (44व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय- V और VI ( धारा -76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबन्ध हरियाणा के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे, अर्थात्:-

जिला

क्रम सं. राजस्व ग्राम हदबस्त संख्या

2. उक्त अधिसूचना में क्रम संख्या 29 में श्री वीरेन्द्र उप्पल के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टि अन्तःस्थापित की जाएगी , अर्थात्:-

फरीदाबाद

पृथला

श्री महेश प्रसाद मेहरोत्रा

सोफता

फरीदाबाद

फिरोजपुर

फरीदाबाद

दूधौला

अध्यक्ष, एसोचेम, सी-561 , डिफेंस कालोनी, नईदिल्ली-24

5. बधौला

फरीदाबाद

[सं.वी-20012/2/2003- एस एस- II ] जटौला

फरीदाबाद

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक 47

फरीदाबाद

ततारपुर

देवली

फरीदाबाद

NewDelhi , the 8th February, 2006

धतीर

फरीदाबाद

[सं. एस -38013/03/2006 - एस एस-1 ]

के. सी. जैन, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2006

S.O. 628. In exercise of the powers conferredby Sub -section ( i ) of Section 5A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. M. P. Mehrotra as a member of the Central Board of Trustees and makes the following amendment in the Notification of the Government of India in the Ministry Labour S.O. 295 (E) dated the 13-03-2003 published in Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India, Extraordinary dated 17-03-2003 .

2. In the said notification for entries against serial No. 29 Sh . Verender Uppal , the following entries shall be substituted namely

S.O. 627. 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 March, 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- Vand VI [ except Sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act, shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Hayrana namely :-

Sh . Mahesh Prasad Mehrotra Member, ASSOCHAM, C-561, Defence Colony, NewDelhi -24

Distcict

HadBast No.

Sl . No. Revenue Village

[No. V-20012/ 2/2003 - SS-II ]

1 2

1. Prithla

Faridabad

K. C. JAIN, Director 2.

Softa

Faridabad

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर, 2005

Faridabad

3. Firojpur

Faridabad

Dudola

Faridabad

5. Bhagola

Faridabad

Jatula

Faridabad

Tatarpur

Faridabad

8. Devli

का.आ. 629.- जबकि, मैसर्स गुजरात विद्युत बोर्ड और उसकी सात उत्तराधिकारी कम्पनियों ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) के अन्तर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है । 37

Faridabad

9. Dhatir

और, जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए [No. S- 38013/03 /2006-SS-I ] K. C. JAIN , Director [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना, 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अन्तर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

अतः , अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, इस संबंध में केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए केन्द्र सरकार, एत‌द्वारा उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को 1-1-2005 से अगले आदेश तकके लिए उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से मुक्त करती है ।

[सं. आर-11014/1/2005- एस एस- II ] संयुक्ता राय, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 10th November , 2005 S.O. 629. Whereas M/s . Gujarat ElectricityBoard and its seven successor companies ( herein after referred to as the said establishments ) has applies for exemption under clause (a) of Sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the

1409

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 11 , 2006/माष 22 , 1927

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

And , whereas , in the opinion of the Central Government the rules of the provident fund of the said establishments with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment ofother provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Fund Scheme , 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government , hereby exempts the said establishments from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-01-2005, until further orders.

[No. R- 11014/ 1 /2005-SS-II ] SANJUKTA RAY, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.